Advertisement:

In a recent segment that sparked intense debate and outrage, Carl Higbie, a host known for his controversial stances, engaged with the topic of mass deportation policies under President Donald Trump while indulging in tacos. Higbie’s flippant attitude, combined with his history of making racially charged remarks, drew sharp criticism from commentators Yasmin Aliya Khan and Tehran Von Ghasri on a popular political discussion platform. The segment highlighted the complexities of immigration and the national dialogue surrounding it, intertwining issues of culture, legality, and identity in the United States.

As the conversation unfolded, Higbie seemingly trivialized the serious and often painful conversations surrounding immigrant rights and the family separations that have occurred under the banner of strict immigration enforcement. His comment that those supporting Trump’s stringent deportation policies should refrain from enjoying the culinary contributions of immigrants was laden with sarcasm and insensitivity. This attitude not only undermines the very contributions immigrants have made to American life and culture but also brings to light the ongoing struggle between national sovereignty and the rich tapestry of immigrant heritage that has shaped the nation.

The topic of mass deportations and immigration policy is a sensitive one that elicits strong responses from various sectors of society. Many, particularly in the libertarian and conservative movements, appreciate the need for lawful immigration processes and recognize that national security is paramount. However, there is also a fundamental belief in individual rights, personal liberty, and the idea that individuals should not be unjustly penalized for seeking a better life for themselves and their families. The criticisms directed at Higbie’s comments reflect an underlying desire for empathy and understanding in discussions about policies that affect real human lives.

As a libertarian, the idea of limited government and personal freedom is woven into the fabric of the principles we advocate. There is recognition that government overreach can lead to violations of individuals’ basic rights. In many ways, mass deportation policies can be viewed as a manifestation of government overreach, as they disrupt families, undermine community bonds, and infringe upon the rights of individuals who contribute positively to society. While lawful immigration processes are essential, it is crucial that these processes remain humane and inclusive.

Higbie’s display of ignorance regarding immigrant contributions to American culture is emblematic of a broader societal issue where the importance of diverse backgrounds is often overlooked. The culinary diversity brought to the nation through immigrant cultures is not just about food; it’s about recognizing the shared humanity and connections that bind us all, regardless of background. Tacos, for example, are more than just a meal; they represent cultural exchange and the fusion of flavors that enrich the American food landscape.

The hosts of the segment, Yasmin Aliya Khan and Tehran Von Ghasri, brought an essential perspective into focus by encouraging viewers to consider the broader implications of such comments. When public figures use their platforms to mock or belittle legitimate concerns surrounding the plight of immigrants, it creates a hostile environment that can lead to further division among communities. This attitude is not conducive to a healthy discussion around policy and can detract from constructive dialogue that could result in meaningful reforms.

Moreover, discussing immigration requires a nuanced understanding of the issues at hand. It is essential to consider both the needs of a nation that has long prided itself on being a land of opportunity and the rights and dignities of individuals seeking a safe and prosperous life. As advocates for personal freedoms, it is important to highlight that the conversation should not solely focus on enforcement and punishment, but also on inclusion, reform, and compassion.

In light of these discussions, it is worth reflecting on the role of media in shaping narratives around immigration. As seen with Higbie’s conduct, when sensationalism overshadows empathy, it can lead to a public discourse that is toxic and unproductive. Constructive political dialogue is essential for any functioning democracy and requires voices committed to truth and fairness. Programs centered on empathy, understanding, and acknowledgment of each other’s humanity can pave the way for more cohesive communities.

In conclusion, Higbie’s comments and the subsequent discussions about them expose a pivotal moment in the ongoing narrative surrounding immigration in America. While securing borders and ensuring the nation’s safety are undeniable priorities, they must be balanced against the principles of liberty and empathy that uphold a just society. A passionate engagement with immigration issues must also be accompanied by a deep respect for the individuals who seek to call this nation home.

As viewers and engaged citizens, it is crucial to reflect on what sort of tone we want our dialogues to encompass. Advocacy for effective and humane immigration policies that allow individuals to flourish while respecting the rule of law can lead to a more prosperous and united society. Let’s take this opportunity to foster understanding and promote a future where policies reflect the values of decency, respect, and shared humanity, rather than mockery and derision. Your thoughts matter; let’s keep the dialogue going in the comments below.

Download the video at: <a href=”https://www.youtubepp.com/watch?v=oscxgQE_KVw></a>

source of this video: WATCH: Racist Newsmax Host Scarfs Down Tacos While Pushing For Deportations

Advertisement:

Advertisement:

Marcos and Trump: A Dialogue on Immigration, Trade, and the Finer Points of Fiscal Responsibility

In a world where politics could easily be confused with an episode of a reality TV show—lights, drama, and plenty of “Did that really just happen?” moments—President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. of the Philippines is gearing up for a tête-à-tête with former President Donald Trump. The purpose? Discussing immigration policies and some pressing economic matters, all while trying to avoid stepping on any political landmines.

Now, if you’ve been under a rock (or perhaps enjoying a nice libertarian vacation somewhere), you might be unaware that the U.S. has recently deported 24 Filipino immigrants accused of being a tad too involved in activities that could best be described as “not lawful.” Trump’s tougher stance on illegal immigration is forcing everyone to rethink the routes to the United States, which is a topic that inevitably leads to the question about the delicate balance of law, order, and liberty.

As Marcos himself quipped, “There’s much that we need to discuss between the US and the Philippines in terms of trade, defense, security, and now, the new policy on immigration.” A diplomatic shopping list if ever there was one! Perhaps they could throw in a side of deregulated markets for good measure?

Let’s Get Down to Business: The Immigration Tug-of-War

When it comes to immigration, the stakes couldn’t be higher. Everybody wants to see the family success story—Filipinos forming a vital part of the American workforce—but local governments are showing them the front door with increasing frequency. Marcos aims to sway U.S. policy-makers to consider the contributions of Filipinos residing in the U.S. He doesn’t want to lose valuable talent; I mean, who can do karaoke better than Filipinos? (Don’t even try to argue that one!)

So what’s the game plan? Marcos is hoping his upcoming visit to Washington D.C.—still devoid of a set date, much like a popular restaurant that doesn’t take reservations—will be the platform where he can hopefully influence the conversation about deportation and criminal records. Imagine two heavyweights clashing over policies that echo down the grapevine of history. If negotiating trade deals were like haggling at a flea market, this would be the diplomatic equivalent of offering a lowball price on a vintage item.

The Curious Case of Foreign Aid: Just Business or Personal?

Now let’s chat about Trump’s recent suspension of foreign assistance programs. Marcos has opted for a “let’s sit down over coffee” approach rather than jumping headfirst into heated discussions. “It’s not yet clear, so it’s hard to comment,” he stated, perhaps hoping that the looming fog around U.S. aid will clear up before they meet. After all, who really wants to negotiate foggy policies? We’d rather deal with clarity—like how we know that less government intervention often leads to increased individual freedom and market efficiency.

Remember, most of the Philippine economy doesn’t hinge on U.S. foreign aid; if anything, it’s more like a loose thread in a much richer tapestry woven with Japan, Korea, and multilateral lending institutions like the World Bank and Asian Development Bank. As NEDA Secretary Arsenio Balisacan put it, the freeze on U.S. foreign aid has only a “minimal direct effect” on the Philippine economy, much like a fly landing on a barbecue—annoying but not deadly.

But hope springs eternal! Marcos remains optimistic—who doesn’t love a governor with some sparkle?—that as these policies clarify, they might just lead to an amicable resolution.

The Struggle is Real (and Kind of Comedic)

Of course, it wouldn’t be a proper political dialogue without some comments on the “growing pains of a new administration.” Politicians often make such statements when what they really mean is, “We’re trying to figure this out, just like you!” In the midst of evolving policies and overarching uncertainty, let’s pause and appreciate the irony: diplomacy has become a spectator sport where each tackle could either score points or lead straight to penalties.

Marcos hopes that in time, “these policies will crystallize and become clearer.” However, one could argue that the best crystal for policy-making might just be a good old-fashioned free market! After all, when you let individuals pursue their interests, you often end up with innovation, economic growth, and maybe even the next big karaoke showdown.

In conclusion, as Marcos prepares to engage in diplomatic negotiations with Trump, it’s clear that the stakes are high and the stakes are complicated. Both men hold positions that can heavily influence bilateral relations and the lives of countless people caught in the geopolitical blur. But maybe, just maybe, their combined skills in negotiating trade and immigration policies will add a bit of clarity to an otherwise cloudy world of foreign affairs.

And who knows, by the end of it, they might just concoct the perfect recipe for a happy, prosperous partnership—an occasional home run of liberty and limited government intervention, topped off with a good laugh. If nothing else, at least we can look forward to the political meme goldmine that is their combined dialogue!

#Marcos #seeks #immigration #talks #Trump

Advertisement:

Source link

Advert: Advertisement:

Overview of Trump Administration’s Immigration Policies
During his tenure, President Donald Trump implemented various immigration policies that had significant repercussions for border security and immigration practices in the United States. Known for his tough stance on immigration, President Trump launched several initiatives intending to curb illegal migration and enhance the security of the nation’s borders. Central to these were the construction of an extended barrier along the U.S.-Mexico border, significant changes to asylum regulations, and the controversial family separation policy.

A distinctive aspect of Trump’s approach was the emphasis on physical barriers – encapsulated in his rallying cry to “Build the Wall.” This initiative sought to expand and reinforce the existing barriers that separate the United States and Mexico. Additionally, the administration pursued more stringent policies regarding legal immigration and asylum processes, arguing that they were necessary to protect American jobs and ensure national security.

Evaluating the Effectiveness and Consequences
From a libertarian and free-market perspective, the evaluation of these immigration policies extends beyond their immediate impact on border security to broader considerations about economic efficiency, individual liberties, and the rule of law.

1. 1. Economic Implications: Libertarians generally advocate for minimal government intervention in markets, including the labor market. The restrictive immigration measures, while aimed at protecting domestic jobs, potentially contradict free-market principles by artificially constraining the supply of labor and inhibiting the natural regulation of labor markets. Industries such as agriculture, construction, and hospitality often rely heavily on immigrant labor, and restrictive policies can lead to labor shortages, increased costs, and reduced economic efficiency. 

1. 1. Fiscal Costs: The construction of the border wall, a prominent feature of Trump’s immigration strategy, involves substantial government expenditure. From a fiscal standpoint, libertarians might critique the allocation of significant federal resources to a project with questionable efficacy in deterring illegal immigration. Studies and historical data suggest that many unauthorized immigrants overstay their visas rather than crossing into the U.S. illegally over the border, implying that a wall might not address the root of the issue efficiently. 

1. 1. Individual Liberty and Ethics: Several of Trump’s policies, particularly the family separation practice, raised serious ethical and human rights concerns. Libertarians often place a high value on individual liberties and the rights of individuals to seek better lives. Policies that forcibly separate families could be viewed as antithetical to these principles, prioritizing enforcement at the cost of compassion and respect for individual rights. 

1. 1. Rule of Law: While advocating for stronger border security aligns with the maintenance of the rule of law, some argue that the manner in which certain policies were implemented—or attempted to be implemented—strained America’s legal frameworks. For instance, the attempts to divert military funding to the border wall construction were met with legal challenges, raising concerns about the respect for constitutional processes and checks and balances.

Conclusion: Balancing Security with Libertarian Principles
In conclusion, while national security is undoubtedly critical, the means of achieving secure borders must be balanced with economic rationale, ethical considerations, and respect for the law. From a libertarian standpoint, the ideal approach might be less about erecting physical barriers and more about creating a more efficient and fair legal immigration system that aligns with free-market principles and respects individual liberties and human rights.

Policies should focus on streamlining legal entry processes and addressing the economic needs of the country, thereby potentially reducing the incentive for illegal immigration. Moreover, enforcing existing laws in a manner that is consistent with America’s core values and constitutional provisions is crucial. Libertarians and free-market advocates often suggest that an open, albeit controlled, immigration system could be more beneficial and less costly in the long run than extensive physical barriers and restrictive legal frameworks.

FAQs About Trump’s Immigration Policies

1. 1. What was the primary goal of Trump’s border wall? 
      • • The primary goal of the border wall was to deter illegal immigration and drug trafficking across the U.S.-Mexico border.

       

1. 1. • • Trump’s immigration policies had mixed impacts on the U.S. economy. While aimed at protecting American workers, these policies potentially led to labor shortages in industries reliant on immigrant labor, thereby impacting economic efficiency and productivity.How did Trump’s immigration policies affect the U.S. economy? 

1. 1. Did Trump’s policies reduce illegal immigration? 
      • • Data show a fluctuation in illegal border crossings, with significant decreases noted during certain periods of Trump’s presidency. However, attributing these changes solely to his policies requires careful consideration of other variables such as economic conditions and policy enforcement in neighboring countries.

       

1. 1. What were the ethical concerns raised by Trump’s immigration policies?
      • • The most notable ethical concerns included the family separation policy, which involved separating children from their parents at the border, widely criticized both domestically and internationally.

       

For more detailed information and updates on Trump’s regulatory actions and executive orders, please visit this RSS Feed.

#Evaluating #Impact #Trump #Administrations #Immigration #Policies #Border #Security

Advert: Advertisement:

Since the EU was formed in 1973 there has been a lot of skeptical optimism of how the European Union would be beneficial to the countries that have signed up.   There are 28 member states currently in the EU, and there are at least 5 that are pushing to declare independence.

Currently the countries that are working on independence are (starting with the strongest push to the newest and less strong push);  The United Kingdom which consists of Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland but we will count that as one member state since they all are governed by the same governing body, then there is France (Frexit) with the front runner in the France presidential campaigns Marie Le Pen, who praises Trump and is calling for a departure for the EU similar to Brexit, after that is Greece is who feeling the pain of being a member of the EU with constant bank meddling and austerity measures, and they are ready to leave the EU and convert over to the US dollar, and lastly there is Holland with Geert Wilders who is very much like Le Pen and who also sees the value in the Trump election and the Brexit departure from the EU.  (more on the countries considering leaving the EU)

All of these countries are seeing massive crime and uprisings from refugees and immigrants, and massive departure of workers and contributors to their economic stability.   They all see independence as the best route at least by the looks of their popular political candidates and leaders.

Combine that with the American people not only voting Trump in as president, but also voting for a majority conservative government in all branches this last election, it is clear that we are living in changing times.

What was interesting to me, and I have documented it before.  Is that even the left and far left in the USA had been pushing for immigration limitations and reform, and pushing a highly nationalist agenda.  Which I created compilations of Obama, Hillary and Bernie making very similar statements to what Trump’s immigration policies were.

Reference;

The European Crisis Timeline

Here are some video sources for the above statements;

Geert Wilders;

https://www.facebook.com/BBCPolitics/videos/10154280355896200/?pnref=story

France’s Marine Le Pen: Donald Trump Win Shows Power Slipping From ‘Elites’

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cX4bSCnxIfE?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1&w=1170&h=658]

Brexit, Grexit and the future of the EU – UpFront

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vqo_McESWlY?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1&w=1170&h=658]

Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump on Immigration

Immigration – Open Borders is a Republican issue

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRUpN-8TwO8?feature=oembed&enablejsapi=1&w=1170&h=658]

USA vs. other countries on immigration – Trump’s executive orders

Edit:  03/03/2017 added

In other news, Scotland is also considering it’s own independence separate from the Brexit deal.
Reference; http://www.scotsman.com/news/scottish-independence-10-reasons-why-yes-think-they-can-win-1-4382516

Trump Brexit Documentary in the UK, Disruptarian media presents a documentary to discuss the vote to leave the European Union by Britain.. We will be interviewing Brits to learn more about their choice to leave the EU.  The significance of how this relates to Donald Trump being elected, is that the consequences of both votes, seem to mean very similar things.
Which include ending trade deals that give more than take, ending massive immigration by both illegals and potentially refugees, and a restructuring of many government agencies.

As an American who is interested in the connection between these two votes happening at a very similar timeline and during a very critical moment in the world, where the world economy is becoming more global, and the governments are starting to merge into one less competitive regime, rather than many competitive countries.  I intend to interview Brits and others throughout the world to find out what motivated this drastic change in two world super power’s governments.

Bitcoin Donations: 1DwPVVt6UZp8HrLtdrwBihf4qxQPVRxz73

Paypal Donations:  https://PayPal.Me/RevRyan