Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

S***hole S***storm distracts from valid questions on immigration policy

S***hole S***storm distracts from valid questions on immigration policy

Seems Democrats would rather talk about Trump’s *alleged* potty mouth than whether expansive immigration from failed or dysfunctional countries is in our interest.

The latest furor is over certain remarks that Trump is alleged to have uttered during a meeting about immigration with Dick Durbin, Lindsay Graham, and “other government officials.” His alleged remarks (some of which he has disputed) were criticized variously for both form and content: that the words were vulgar, and that they were bigoted.

The most salient thing on which accounts seem to agree is that Trump referred to some countries—perhaps in Africa, perhaps also Haiti—as “shitholes” or “shithole countries.” Let’s go with that, anyway, as a good possibility.

The definition of the word “shithole” is:

vulgar slang

An extremely dirty, shabby, or otherwise unpleasant place.

So the problem doesn’t seem to be the word’s definition; these are in fact pretty desperate countries in which to live, which is one of the main reasons so many people flee them in the first place. That’s what Trump was referring to in his later tweet where he wrote, “Haiti is, obviously, a very poor and troubled country.”

So the objection to the word is mostly about decorum and tone. What Trump said wasn’t couched in the sort of language presidents and diplomats ordinarily use in public, although it’s a good guess (and with some, a certainty—for example, LBJ) that they sometimes do in private.

But tone—vulgarity—was not the only issue here. And this is where we get into special difficulty because of the lack of a transcript or recording: what did Trump actually say and what did he actually mean?

It appears that the context in which Trump is alleged to have said this was a discussion of a program that favors immigrants from these countries:

The lawmakers were describing how certain immigration programs operate, including one to give safe haven in the United States to people from countries suffering from natural disasters or civil strife…

The program that was being discussed at the White House is called Temporary Protected Status.

In November, the Trump administration decided to end the status for immigrants from Haiti and Nicaragua. It gave the approximately 59,000 Haitian immigrants who had been granted the status until July 2019 to return home or legalize their presence in the United States. Nicaraguans were given until January 2019.

This week, Trump moved to end the status for immigrants from El Salvador, which could result in 200,000 Salvadorans legally in the United States being deported, beginning in September of next year.

The bipartisan Senate plan would attempt to maintain TPS in return for ending or changing a “diversity” lottery program that has been aimed at allowing up to 50,000 people a year from countries with few emigres to the United States…

Another source familiar with the meeting said Trump was questioning why the United States should take in unskilled laborers from the countries under discussion and should instead welcome immigrants from nations that can offer skilled workers.

That seems to make sense, so let’s just assume that’s what Trump was getting at when he made the remarks in question. I think it’s likely that he was asking why we should favor people from these countries over those from more functional countries. It’s actually a good question, although a non-PC one.

Liberals and the left (and some on the right, too) say that we actually have an increased duty to give safe haven to those who are from more dysfunctional countries. On the other side, there are people who think our first duty is to make sure our country only accepts the number and type of immigrants we can safely handle, and that too vast an influx of people from dysfunctional countries at one time can lead to trouble and is unnecessary and unwarranted.

When I was very young, the rules about immigration were still governed by the The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the passage of which had engendered a debate about our philosophy of immigration not unlike the debates we’ve had recently, although some of the details are different. The 1952 Act continued a previous quota system for immigrants from nations and regions based on their proportions already in the US population, and labor qualifications were part it:

The Act defined three types of immigrants: immigrants with special skills or relatives of U.S. citizens who were exempt from quotas and who were to be admitted without restrictions; average immigrants whose numbers were not supposed to exceed 270,000 per year; and refugees.

Harry Truman vetoed the bill; you can read his reasons why here. The gist of it was that he thought the bill was too inflexible in terms of reacting to crises and needlessly restrictive of immigration from Eastern Europe at the expense of Western Europe. But his veto was overridden and the bill enacted into law.

The remarks of one of the sponsors of the bill—Senator Pat McCarran, Democrat of Nevada—seem of special interest in light of more recent controversies:

I believe that this nation is the last hope of Western civilization and if this oasis of the world shall be overrun, perverted, contaminated or destroyed, then the last flickering light of humanity will be extinguished. I take no issue with those who would praise the contributions which have been made to our society by people of many races, of varied creeds and colors. … However, we have in the United States today hard-core, indigestible blocs which have not become integrated into the American way of life, but which, on the contrary are its deadly enemies. Today, as never before, untold millions are storming our gates for admission and those gates are cracking under the strain. The solution of the problems of Europe and Asia will not come through a transplanting of those problems en masse to the United States. … I do not intend to become prophetic, but if the enemies of this legislation succeed in riddling it to pieces, or in amending it beyond recognition, they will have contributed more to promote this nation’s downfall than any other group since we achieved our independence as a nation.

It’s certainly not difficult to recognize such sentiments, although they were made back in 1953. Interestingly enough, they came from one of Truman’s fellow Democrats, albeit one who was an ally of Joe McCarthy and was accused of having been anti-Semitic (McCarran’s statue may not be long for this world, either).

One of the challenges in discussions of immigration is how to voice very real concerns about the very real potential problems connected with the assimilation and absorption (or lack thereof) of immigrants from culturally different (in particular, “failed”) countries, and to differentiate those concerns from mindless bigotry. The left is pleased to call all such concerns bigotry, since they ordinarily emanate from Republicans.

Trump’s alleged remarks feed into the claims of those who say that Trump is both coarse and bigoted. Trump supporters feel he only stated what is true and raised important questions that need to be addressed. What Trump actually said and what he actually meant by it has thus far been nearly lost in the tsunami of commentary on it.

[Neo-neocon is a writer with degrees in law and family therapy, who blogs at neo-neocon.]


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


That’s exactly what the left wants, and that’s exactly why they raised a sh*tstorm: They want to avoid actually discussing the issues.

Rank the 6 habitable continents, from best to worse, on general living conditions. Which one is always worst?

Who’s fooling who?

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 changed the rules to specifically admit more non-Europeans.

There was a time when America could absorb and eventually assimilate millions of illiterate, unskilled workers from foreign lands. That was when America was becoming an industrial superpower and we had chronic worker shortages.

“Open borders” has never been US policy, even during the height of immigration.

If they weren’t “s-hole” countries, people would not be fleeing them. Trump’s point is proven.

I look at the “diaspora” of people from “s-hole” conditions and never see the recipient place made better by the influx.

Look at Oregon, Washington, Vermont, New Hampshire and Western Massachusetts. Are any of these places made better by the influx of liberals from neighboring states? No, they come in to flee high taxes etc, then demand services etc. that require higher taxes, and they cycle begins anew. Lather, rinse, repeat, or better brainwash, tax, flee.

How are liberals better than fleas deserting a carcass?

“What Trump actually said and what he actually meant by it has thus far been nearly lost in the tsunami of commentary on it.”

Again I ask, “Who cares?” Seriously. Does anyone? This “tsunami of commentary” of which you speak seems to me to be solely confined to the chattering classes and the standard TDS sufferers. Do normal people even listen anymore? I have a very hard time believing that the cop on the street, or the train engineer, or the plumber, or the postman, or the homeschool mom really has his or her knickers in a knot over this. Yes, President Trump speaks a bit too much in “colorful metaphor,” but what he said IS TRUE. Those places are nasty, vile places, and most of us IN THE REAL WORLD understand that. We drooling savages clinging to our guns and Bibles also understand that to describe the PLACE is not the same as deriding the people. We are also sophisticated enough to realize that we can feel sorry for them and NOT wish to import their issues.

The s***hole controversy is indeed designed to detract from the immigration reform discussion. However, the problem with denigrating the statement is that it is essentially true. So, what to do? Of course, play the race card and cast the remark as being an overt sign of racial bigotry. This is the lazy man’s way and is the long established M.O. of the Democrat Party, the party of racial discrimination.

Tactically, denigrating the President’s alleged statement may make sense. But, in a strategic way, it could prove devastating for the unlimited immigration crowd. It makes people think. It illustrates the point that Trump has been touting all along, in regard to immigration. And that is that immigration should be judged on the benefit to the United States of America and her citizens, not on the basis of its benefit to other nations and the people living there.

One important thing to remember is that, historically, all immigrants bring their culture with them. The Italians brought theirs. the Irish brought theirs. The Poles brought theirs. The Chinese brought theirs. The Mexicans [those that weren’t living in areas annexed by the US] brought theirs. The Cubans brought theirs. The Haitians brought theirs. It takes time for these immigrants to become part of the dominant culture in the US. And, it is even more difficult if the immigrant base is impoverished. NYC was nothing but an amalgamation of ethnic slums for decades during the heyday of immigration in the middle to late 1880s through the 1940s. Immigrants, just like everyone else feel more comfortable with people with whom they share a common culture. So, what happens? You get enclaves of immigrants with a common culture: Chinatown, Little Italy, Little Havana, Little Haiti, Hamtramck [previously composed of Eastern European Christians, mostly Poles, and now largely a Muslim enclave], the Arab-Muslim enclave of Dearborn. And, such enclaves stifle the incorporation of their populous into the American culture.

Where people come from is not the major problem. The greater problem is multiculturalism.

Before multiculturalism became the norm, migrants arrived and began to integrate into the US community. The time it took to integrate did depend on where you came from, and how close the home customs and values matched those of the US. Some migrants may never fully integrate, but their children did.

Now, the idea of integrating is considered wrong. Migrants are expected to retain their home country values and adjust where it suits them.

    Matt_SE in reply to davod. | January 13, 2018 at 12:57 pm

    It’s much, much easier to change the law than the kind of cultural attitudes which make assimilation a dirty word. If you’re wishing to bring the Melting Pot theory back into vogue, you’re going to be waiting a long time.

      rdmdawg in reply to Matt_SE. | January 13, 2018 at 2:27 pm

      Politics is downstream of culture. If we’re to secure our future, we *must* bring back the Melting Pot cultural norm.

        Matt_SE in reply to rdmdawg. | January 13, 2018 at 3:02 pm

        Eventually, you’re correct. I’m just saying that this should be done in a certain order, due to ease: first the laws, then work on the culture. Not the other way around.

Missing the actual point:

Everyone is now discussing immigration with “shithole” in their head.


    Well, if that was his *intention* it was genius.

    I suspect it was an accidental utterance, most probably of a less offensive word, that the Dems promptly decided to smear all around their pet media networks, not realizing how much it parallels the words “Sh*thole” and “Immigration” in most people’s minds.

    Oh Lord, thank you for giving me idiots as enemies.

      “I suspect it was an accidental utterance…”

      Nope, no way. Trump has done this since he came down the escalator. He is a master at creating phrases and wording on the fly. Genius you might say.

      It took me a day to realize what he did here.

As I said in the Wolff and Roy Moore cases, be wary about accepting evidence from known liars. Dick Durbin is a shitbag, unworthy of our trust.

Obama/Clinton saved and created shithole countries, including Haiti, with global shitshows. And, observing the color in those countries, we can judge that diversity was not a factor, but there was a pretext.

Shithole – an environment of trouble and misfortune.

Presumably, that’s why ostensibly “charitable” foundations, NGOs, and Peacekeepers are stationed there.

“Shithole” is controversial because it violates the SJW/PC tenet that all cultures are equal. They are not equal, and we aren’t obligated to treat Democrat talking points as if they have merit.

The Senator Pat McCarran quote was awesome. Thanks for finding it, Neo. That was from a time when democrats actually loved their Country. Those days are long gone, I’m afraid.

    Democrats love their alt-reality cult: the men, because they can abuse the democrat women, and the democrat women because they can abuse the republican men. The GOPe loves it too: so long as they stay on their leash, they can suck at the teat, too.

The biggest s-hole is the amrican government after 8 years of a president who personified s-hole.

And the GOPe is all in on it:

This, from Miss Lindsay – today!

“Lindsey Graham: America: Your country belongs to the world:”

What Trump actually said and what he actually meant by it has thus far been nearly lost in the tsunami of commentary on it.

No, it hasn’t been “lost” at all. One side is deliberately trying to pervert and obscure it, as it has been doing all along, and will continue to do so. The other side knows exactly what the problem is.

The people working for the fundamental transformation of the country are pursuing several ways to do it. On is by turning it into some other country; and one way to do that is by changing the nature of the population. And, since the replacement populations come from what we are now allowed to call “shithole” countries, the deliberate goal is obviously to turn the United States into a similar shithole country.

Not that they will ever admit it, of course. They will pretend that criticism of such a program of unrestricted immigration is “racism”, and since racism is “bad”, maybe some Leftoid federal judge will use the President’s “racism” to trip up his immigration plans. Though I doubt these judges need any help making up excuses.

In short, while the D’rats are hot to get “diverse” (i.e., alien in outlook and value-systems) voters, the Progressives want to reduce the US to third-world status. There’s nothing preventing them from working together.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to tom_swift. | January 13, 2018 at 7:49 pm

    What you said is true.

    Look what the Democrats have alredy done to CA, WA and OR – test programs obviously. Those are real Chit-Ho States.

The MSM has devolved from publishing news to publishing back-biting gossip.

In this most recent episode, WaPo is Jan going, “Ohmygaaawd, Cindy, can you believe that Courtney told me that Percival told her that Bradley called Wendy a ‘ho’ in the locker room?!?”

This isn’t news, this is s***-stirring.

Don’t be a Jan.

I wrote a post today further elaborating on the real heart of the immigration matter that the brouhaha over Trump’s language obscures.

Remember the Redneck song – You know you are a Redneck when?

You know you live in a ——– when you attempt to improve your lot by moving to Cuba*

I recall reading somewhere that Cubans do not like Black people.

*”Every year tens of thousands of Haitians attempt to improve their lots by migrating to other countries, notably Cuba and the Dominican Republic.”

Did the Washington Post EVER devote two front-page stories in a row to the same LBJ vulgarity? How about either of the Clintons?

The Washington Post lost its collective mind during the run-up to the last election, and they remain a quivering, jellylike mess.

“Lindsey Graham: America: Your country belongs to the world:”


Ya know with as many s—- as the democrats/liberals/progressives have created ya think they would recognize one when they saw it

Neo-neocons article is incomplete without mentioning the other, and primary, definition of shithole.

“Shithole”. A place for excrement where a sewage system is unavailable. Port Au Prince Haiti is the largest city in the Western Hemisphere without a sewage system.

Haiti, at least the parts where people live is actually and literally a shithole.

Why should people so dysfunctional that they can’t have a sewage system be invited to the USA in massive numbers? Just the disease implications ought to preclude that outcome.

OleDirtyBarrister | January 14, 2018 at 6:46 pm

There are some immigrants from dysfunctional countries that could work out well for the US.

For example, park a fleet of 747’s in S. Africa and start recruiting the best and the brightest. You’d need more and bigger airplanes.