Jul 04 2014

Obama Pushing California Back Into GOP Camp

Obama’s lame duck madness does not seem to be abating, but it does seem to be backfiring. Obama has clearly gone all Imperial – jettisoning all pretense that he recognizes and respects (let alone defends) the checks and balances of our laws and constitution. His frustration with having to work with people of diverse beliefs (which the far left never has been capable of doing over the long haul) has snapped his judgement.

He is going to show America what it would be like to live under liberal dogma.

Maybe this will be good for America. To see what happens when naive ideologues impose government mandates on a free and independent people. Let the foul ups come. Embrace the teachable moments here.

Obama’s attempt to provide immigration refugee camps in California (and elsewhere) is proving to be politically quite toxic. While the immigration wave was contained to deep red Texas there was no major upheaval in the balance of power in the US. But as that wave spreads out, there will be repurcussions.

Obama’s federal guards are forcing communities to take in tens of thousands of undocumented people of questionable background and intent (here I mean we have no idea if these people are criminals, free loaders, wanting a better life or just visiting family). This heavy hand action is producing heated resistance:

The transfer and release of the migrants has created a strong divide between those who want to help and those who don’t want them here at all. Protesters blocked buses that were supposed to arrive at a Murrieta border patrol center on Tuesday.

“When the buses come, you are going to see Americans that are willing to throw themselves under the bus, that’s what you are going to see,” demostrator Greg Allison said ahead of the migrants’ arrival. “I don’t care if I lose a limb. Even if the buses get past me and I lose a limb, guess what? The rest of the country is going to take notice.”

If this type of reaction begins repeating across the country that would be amazing.  And it probably will.

But let’s focus on California and how that state will react.  I think Obama and his liberal sycophants misunderstand how California thinks as a community. Yes, they are liberal and hate all things Bush and Tea Party (mostly because they are very naive about such topics). But they are not open border types – not at all.

Back in 2012 the Field Poll queried Californians on the issues of immigration and amnesty. This is a good poll to assess given its distance in time from current events and 2012 was a high water mark for President Obama. He won reelection that year and he was so much more popular.

California was supportive of finding paths to citizenship for immigrants currently in the country (for some reasonable period) in 2012. However, their  views on open boarders were quite the opposite. First, the question of citizenship for immigrants currently in the US:

What California voters say government policy should be toward illegal immigrants currently residing in the U.S.

Allow illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. and become citizens, but only if they meet certain requirements over a period of time


Allow illegal immigrants to remain in the U.S. to work, but only for a limited time


Deport all illegal immigrants back to their home country


No opinion/refused


Large majorities of Democrats (79%) and independents (69%) support granting illegal immigrants [living in the US] a path to citizenship.

If you myopically rely on the response to this one question you might think California would welcome Obama’s wave of random immigrants. And you would be wrong.

Like most of America, California is nuanced and has certain boundaries it prefers to not cross on every issue. Check out these responses on other aspects of immigration:

For example, while a majority of Democrats (56%) support granting California driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, three in four Republicans (77%) are opposed, as are 58% of independents.

Majorities oppose granting illegal immigrants the same entitlements that legal residents of the state get in two other areas – receiving tuition discounts at the state’s public universities (61% to 33%) and having access to government health and financial assistance benefits (65% to 27%).

What we see here is an acceptance for those who have lived and worked in America for sometime.  An acceptance for those who put down roots and have become part of the community. But in terms of providing support (read tax dollars) to illegal immigrants, we begin to see a change of heart. To come here you must be self supportive and earn the benefits of this great country. Immigrants are not wanted if all they do is sit on the dole.

Check out this little factoid about the current problem:

Since the federal government isn’t providing any funding, non-profits and community-based groups, will bear the financial burden of transitioning the migrants into American society, said Luz Gallegos, of the Training Occupational Development Educating Communities Legal Center in Perris.

“Organizations across the Inland Empire, even cities, are coming forward and saying, ‘We’re here to help,'” she said.

It is clear from the polling Californians are not ready to empty their treasury over the long term to deal with this influx of humanity.  If they balked at driver’s licenses, tuition assistance and health care what makes anyone think the current chaos will sit well?

Then there is the nail in the coffin of Obama’s current madness with open borders:

Voters in the survey were also asked whether the number of immigrants allowed to come to live in the U.S. from Latin America and Asia should be increased, cut back or kept the same. In each case, pluralities or majorities of California voters favored keeping this at current levels.

Regarding the number of immigrants allowed into the U.S. from Latin America 45% favor keeping this at current levels, while 18% support increasing it and 26% favor reducing it.

Californians DO NOT want more immigrants coming in. Only 18% support that idea. 71% prefer to keep the levels the same or reduce them.  This 71% will not like what is happening with the flood of refugees coming into their state, consuming their resources.

Some other factors to consider, if these people were from Mexico they would be sent back immediately:

A tide of Central Americans illegally entering the United States has overwhelmed a system already buckling under the weight of the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants.

Unlike undocumented Mexican migrants, who are often immediately deported, the U.S. detains and processes Central Americans, who are eventually released and given a month to report to immigration offices.

Many never show up and join the undocumented population, according to the National Border Patrol Council, the union representing Border Patrol agents.

So, there is a case for just sending these people back as we do others. That leaves the Feds open to a lot of flack about why this crowd must stay when others do not.

What does this all portend? Well the tone death and mad White House is not going to see this coming, anymore than they saw any of the resistance to their mad schemes coming. They are so sure they are morally superior, they don’t care what the masses think. They actually think they will be praised for this mess!

9 responses so far

9 Responses to “Obama Pushing California Back Into GOP Camp”

  1. OFg8r says:

    I hope you are right in thinking that Americans are very close to the tipping point; and that there will be strong push back.

    I think that your view of California may be a bit skewed. Democrats and Leftists certainly dominate California politics because they dominate the large population centers along the coast. But, move away from the coast and there are large swaths of the state, with a fairly large population grouping, that is Conservative and Republican. Things are always changing, of course. In the Inland Empire, where I live (love the pretension in the label), the GOP fairly dominates but, the Hispanic, Latino, or whatever the term du jour may be, population is actually in the majority. So, the mix is a bit volatile.

    The area around Murietta, where the protests against immigrant dumping are making news, the sentiments are not those of Coastal Leftists.

    I feel that the GOP is remiss in not making a run for California. I think it is ripe for the picking.

  2. Doug says:

    Further North lie the Inland Ghettos, lush farms, good schools, and family values, when I was a child.

    Two Californias

    Abandoned farms, Third World living conditions, pervasive public assistance — welcome to the once-thriving Central Valley.

    In two supermarkets 50 miles apart, I was the only one in line who did not pay with a social-service plastic card (gone are the days when “food stamps” were embarrassing bulky coupons). But I did not see any relationship between the use of the card and poverty as we once knew it: The electrical appurtenances owned by the user and the car into which the groceries were loaded were indistinguishable from those of the upper middle class.

    By that I mean that most consumers drove late-model Camrys, Accords, or Tauruses, had iPhones, Bluetooths, or BlackBerries, and bought everything in the store with public-assistance credit. This seemed a world apart from the trailers I had just ridden by the day before. I don’t editorialize here on the logic or morality of any of this, but I note only that there are vast numbers of people who apparently are not working, are on public food assistance, and enjoy the technological veneer of the middle class. California has a consumer market surely, but often no apparent source of income. Does the $40 million a day supplement to unemployment benefits from Washington explain some of this?

    Do diversity concerns, as in lack of diversity, work both ways? Over a hundred-mile stretch, when I stopped in San Joaquin for a bottled water, or drove through Orange Cove, or got gas in Parlier, or went to a corner market in southwestern Selma, my home town, I was the only non-Hispanic — there were no Asians, no blacks, no other whites. We may speak of the richness of “diversity,” but those who cherish that ideal simply have no idea that there are now countless inland communities that have become near-apartheid societies, where Spanish is the first language, the schools are not at all diverse, and the federal and state governments are either the main employers or at least the chief sources of income — whether through emergency rooms, rural health clinics, public schools, or social-service offices. An observer from Mars might conclude that our elites and masses have given up on the ideal of integration and assimilation, perhaps in the wake of the arrival of 11 to 15 million illegal aliens.

    We hear about the tough small-business regulations that have driven residents out of the state, at the rate of 2,000 to 3,000 a week. But from my unscientific observations these past weeks, it seems rather easy to open a small business in California without any oversight at all, or at least what I might call a “counter business.” I counted eleven mobile hot-kitchen trucks that simply park by the side of the road, spread about some plastic chairs, pull down a tarp canopy, and, presto, become mini-restaurants. There are no “facilities” such as toilets or washrooms. But I do frequently see lard trails on the isolated roads I bike on, where trucks apparently have simply opened their draining tanks and sped on, leaving a slick of cooking fats and oils. Crows and ground squirrels love them; they can be seen from a distance mysteriously occupied in the middle of the road.

    In fact, trash piles are commonplace out here — composed of everything from half-empty paint cans and children’s plastic toys to diapers and moldy food. I have never seen a rural sheriff cite a litterer, or witnessed state EPA workers cleaning up these unauthorized wastelands. So I would suggest to Bay Area scientists that the environment is taking a much harder beating down here in central California than it is in the Delta. Perhaps before we cut off more irrigation water to the west side of the valley, we might invest some green dollars into cleaning up the unsightly and sometimes dangerous garbage that now litters the outskirts of our rural communities.


  3. Doug says:

    Two Californias (Print Version)

    Hadn’t read that article in several years.
    It is longer than average, and quite remarkable.
    Also quite sad.

  4. Doug says:

    The Bay Area’s 1 Percenters

    If you’re hip and liberal, your kids don’t have to go to school with the gardener’s kids.

    Ask a Silicon Valley liberal whether he is for amnesty, open borders, and multicultural curricula, and he assents; ask him next whether he is for new low-income and diverse housing construction a few minutes from Menlo Park or Atherton, and he is aghast.

    I think the average Bay Area liberal believes his nanny flies home to Oaxaca each evening and is back by the next morning at the Hillsborough doorstep.

  5. Doug says:

    So, there is a case for just sending these people back as we do others. That leaves the Feds open to a lot of flack about why this crowd must stay when others do not.

    The Bush Era Law that Obama Has Exploited

    Unaccompanied minors fall under the bipartisan law, William Wilberforce Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, which passed the House and Senate unanimously and was signed into law by President George W. Bush.

    That law says the children cannot be sent back. They must instead be held humanely by the Department of Health and Human Services until the courts release them to a “suitable family member” in this country.

    The child “shall be promptly placed in the least restrictive setting that is in the best interest of the child,” the law stipulates. “Placement of child trafficking victims may include placement in an Unaccompanied Refugee Minor program … if a suitable family member is not available to provide care.”

    Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sources say more than 80 percent of these children will find permanent homes in the U.S., with either family or foster homes and not be sent back to Central America.

  6. Doug says:

    The Law

    It is my understanding (from reading elsewhere) that this mumbo jumbo states that since Central Americans come from countries that are not contiguous to the USA, they cannot be deported in the same manner as Mexicans (and Canadians)

    Searching for “contiguous” takes you to the appropriate section of the law, although I cannot fathom it’s depths.

  7. Doug says:

    Obama’s bid to deport children complicates immigration reform effort

    “But the administration’s proposal to undo part of the 2008 law that provided specific protections for minors from countries with noncontiguous borders — all but Mexico and Canada — has already raised alarms, especially from the president’s Democratic allies.

    Under current law, children from Central American countries are afforded an immigration or asylum hearing, a process that smugglers, or coyotes, portray to immigrants as a permiso — permission to remain in the U.S.”

    (They must promise to appear, most never do.)

  8. A_Nonny_Mouse says:

    Breitbart says the Feds have announced they’ll be bringing a riot squad to Murrieta on Monday.


    According to Emperor Owe-bama’s Enforcers, we peons (or should that be spelled “peed-ons”??) MUST and WILL submit.

  9. A_Nonny_Mouse says:

    PS- Looove the cartoon !