The Left’s War on Language: ‘Illegal’ and What it Means

People rally outside the Statehouse, Wednesday, June 20, 2018, in Boston, to protest how immigrants are being treated both on the border with Mexico and in Massachusetts. (AP Photo/Elise Amendola)

 

As a writer, I depend on other writers. So do…other writers.

I’m not out on the street, with a notepad in my pocket and a pencil in my ear. Neither are the vast majority of people writing these days.

We glean from one another. We research. We find information on the web, in newspapers, in reports, in books, in magazines, or other places.

And lately, getting clear facts has become more difficult than ever, thanks to the left-wing bent of even supposedly right-wing journalists (please see this).

What is a migrant?

What is an immigrant?

What is an asylum seeker?

These are confusing terms, when used to mean something at best more specific and at worst wholly different.

When euphemisms are employed for those breaking the law, not only is the notion of law diminished, but the clarity of the story suffers significantly.

Go on social media right now: I guarantee you can find someone who believes those seeking asylum have to sneak across the border and be put in a cage. Why do they think that? Partly due to the media’s unwillingness to use proper terms even when it obstructs the facts.

People seeking asylum can do so at a port of entry.

But not according to the stories I read.

If the numerous articles regarding family separation are to be believed, “migrants” are being captured and put in cages.

If someone breaks into your house, are they a domestic “migrant?” Is that a fair description?

At times, I find myself exerting ridiculous effort to get to the reality of a story, so I can relay it. What is this person? Someone running from execution in their home country, someone just wandering the plains, someone immigrating to America, or somebody breaking the law? It’s hard to tell. Of course, anymore, virtually zero stories are told about actual immigrants. “Immigrants” are those who come here legally; however, in an effort to skew the truth, the media have taken that word and used it to refer to ILLEGAL immigrants so much that it has almost ceased to be utilized any other way. The impression, therefore, is twofold:

  • There is no way to enter the country legally.
  • The only (read: correct) way to enter America is to sneak in.

The result is a very confused public. Not a day goes by that I don’t see regular people online, raving about what Donald Trump is doing to “migrants.” “Asylum seekers.” “Immigrants.”

I know those are not the proper terms, but I don’t believe they do.

And I hear songs and see talking heads and typing radicals telling us we’re a nation of immigrants.

To that, I say:

NO, WE ARE NOT.

We are NOT a “nation of immigrants.” Not when the word “immigrants” means, instead, “illegal immigrants.”

Words mean something, and the Left is poaching the language (illustrated here).

As in so many other cases, sadly, the Right seems to be following suit.

How about this: how about, everyone say what they’re actually talking about? So I don’t have to waste time consulting my Baloney-to-English dictionary, and social media isn’t filled with the rants of fools commenting on something that doesn’t exist, because the media was too weak to describe what does.

We can’t have a healthy debate in this country, if the terms being used in the discussion have no direct relation to the ideas behind them. In that event, everyone is talking about something different. And very few know what they are talking about at all.

At the very least, let us say what we mean. Me, you…this American conservative base. Let us not kowtow to the demands of those who want nothing more than to mislead the ignorant into the hypnotically comforting belief they are informed. That is what is happening: “migrant” is the new “illegal immigrant,” and stupid is the new smart. Let’s put a moratorium on stupid. Let’s build a wall against it. Keep it out of ports of entry. Protect the borders of our nation’s understanding of truth.

And in doing so, may we have a conversation in that light, in that mutual acceptance and agreement. Because without the clarity of reality, “nothing” is the new anything.

 

For more on the culture, please go here and here.

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter.

 

 

The post The Left’s War on Language: ‘Illegal’ and What it Means appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


POLL: Most Voters Blame Parents, Not U.S. Government, For Border Crisis

According to a Rasmussen poll released Thursday in the wake of several days of media hysterics over the separation of children from their families at the U.S. Southern border, more voters blame parents of migrant children for the border crisis than they do the federal government.

When families are arrested and separated after attempting to enter the United States illegally, 54% of Likely U.S. Voters say the parents are more to blame for breaking the law. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that only 35% believe the federal government is more to blame for enforcing the law. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure.

The poll questions are below:

Perhaps even more notable (emphasis mine), 82% of Republicans and 56% of voters not affiliated with either major political party feel the parents are more to blame for breaking the law. But 60% of Democrats say the government is more to blame for enforcing the law.

There has been a great deal of chatter that the border situation — and it got about as ugly as these things can get just short of actual violence — was going to be a very bad look  for Republicans in the 2018 midterms. If these numbers are accurate, and especially if the GOP manages to get some kind of immigration reform passed in Congress, the damage to Republican members, and to President Trump himself, may not be as dramatic as people assumed at the beginning of the week.

For what it’s worth, the poll also found that “voters are strongly critical of Mexico’s efforts to keep illegal drugs and illegal immigrants out of the United States, and just over half agree with the president that the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) is a good weapon to use to make our southern neighbor clean up its act.”

The poll was conducted on June 19-20, 2018 by Rasmussen Reports, and surveyed 1000 likely voters.

The post POLL: Most Voters Blame Parents, Not U.S. Government, For Border Crisis appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


House passes 2018 Farm Bill

The United States House of Representatives passed the Agriculture and Nutrition Act of 2018 by a vote of 213-211.
Source: KCBD News


Lubbock-area news for 6/21/2018

Expanding I-14 getting more traction than Ports-to-Plains corridor Lubbock County Constable Carelton Peterson Fights for His Job Lubbock police promote new camera-based crime prevention program, more TTU: Collaborative Project Improves Campus Grounds Along 19th Street TTU: Resources available for dwelling test anxiety Tech falls to Arkansas, moves to loser’s bracket Red Raiders, fans get another […]
Source: Pratt on Texas


Abilene-area news for 6/21/2018

Expo Center still waits on 4H contract renewal VIDEO Water line break highlights common problem Official: Pentagon agrees to house migrant kids, Dyess AFB named as possible location ACU shaking things up with 2 of Bard’s classic One system tackles two concerns among U.S. cotton producers Missing boy with Autism found safe Tye man arrested, […]
Source: Pratt on Texas


Wichita Falls-area news for 6/21/2018

Studies for the MPEC hotel to be subsidized by taxpayers VIDEO Animal Services offers reduced adoption fees for cats, kittens Outcry raised about child predator’s role city Challenging Weekend Forecast Prairie Dog Relocation Underway in Wichita Falls’ Kiwanis Park What Happened to the Downtown Wichita Falls McDonald’s? Downtown development continues with new Bistro Local artist […]
Source: Pratt on Texas


BREAKING. Conservative House Immigration Bill Fails

This is not a huge shock to anyone who has watched the GOP moderates in action for the past decade.

The so-called Goodlatte bill, which gave DREAMers legal status but no path to citizenship, that ended chain migration and which funded President Trump’s wall, went down to defeat.

The “compromise” bill, which was a compromise in the same way that the Treaty of Versailles was a compromise, was supposed to be voted on today but it didn’t seem to have the necessary votes and leadership rescheduled it for tomorrow.

There is a better than 50-50 chance that it fails to. As I understand it, the discharge petition on a hard core amnesty bill has timed out (I’m subject to correction on that) and that puts the GOP at the August recess with no immigration bill. And that, ladies and gentlemen, might just be the best we can hope for.

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post BREAKING. Conservative House Immigration Bill Fails appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Did a Federal Judge Just Kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau?


Elizabeth Warren’s monster, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), has had a couple of close calls with extinction. In October 2016, a three-judge panel of the DC Circuit ruled the structure unconstitutional for a very good reason: it is. The way it is established it combines the authority to make what amounts to laws, enforce the laws, and adjudicate cases under those laws. The agency is free from Congressional oversight and it doesn’t even get its appropriation from Congress, it simply draws from the Federal Reserve whatever sum it desires. In January 2018, the DC circuit sitting en banc reversed the panel. But, as Jonathan Adler at Volokh Conspiracy writes:

In my view, Supreme Court review of the underlying question will come relativey soon, and the D.C. Circuit’s decision is unlikely to prevail. Recent Supreme Court decisions, such as that in Free Enterprise Fund, suggest a majoirty of justices on the Court would like to contain precedents such as Humphrey’s Exectuor and are unlikely to bless the CFPB’s unique structure. If I am right, this means a mjaority of the Court is likely to embrace the position adopted by Judge Kavanaugh or Judge Griffith, not that laid out by Judge Pillard. Time will tell — and we will need time to thoroughly review the D.C. Circuit’s latest handiwork.

Earlier today, a federal judge for the Southern District of New York also concluded the CFPB is unconstitutional, below is from page 103.

In reaching the question of the constitutionality of Title X of Dodd-Frank, which established the CFPB as an “independent bureau” within the Federal Reserve System, 12 U.S.C. § 5491(a), the Court acknowledges the en banc holding of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in PHH Corp. v. CFPB, 881 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 2018), upholding the statute. Of course, that decision is not binding on this Court.7

Respectfully, the Court disagrees with the holding of the en banc court and instead adopts Sections I-IV of Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent (joined in by Senior Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph), where, based on considerations of history, liberty, and presidential authority, Judge Kavanaugh concluded that the CFPB “is unconstitutionally structured because it is an independent agency that exercises substantial executive power and is headed by a single Director.” Id. at 198.

Also most respectfully, the Court disagrees with Section V of Judge Kavanaugh’s opinion wherein he determined the remedy to be to “invalidate and sever the for-cause removal provision and hold that the Director of the CFPB may be supervised, directed, and removed at will by the President.” Id. at 200. Instead, the Court adopts Section II of Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson’s dissent wherein she opined that “the presumption of severability is rebutted here. A severability clause ‘does not give the court power to amend’ a statute. Nor is it a license to cut out the ‘heart’ of a statute. Because section 5491(c)(3) is at the heart of Title X [Dodd Frank], I would strike Title X in its entirety.” Id. at 163-64 (citations omitted).

What Judge Preska is saying is that not only is the structure broken, but it is not her job to untangle constitutional and unconstitutional parts so she is declaring the entire agency to be unconstitutional.

Next up is a real gut check for Donald Trump and Mick Mulvaney. Will they do the right thing and repeat the case they made to the DC Circuit, that is, that the CFPB should be dragged out into the street and shot dead? Or have they become attached to it and will try to save it?

=========
=========
Like what you see? Then visit my story archive.

I’m on Facebook. Drop by and join the fun there.
=========
=========

The post Did a Federal Judge Just Kill the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau? appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State


Mulvaney Should Permanently End the “Push the Envelope” Era at CFPB

=========
=========
Promoted from the diaries by streiff. Promotion does not imply endorsement.
=========
=========

Image by Department of Agriculture via Flickr Creative Commons https://www.flickr.com/photos/usdagov/

It’s hard to imagine, but America is approaching the ten-year anniversary of the financial crisis that led to the Great Recession. One unfortunate government response to that crisis was the formation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. This new agency, the dreamchild of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma.) and headed by Richard Cordray, had regulatory overreach virtually born into its DNA. Cordray promised to “push the envelope” and that’s what he did; turning the agency into his personal fiefdom and rewriting laws as he went along.

Cordray even tried to handpick his own successor despite a transfer of power resulting from the 2016 election. Instead, President Donald J. Trump appointed Mick Mulvaney as the new acting director of the CFPB. Mulvaney pledged balance and fairness as the Bureau’s new head. “We don’t just work for the government, we work for the people, “Mulvaney wrote in a memo to his staff, “And that means everyone: those who use credit cards and those who provide those cards; those who take loans and those who make them; those who buy cars and this who sell them. All of those people are part of what makes this country great. And all of them deserve to be treated fairly by their government. There is a reason that lady justice wears a blindfold and carries a balance, along with her sword.“

Mulvaney has delivered on his promise of fairness. Under his leadership, the CFPB has been reconstructed into a fair, even-keeled government organization designed to protect consumers without deliberately trying to damage private companies.

Now begins yet another new chapter for the CFPB. President Trump has said he will nominate Kathy Kraninger to replace Mulvaney as the Bureau’s permanent director. As Mulvaney winds down his leadership of the CFPB, he ought to hand off to Kraninger a clean slate by closing the books on lingering or outstanding investigations, complaints, or lawsuits. For example, in his memo, Mulvaney specifically warned against the negative economic impacts of multi-year Civil Investigative Demands.

Many investigations have gone on for years. The companies being investigated have invested tens of millions of dollars, sometimes hundreds of millions, in compliance and risk infrastructure. They have invested in innovative technologies to help more consumers. These companies should not sit endlessly in the CFPB penalty box after having improved standards since the financial crisis. These were never intended to be open-ended investigations. Mulvaney should conclude these cases, assess fines or other penalties where appropriate, and let them move on.

Mulvaney will no doubt have sufficient time to give these cases their due diligence. Democrats in the Senate have already pledged to obstruct Kraninger’s nomination.

The financial crisis of 2008 was a jarring wake-up call that an economy without appropriate policing is often in danger of imploding on itself, with regular Americans playing the role of innocent victims. It’s good that consumers now have an advocate. But the “Push the Envelope” era needs to come to an official end. With new, permanent leadership coming into the CFPB, now seems like as appropriate a time as any.

Matt Cordio is co-founder and president of Skills Pipeline, a technology talent solutions company.

The post Mulvaney Should Permanently End the “Push the Envelope” Era at CFPB appeared first on RedState.

Source: Red State