Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

President Obama refuses to faithfully uphold United States immigration law, so the local sheriff in Arizona has been doing it.  Then Obama’s Justice Department sued, saying nobody else could enforce the law the feds were ignoring. But the sheriff kept enforcing the law. The sheriff is up for re-election. What can Obama’s team do to stop this guy from doing their jobs?

Lawfare.  Loudly trumpet criminal charges, just before the election.  It begins.

And what is Hillary’s position on prosecuting local law enforcement who enforce existing immigration law?  Do Democrats believe they can – and should – transform America into a Sanctuary Nation simply by refusing to enforce the border?  I’d like to see that discussed in the next debate.

.joe doakes

That’d involve Trump preparing for the debate…

Law And Morality

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

I flinch when people urge that we condition law enforcement on “humanity” rather than “legality.”  Who decides which law is inhumane and need not be obeyed?  Taken to its logical extreme, that argument produces anarchy.  

 For example, Paul Mirengoff writing at Powerline about Trump’s immigration stance says: “First, walk away from mass deportation once and for all. Deporting 11 million people, if it could be done, would be inhumane.”

 Inhumane?  That’s a powerful condemnation, a word we’d use to describe slavery or torture.  Is it justified in this context?

A person who sneaks across the border into this country, claims asylum as a refugee but loses the case in immigration court, is ordered “removed” which is the politically-correct word for “deported.”  That’s the law.  The fact there are many such people, does not change the law.

 Is it inhumane to enforce existing law?  Why?  Because immigrants would be sent out of the land of Milk and Honey back to poverty and misery?  If that’s the case, isn’t it equally inhumane to leave people rotting in misery and poverty in their own countries because of an arbitrary border line?  Shouldn’t we share our riches with everyone?  Shouldn’t we eliminate the border on basic humanitarian grounds and let everybody in?  Are borders themselves, inhumane?

 If it’s “inhumane” to enforce the border, then we shouldn’t criticize Trump: we should criticize Congress and the President for maintaining the inhumane laws that presently exist.  We should insist Congress repeal all immigration laws, fling the borders wide open and let everybody in.  Doing any less would be “inhumane.”

 Unless . . . unless that’s not what Liberals really want.  Unless they simply want to beat on Trump and any stick will do.  If that’s the case, then arguing for open borders gives millions false hope of amnesty, a unicorn dream in this political climate.  And that would be truly inhumane.

 Joe Doakes

When they start applying this to logic and intelligence, then it’ll get serious.


Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Asylum seekers legally prohibited from working, decline voluntary work that generate favorable PR, demand minimum wage instead.

 Gee, maybe Mark Dayton can talk to Angela Merkel about getting some of those folks to move here.

 Joe Doakes

Soon they’ll be going door to door for MPIRG.


Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

So – did British unemployment “really” fall following Brexit?  That was entirely contrary to expert predictions.  

 Or did the government massage the figures to hide the decline, as we do in the United States?

 Joe Doakes


I’m sure there must be some mistake.


Large swathes of America – the west coast, the east coast north of the Carolinas, most cities over 250,000 people – are controlled by an increasingly extremist left-of-center party that governs badly, fosters corruption and leads to a vacuum of effective authority in a way that makes large parts of the country incubators for crime.

The federal government, from that same party, one that has controlled much of the national agenda for over 80 years (even during the occasional period that the party has been out of power) is a centralized authoritarian state governing a decreasingly independent federation, practices “socialism lite”, and carries it out badly.

So when anti-Trump protesters demand we “Make America Mexican Again” – well, for vast swathes of this country, ese tren salió de la estación.

“Unintended” Consequences

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Illegal alien injured on the job, confessed to using false documents to obtain employment, was put on unpaid leave until he could prove he was eligible to work in the United States, sued employer for retaliation, Minnesota Court of Appeals takes his side.

 Court says the purpose of federal law is to prevent employers from hiring illegal aliens.  But once you’ve illegally hired them, you can’t fire them when you find out about their illegal status – at least, not if you discover it during a worker’s comp case.  That would be retaliation against the employee for bringing a worker’s comp claim and retaliation is illegal under state law.  So in order to uphold state law, the employer is required to continue to violate federal law by continuing to employ the illegal alien.

 That’s idiotic. Putting the illegal alien on unpaid leave isn’t retaliation for the worker’s comp claim – the worker’s comp claim was merely the mechanism by which the employee’s illegal status was brought to light.  Stopping the illegal employment merely brings the employer into compliance with federal law where it would have been all along, but for the employee’s illegal use of a fraudulent social security number.  And even if putting him on unpaid leave were retaliation for bringing the claim that got his crime discovered, illegal aliens who aren’t supposed to be here shouldn’t be entitled to keep their illegally obtained employment.  Firing the employee for perpetrating a fraud and a crime is perfectly sensible as it deters others from committing the same fraud, the same crime.

 Of course, this is Democrat-dominated Minnesota where all the jurists are Democrat appointees.  The first sentence of the court’s opinion sets the tone:  “Appellant Anibal Sanchez immigrated to the United States in December of 1998.”

 Immigrated?  No, he didn’t.  “Immigrated” would entail a legal process of entry and regularization of status.  What he did was he sneaked in, he slipped across a porous border, swam the river, hid in a fruit truck, stole someone’s identity and committed fraud.  He’s a criminal and should not be allowed to profit from his crime. 

 The entire case would be moot if the Federal government was performing the core function for which we pay taxes: to defend our borders.  If, now that his status and location are known, the feds were to deport him, this entire case would go away, as it should.  The time and money spent taking the case to the Court of Appeals is yet another cost of President Obama’s willful disregard of his duty to uphold the law. 

 Joe Doakes

Laws are for little people.

More later.


Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The Mayor of Paris says they can’t have little shanties and camps scattered around, they need one big camp to concentrate the refugees in one place.  A concentration camp, lovely idea.  But that’s a temporary solution to a temporary problem.  Aren’t refugees supposed to go home, eventually?  Or is she talking about establishing another permanent refugee problem, like the Palestinians after the Israeli war, and like America without a Southern Border?  In that case, shouldn’t we be talking about long-term solutions?  The French don’t have a Third Amendment – maybe the government can require citizens to open their homes to immigrants, which would set an international precedent so President Obama could require it here. 

 Joe Doakes

“Another permanent refugee problem” – the Frogs are still paying for the way they handled refugees from Algeria 50 years ago.

And if it’s good enough for the French, Secretary du Etat Kerry will wanna know more.

A Fine Line Between Experiment And Lunacy

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Immigrants are good for Minnesota: they bring us exciting new possibilities, interesting insights, exotic diseases such as tuberculosis.  

 “An alternative public health policy–one that the United States used for decades in the latter part of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century–is to test immigrants and refugees for infectious disease before they are allowed into the country.

 In that earlier era, those who tested positive were sent home. Today, however, many are welcomed in and pose a risk of infecting the rest of the American population.”

 So – is America a melting pot, or is it a Petri dish?

 Joe Doakes

Find a fondue joint.

See if there aren’t health and safety standards for them.

Then let’s talk.


Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

State Senate passed an omnibus bill (not yet law).  Section 8, Article 28, starting at line 195.20, says:  


(a) The Immigration Integration Advisory Task Force is created to research state laws

and rules that negatively affect immigrants. The task force is composed of the following:

(1) five members appointed by the governor to represent Minnesota’s diverse

immigrant communities;

(2) two members of the house of representatives, one appointed by the speaker of

the house and one appointed by the minority leader; and

(3) two senators, one appointed by the senate majority leader and one appointed by

the senate minority leader.

(b) At its first meeting, the task force shall elect a chair and cochair from its

membership. The commissioner of human rights shall provide meeting space and

administrative and staff support for the task force.

(c) The task force shall conduct research and hold meetings to:

(1) determine the extent to which current state laws and rules negatively affect

Minnesotans based on their status as immigrants; and

(2) develop methods to ensure that future proposed state laws and rules consider

the impact of the proposals on immigrants.

The task force shall consult with the Minnesota Council on Latino Affairs, the Council for

Minnesotans of African Heritage, and the Council on Asian-Pacific Minnesotans. The task

force shall report to the chairs and ranking minority members of the committees in the

house of representatives and the senate with jurisdiction over human rights by January 15,

2017, with recommendations and draft legislation for changes in state laws, consistent

with federal law, that will reduce the negative impact of state laws on immigrants, and

ensure that future state laws and rules consider the impact on immigrants.

(d) The appointing authorities must make their initial appointments by August 1,

2016. The commissioner of human rights shall convene the first meeting of the task

force by September 1, 2016.

(e) Public members shall be compensated and reimbursed for expenses as provided

in Minnesota Statutes, section 15.059, subdivision 3.

(f) The task force shall expire on January 30, 2017, or the day after submitting the

report required under paragraph (c), whichever is earlier.


This section is effective the day following final enactment.

 So the DFL will pack it with Liberals and Rent Seekers who will write a report to the Legislature detailing how hateful our laws are.  What then?

Take Murder, for instance.  If my daughter dates a Jew, she shames me, shames my whole family.  I must kill her, my religion says so.  But Minnesota law says no.  Hateful.

Accommodate or assimilate? 

Joe Doakes

Assimilate in your accomodation.  Peasant.


Joe Doakes convenes a meeting of the Immigration Integration Advisory Task Force, via email:

C: This session of the Immigration Integration Advisory Task Force will come to order. The Secretary will call the roll:
S: Madam Chairman . . .
C: Excuse me. I find that offensive. I prefer a gender-neutral title.
S: Certainly Madame Chair.
C: I am not a “Chair,” I am a human being. And I am offended by “Madame.” I prefer a gender-neutral title for that, too, in case I change my mind about my gender while we’re in session. You can address me as “Mix.”

Continue reading


Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

European wacko, far-right, fringe party . . . wins 36% of the vote.  The mainstream, sensible, traditional parties couldn’t scrape together enough to get into the runoff election.

 The media keeps using that word: “fringe.”  I don’t think it means what they think it means. 

 This election result is not an accident, this is the beginning of Europeans taking back their governments because of the immigrant crisis.  Next will come fences and deportations.  

 Meanwhile, America frets about bathrooms.

 Joe Doakes

For now, anyway.

For now.


Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

After border-crossers have lost their court cases and been denied asylum, federal law considers them “illegal aliens” and they are ordered to be deported.  While they’re awaiting deportation, Liberals claim they’re entitled to the same level of humane treatment as we give to American children in the foster care system, which our detention centers don’t provide.

Liberals hope by getting detention centers shut down, the government won’t be able to hold people for deportation and therefore, nobody will get deported.  Seems to me the solution is build a wall to keep them out in the first place.  Trump is right, again.

Meanwhile, providing what Liberals consider “humane” treatment is actually cruel.  The illegals come from places with housing standards substantially lower than expected in this nation.  So why are we obligated to improve their lot even as they are deported?  Making detention facilities nicer only highlights their loss when illegals eventually are returned to the squalor from whence they came.

Instead of that, illegal aliens awaiting deportation should be housed in comparable conditions to those they face when they are returned.  Giving them the taste of the land of milk and honey knowing they will have it ripped from them when they return to the land where nobody cares if they live or die . . . that’s heartless cruelty.

America is better than that.
Joe Doakes

The only greater cruelty?  Reminding them how very unlucky they were to be deported, much less caught at all.

Selective Vapors

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

People who enter the United States without proper documentation (sneaking across the border from Mexico, for example) can apply for affirmative political asylum.  Asylum decisions are made by immigration court but the system is swamped so applicants are given a notice to appear for a future court date and released.  While the court case is pending, they can live anywhere in the country and can work while waiting for a decision.  If they miss their court date, or if they appear but fail to persuade the court, they are denied asylum and an order is issued to remove them from the country.  The Obama administration reports these people as “deported” and claims this proves the administration has been vigorously enforcing the immigration law.

But many who were ordered to leave do not leave, maybe as many as a million.  Failure to obey the court order is a crime: they are now truly illegal aliens.  They hide in sanctuary cities, where law enforcement is forbidden to check their status.  They work illegally, shop at food shelves, feed their children at public school – three meals a day in some districts – and receive medical care at emergency rooms. They are waiting for the next wave of amnesty.

After months of pounding by Donald Trump, President Obama now proposes to enforce those court orders by finding and removing the people who have exhausted their due process rights and shouldn’t be in the United States any more.  Democrats are aghast.

My question: what is the Democrat vision of America?  If we refuse to exercise control over our borders, if we reject the immigration court’s decision, if we accept any immigrant at any time for any reason . . . what makes us America anymore?

Joe Doakes

They’re trying to obscure that as fast as they can.

Compare And Contrast

A couple of weeks ago, Governor Dayton said that anyone who didn’t support bringing Syrian refugees to Minnesota without restriction should just pack up and leave the state. And maybe skip the packing up part.

This week? Lyndon LaRouche said that the intelligence estimates he’s seeing about the potential for smuggling terrorists into the US via the wave of refugees alarm him.

Oh wait – did I say Lyndon LaRouche? I meant über-liberal San Francisco Senator Diane Feinstein.

Who Knew?

Some European countries aren’t having epochal refugee crises:

Other countries without an extensive welfare state don’t seem to have Sweden’s problem. Reuters reported that Lithuania “is throwing its doors open to refugees fleeing war and hardship in the Middle East, but is finding few takers.” Rimantas Vaitkus, deputy chancellor of the Lithuanian government, told the news agency: “We are prepared to accept refugees immediately, but there are no refugees in Italy or Greece who agreed to resettle in Lithuania. . . . It seems that refugees know about Sweden, Germany, France, the United Kingdom, which either have generous social security or have been actively attracting immigrants.”


There simply must be some mistake.

Our House

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Immigrants stormed the Chunnel and got 10 miles toward Britain before police stopped them.  Refugees or invaders?
New estimates show the vast wave of immigrants moving to Europe is about 25% refugees fleeing violence in Syria, and the rest young men from Balkan countries looking for a better welfare deal in Northern countries, hoping they can bring their families to join them.  They’re not fleeing violence, just Third World squalor, possibly of their own making.  Northern Europeans are showing signs of reluctance to admit unlimited numbers of violent freeloaders and the usual suspects are aghast.  How to explain the problem in terms ordinary people can understand?
You’re at home.  It’s a stormy night.  There’s a knock at the door.  You flip on the light and see a family huddled on your stoop.  “Our car broke down, it’s pouring, we saw your light; can we wait inside for our ride?”  Sure, why not?   As you’re getting them towels, another knock.  More stranded motorists, needing more towels, and something hot to drink.  Another knock, a bunch of young men who saw the lights and figured there was a party, some head to the kitchen to raid your fridge and one is feeling up your daughter.  Another knock . . . .
At what point do you say “That’s it! This is my house, everybody get the hell out!”
Joe Doakes

Depends on who you ask, naturally.

This is yet another issue where Libertarians – who often favor unrestricted immigration – have their feet planted firmly in the clouds.  Unrestricted immigration may make perfect sense – if the immigrants are all autonomous gentlemen farmers who match the local population of, well, autonomous gentleman farmers.

As opposed to, y’know, uninvited guests.

Doakes Sunday: Fourth Generation Nation

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The American Revolutionaries wore brown clothes and hid behind trees and rocks to shoot at British soldiers wearing red jackets marching in straight lines.  This was a violation of the “rules of war” of that time period. The familiar Geneva Convention “rules of war” were crafted after World War I to protect draftees compelled to fight for nation-states. Modern military theorists talk of 4th Generation Warfare in which large formations of men and machines are useless against small, agile teams of mobile warriors, like trying to kill a swarm of mosquitoes with a sledge hammer.
Iraq War I, with Stormin’ Norman’s giant lines of tanks encircling armies in Kuwait, was 3rd Generation Warfare, as was much of Iraq War II.  Some parts of America’s military have been learning to fight 4th Generation Warfare, notably the SEALs who fought in Afghanistan.  But they’re still America’s warriors, they serve the nation of the United States.
But what is the United States?  A geographical location?  A shared belief?  A place where groups struggle against each other: rich against poor, Black against White?  Barack Obama seems intent on transforming the United States into something different from what it was then Bush The Elder was President.  What if President Obama is ahead of his time?  What if nation-states are obsolete?  What if the United States is obsolete?  Nations arose out of tribes, what comes after nations?  Maybe by transforming the United States into a collection of factions contesting against each other, he’s moving us toward 4th Generation Society.
Question is:  would that be a good thing?
Joe Doakes

Good for whom?


SCENE:  Mitch BERG is sitting on the hood of a Dodge, drinking warm beer in the soft summer rain, beneath the light of a giant Exxon sign.  

Avery LIBRELLE putters up to BERG in a Prius and climbs out of the car.  

LIBRELLE:  Hey, Merg!

BERG:  Hey, Avery.

LIBRELLE:  I’ve got a question for you, mister Immigrant Hater.

BERG:  Bla bla bla.  I don’t hate immigrants, and I won’t let a stupid manipulative strawman pass without showing it up as the idiocy it is.

LIBRELLE:  Why do you hate science?  Anyway – so it’s time for you immigration opponents…

BERG:  …We’re not “immigration opponents”.  We oppose illegal immigration.

LIBRELLE:  If NPR says it, it’s settled science.  Anyway – it’s coming time where you have to decide; are immigrants taking our jobs, or are they soaking up welfare dollars?   You can’t have both.

BERG:   Saying the two are mutually exclusive is like saying there’s no way white people could simultaneously produce Beethoven and Jefferson and James Watt while also including people who sit around Walmart parking lots lighting their beer farts and arguing about whether Van Halen is hard rock or heavy metal.

Because it’s a fact that Immigrants are disproportionally on welfare – counter to years of media chanting points – and they are also taking most of the new jobs in the Obama Economy this past seven years.  You’re presenting me a false dilemma – and, given that this policy disporoprtionally affects African-Americans, presenting yourself a real dilemma.

So there is no contradiction.  Fact is, unrestricted immigration of low-skill workers drives down the price of low-skill jobs – which aren’t worth much to begin with, and don’t pay much with the glut of workers, who have families, which disproportionally use welfare.

LIBRELLE:   Why do you hate women?

BERG:   Of course.

And SCENE.  


Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Does it seem as if Americans are struggling to find jobs, but immigrants have no problem? That’s because it’s true.

Joe Doakes

“They take the jobs Americans won’t to do”, in some cases, because Americans don’t get to them first.”

No, it’s not hyperbole:

The one chart that matters more than ever,has little to nothing to do with the Fed’s monetary policy, but everything to do with the November 2016 presidential elections in which the topic of immigration, both legal and illegal, is shaping up to be the most rancorous, contentious and divisive.

The chart is the following, showing the cumulative addition of foreign-born and native-born workers added to US payrolls according to the BLS since December 2007, i.e., since the start of the recession/Second Great Depression.

Anyone wanna seize this one from The Donald?

Labor Pains

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

The Donald says illegal immigrants have to go.  The Wa-Po is clutching its pearls – that would wreak havoc!  Would it?

Wa-Po says work now done by illegal immigrants wouldn’t get done: picking crops, hotel maids, day laborers, nannies and gardeners.  Hmmm, that’s the same argument made by the South to defend slavery.  Seems to me the answer is the same: the market will adjust.  Work that isn’t economical to be done, won’t be done; work that must be done will no longer be done at below-market wages, it’ll be done by machine or by hiring Americans at living wages.  Yes, prices will go up.  Low prices don’t justify open borders.

Trump offers to keep families together when the illegals go. What about mixed families with one legal and one illegal parent?  They can choose: both can go or legal residents can stay.  Sad marital choices shouldn’t drive national policy.

What about illegals who’ve been here a long time?  That only means you’re a career criminal, it doesn’t justify the crime.

What about children who were born in America and have birthright citizenship?  Parents can choose: take your kids with you or leave them here with legal residents.  Having a child doesn’t mitigate your crime any more than if you were a bank robber.

Ordinary Americans don’t have a problem with these proposals because if we have to follow the law, so should everybody else.  The people having a hissy are the one-percenters who’ll be inconvenienced having to find new nannies and gardeners.  That’s a poor basis to set national policy and the best justification I can think of, to change it.

Joe Doakes

Me?  I’d just settle for a high fence, and some clear policies for legal immigration.  As, it happens, would most Latinos.  The ones who are citizens of the US, anyway.

Doakes Sunday: Priorities, Redux, Redux

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails:

Donald Trump isn’t the only one talking about the dangers of unlimited immigration.  Everything Britain’s Foreign Secretary says about immigration applies equally to the US, where even the Department of Labor admits that since the start of the recession in 2007, all net job gains for women have gone to immigrants.


Britain is trying to stop legal immigrants at the border.  The Obama Administration assists illegal immigrants to resettle across America. Who is trying to save their country, and who to destroy it?


Joe Doakes

Salvation is destruction, Winston.

Mission Nearly Accomplished

Joe Doakes from Como Park emails to urge us to “pretend”:

Pretend for a minute that President Obama doesn’t believe the United States ought to be a superpower, that it ought to be equal with other nations (not a big stretch – that belief motivated the Atom Spies to give nuclear secrets to the Russians and no doubt is shared by billions of people worldwide, today). How would he go about bringing America down to second or even third-world levels following the model of, say, Argentina?

  • Alienate traditional allies. Check.
  • Weaken military power, numbers and morale. Check.
  • Nationalize major industry. Check.
  • Weaken domestic energy independence, increase foreign dependence. Check.
  • Widen wealth gap. Check.
  • Reduce earners, increase idlers. Check.
  • Use government employees to intimidate political opponents. Check.
  • Crush middle class with regulations and taxes. In progress.
  • Debase the currency by printing money. In progress.
  • Debase the citizenry by flinging open borders. In progress.

So what’s next on the agenda? What will it take to bring the USA down to the economic, military, social and political level of, say, Spain?

Joe Doakes

About the only thing he hasn’t done is enlist Visigoths and Vandals into the military as auxiliaries.