Conservatives Still Waiting for Anchor Babies Aweigh!

Three years into the Trump administration seemed like a good time to evaluate progress on the number one issue for Trump voters: Illegal immigration. Unfortunately progress is nil.

There is no wall and no one is paying for it.

Beeler Columbus Dispatch

There is no ‘deportation force’ and Trump hasn’t even made a dent in the 22 million illegals already in the USA.

DACA isn’t ended.

Sanctuary cities, counties and states are going strong and suffering no penalty for entering into a conspiracy to obstruct justice and undermine the rule of law.

There is no tax on remittances sent by illegals here to their relatives in their home countries.

There is no nationwide requirement for the use of E–Verify in hiring.

There were even 300,000 anchor babies born to foreigners either just stopping in for a visit or hiding in the shadows.

In case you’re not up to speed on immigration loopholes that always work to benefit outsiders and never citizens, anchor babies are the GPS theory of national allegiance.

Let’s say your pregnant wife was sitting in the stands at Lambeau Field and she got so excited she gave birth. The resulting baby would not be entitled to Packers season tickets for the rest of his life. But if your wife was an illegal alien named Consuela, who gave birth in a Green Bay maternity ward, your new child would be a Yankee Doodle Dandy.

An instant US citizen with all the welfare rights that come with the birth certificate.

That last on the list of Trump immigration failures is the most curious of all, since Trump promised us in November 2018 that he was going to end “birthright citizenship” (the correct name for anchor babies) with a stroke of his pen.

Fifteen months later either Trump’s pen ran out of ink or the executive order is interred somewhere in Anonymous’ in–box.

That’s a real shame because Trump could have fulfilled this promise on his own. After the predictable lawsuit failed in court, one immigration scam would have been over.

The left and their stenographers in the Opposition Media who claim ending birthright citizenship is unconstitutional are simply lying, as usual.

Mark Levin said, “Not until the 1960’s [was] the Constitution …interpreted to convey birthright citizenship on the children of illegal aliens. And not due to any congressional statute or court ruling, but decisions by various departments and agencies of the federal bureaucracy.”

Decisions that can be countermanded by the president. The federal bureaucracy is at least intermittently controlled by Trump, so he can tell the executive branch to close the border in the maternity ward.

The question is, why hasn’t he?

Now that Trump has gotten rid of the hand–wringing Kirstjen Nielsen as secretary of Homeland Security and shown the door to the obstructionist who replaced her, he may be returning to immigration just in time for re–election.

Former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has been appointed acting director of the US Citizenship and Immigration Service and Trump is eyeing him as the next DHS secretary. And for a change Cuccinelli appears to support Trump’s immigration policy.

(I remain amazed that out of the 63 million Americans who voted for Trump he couldn’t find a thousand or so to hire for his administration. What a difference he could have made if he hadn’t opted for cocktail conservative retreads.)

Cuccinelli made the news when he issued a new rule that would exclude people on welfare from getting a green card. A law passed during the immigration crackdown inferno known as the Clinton administration already made it illegal to collect welfare and a green card, but squishes in the bureaucracy ignored this so they could feel noble spending your money.

Cuccinelli just made policy conform to the law. Currently being law-abiding is blocked by angry Obama judges, but they will lose in the end.

What’s appalling about Cuccinelli’s tenure so far surfaced in an interview he gave during a Christian Science Monitor breakfast. Naturally the question was framed by the OpMedia operative built around a lie.

Cuccinelli was asked what was he going to do “on changing birthright citizenship, or automatic citizenship for almost anyone born in the U.S., as enshrined in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution:”

He rejected the amendment lie and then depressed Trump supporters around the nation when he said changing anchor baby policy “hasn’t come up much in his work at USCIS.”

Changing that flawed, unjustifiable policy is one of the easiest immigration reforms on the table for the Trump administration. It would send a message around the world that the USA is finally taking control of its border and will implement immigration policies that benefit citizens first.

And so far, doing it is 15 months and a broken promise late.

Putting a Price on Moral Exhibitionism

Moral exhibitionists are people who make a point out of taking a very public ‘moral’ stands on an issue. This posturing costs them nothing and imposes the burden of paying for their sanctimony on others.

R. McKee

Examples include union organizers who don’t even own a lemonade stand demanding a $15/hr. ‘living wage’. Wealthy leftists demanding action to fight global warming. And Members of Congress who want ‘Medicare for All’ while knowing they will receive gold–plated, no–waiting healthcare.

Those hypocrites are why a recent WoePost story was so refreshing. Aaron Seydeian is refreshing because although he believes in the ‘living wage’ he isn’t expecting Uncle Sam to force someone else to foot the bill.

Seyedian is the founder of Well–Paid Maids.

(The name proves this is his first marketing effort. It’s an inward–directed name and a bit off–putting for customers. It’s like naming your investment firm ‘Fat Commissions Brokerage’ or your personal injury practice ‘Filthy Rich Lawyers.’)

Well–Paid Maids different is because the 31–year–old Seyedian’s firm is “explicitly dedicated to paying a living wage.” And the other benefits aren’t bad either.

“[Aaron] pays the cleaning staff $17 to $19 an hour, which is well above the national median of $11.43 for house cleaners and the D.C.–area median of $13.12. Staffers also get 22 days a year of paid vacation.

“In addition, Seyedian offers a zero-deductible health plan, which costs about $8,000 per worker, and an employer-paid disability plan.”

Seyedian doesn’t Uberize his staff either. Every employee is fulltime. There are no contractors paid by the weight of the dirt in the vacuum cleaner bag. Plus, it’s harder to join his staff than it is to become a cop. Only one out of every 15 applicants is hired.

Seyedian is new to business, and new to tooting his own horn. He said his staff makes about $35,000 a year, but that number is way low.

When you add the monthly cost of a bronze Obamacare plan and its punishing $5,700 deductible, neither of which employees pay, total compensation is closer to $46,232.00.

Why that’s high enough to make an American want the job!

Well–Paid Maids’ total compensation is almost double the $23,770.00 US News calculates is the average salary at Poorly–Paid Maids. According to Career Builder that salary puts one in the same neighborhood as biological technician, licensed practical nurse, mental health counselor or surgical technologist. All occupations that require an advanced degree or training.

Seyedian is one businessman Bernie’s Angel–of–Death–for–Capitalism should pass over.

Naturally the question becomes how much does it cost to have your apartment cleaned by someone that makes more money than you do?

This is where we can finally calculate the exact monetary cost of moral exhibitionism for those few actually willing to let their money back their mouth.

Homeguide calculates the average cost for a maid service to clean a one–bedroom, one–bathroom apartment is “$75 for standard cleaning.” The kind of money won’t get Well–Paid Maids to answer the phone.

The price to have guilt–free cleaning — without what Seyedian calls the “nanny tax” — is $159. Which puts the Moral Exhibitionism Markup at approximately 112 percent. It’s the difference between paying $1.00 at the Dollar Store and $2.12 at the Living Wage Dollar Store.

It would be cheaper to hire a Grievance Studies PhD., assuming they could operate a Hoover.

With those unsustainable rates starring me in the face, I assumed the target market for Well–Paid Maids is billionaires, cabinet secretaries and Meghan Markle, but that’s not true.

Seyedian is looking for “mission–minded customers.”

“Some customers feel uncomfortable that they employ people who don’t make enough money to live on,” Seyedian said. “Since it is not in your power to change the living wage overnight, by us doing this is a way for people to do something voluntarily that is at least in line with their views.”

And it frees cheaper outfits to work people like me into their busy schedule.

Aaron runs the business out of his apartment. He billed $300,000 his first year, $600,000 last year and is hoping to break a million in 2020. His customer base is about 1,500 with 40 percent being repeat clients. After paying all his expenses, Seyedian paid himself $90,000 in 2019.

Aaron’s business might be viable in recession–proof DC, home of the never laid off government ‘worker’, but I have my doubts about potential success in other markets. Still, there is much to admire about building a business model that supports his beliefs without resorting to government coercion.

My only suggestion as a retired marketer, would be to do something about that name.

How about ‘Guilt–Free Cleaning’ or ‘Ticket–to–the–Middle–Class Maids’ or even ‘No Tip Necessary Maids’?

Why Didn’t Libraries Check with Redbox First?

Until quite recently government and Starbucks were the only two large organizations catering to the dysfunctional at the expense of its rule–following.

Government presides over the transition of public sidewalks into outdoor toilets, with used syringes adding a splash of color. While Starbucks is bringing the sidewalk inside and opening its bathrooms to one and all, regardless of whether or not the visitors are customers.

DarylCagle.com

Starbucks is a brave new business model. A combination of temporary office suite and daytime homeless shelter.

It’s also a model that appears to be damaging the coffee business. Forbes reports on a study conducted by the University of Texas at Dallas and Boston College schools of business. “Monthly visits to Starbucks dropped 6.8 percent compared with other nearby coffee shops after the open-bathroom policy was put in place in May 2018.” The study termed the drop in business “large and significant.”

The study also validated a prediction of mine. “Researchers looked at the proximity of a given Starbucks store to a homeless shelter and found that customer traffic declined at almost double the rate at stores closest to homeless shelters versus those farthest away.”

Meaning I was right on target when I wrote that Schultz’s stores now function as the concession stand in a homeless encampment.

Now a third organization is looking to follow Starbucks down the path of resistance to reality. Major city libraries are abolishing fines for keeping books, videos, CDs and other items past the due date.

KTLA quoted Los Angeles Public Library honcho John F. Szabo, “We are proud to serve the largest, most diverse population of any library in the nation. By removing barriers and going fine–free, we will be better able to serve everyone in Los Angeles.”

Proving once again, any justification containing either ‘diverse’ or ‘inclusive’ is a statement of illogical nonsense.

The library will also lengthen the amount of time before a clingy borrower won’t be charged a late fee from two renewals to three “unless another patron requests the item.” Meaning the patron requesting the item had best be an optimist because there’s no mechanism for motivating a patron to return it.

No late fees and the borrower can continue to check out new items while the overdue book’s relevance to current events slowly recedes into the distance.

Naturally, politicians want to share in the glory. LA Mayor Eric Garcetti pontificated, “We are ending these fines because patrons show care and integrity in the handling of these precious materials — and nothing should stand in the way of Angelenos who want to share in all the library has to offer.”

Fact is the patrons who “show care” are the patrons who return material on time or pay the fine. The rest are deadbeats.

This If–You–Can’t–Do–the–Time–Don’t–Pay–the–Fine movement is more social engineering. NPR found Diana Ramirez — a resident of Tijuana, Mexico! – to personify San Diego’s decision.

“For nearly a decade, Diana [hasn’t] been able to take a book home from the San Diego Public Library. Her borrowing privileges were suspended …because of a mere $10 in late fees, an amount that had grown to $30 over the years.”

Thirty bucks and she can’t pay the fine? My first question would have been, during that ten–year period how many smartphones or tattoos did you buy?

Ramirez didn’t pay the fine because it wasn’t a priority.

Abolishing fines is just the bookshelf edition of fighting ‘mass incarceration.’ San Diego found, “nearly half of the library’s patrons whose accounts were blocked as a result of late fees lived in two of the city’s poorest neighborhoods. ‘I never realized it impacted them to that extent,’ said Misty Jones, the city’s library director.”

It could be the fines “impacted them” because they don’t pay their bills.

Fines are entirely neutral. There is no ‘unconscious bias’ in a calendar. A potential fine doesn’t prevent anyone from visiting the library and checking out a book any more than a potential speeding ticket keeps people off the highway.

All this moronic policy does is penalize library patrons who follow the rules. Good luck waiting on a reserve list for a best–seller when due dates are merely a suggestion. If catering to deadbeats was a viable marketing strategy Redbox wouldn’t charge late fees either.

Indulging deviance can spread to formerly rule–following folks. The Starbucks study found free–for–all bathrooms cut into revenue from former customers. “Increased use by the general public of bathrooms and tables is estimated to have negative impacts, partly because people who might have previously felt compelled to make a purchase in order to sit or use the bathroom now no longer do.”

Just like patrons who formerly felt obligated to return books by the due date.

Virginia Gun Control Leader Takes a Wrong Turn

Chris Hurst is a lot like Parkland shooting publicity hound David Hogg. Both have used an association with violence as a stepping stone to advance their career. Hogg parlayed Parkland into a spot at Harvard and Hurst parlayed the publicity surrounding the televised shooting death of his girlfriend into a spot in the House of Delegates.

Dave Granlund, Politicalcartoons.com

Naturally, Hurst is very concerned about “gun violence.” His campaign website lists it as a public health menace.

During the Virginia Citizens Defense League rally — when over 22,000 armed, law–abiding citizens peaceably gathered to show their opposition to the leftist legislature’s plan to collectively punish gun owners — Hurst made a big deal out of opening his office to shelter nelly teenagers frightened by inanimate objects.

“I brought pillows and blankets, they brought their bravery and courage to lobby lawmakers when armed militias are outside,” Hurst tweeted.

Afterwards, when nothing happened, Hurst bravely drew a line in the Stainmaster and declared, “We will not be deterred in our mission to save lives.”

Hurst thinks limiting honest people to buying one firearm a month, requiring law enforcement background checks when a private owner sells or loans a firearm and allowing vindictive ex–wives to have the police seize your guns will make Virginia a blue–tinted Garden of Eden.

But when “public safety” is your campaign issue it’s more than a little embarrassing to be pulled over in Christiansburg, VA at 2 AM last weekend on suspicion of drunk driving. When the officer approached Hurst’s car, “he noticed that the driver’s eyes were red and he smelled the odor of alcohol coming from within the vehicle.”

Mr. Safety blew 0.085 on the breathalyzer — which is over the legal limit — but the officer didn’t arrest him even though the police report said Hurst’s vehicle swerved repeatedly and exceeded the speed limit.

When news of the drunk driving stop became public, voters learned Hurst has something else in common with Hogg: he’s arrogant and self–righteous, too.

The Roanoke Times quoted Hurst’s curt explanation, “You know, it is what it is. I didn’t get arrested. I didn’t get cited. But yes, I did have a traffic stop and did submit to a Breathalyzer test.”

His defiant stand lasted about as long as you’d expect for a man who thinks teenagers hiding in his office are “brave.”

Now he’s extra special sorry, “This experience has humbled me in a profound way …While I knew the dangers of drinking and driving ahead of time, I displayed poor judgement and made a mistake …To those I have let down, I am deeply sorry.”

Drunk driving is a big deal in Virginia when a citizen does it. The DMV reports in 2018 there were 278 alcohol–related driving fatalities, which is “the highest number of fatalities involving alcohol since 2010.”

That’s a genuine public safety issue which should be right in Hurst’s steering–wheelhouse so to speak. And it’s an excellent opportunity for Hurst to make a good–faith effort to demonstrate to Virginia’s gun owners that he’s willing to impose comparable “public safety” requirements on himself.

Although in truth the situation between gun owners and Hurst isn’t really equivalent, since Hurst has already demonstrated he’s a menace and law–abiding gun owners are, by definition, law–abiding.

If Hurst isn’t a hypocrite, he should announce he’s installing an ignition interlock device on his car that requires him to breathe into it and prove he’s not tipsy before the car will start. And it should be one of the upscale systems that incorporates facial recognition. That way Hurst won’t succumb to the temptation to have his girlfriend — who was with him when he was stopped — breathe into the device in his place.

Savvy gun owners will say, yeah what if Hurst borrows a car that doesn’t have an interlock?

Good point. And there’s a comparable remedy based on what Hurst is imposing on gun owners.

He can commit to only borrowing a car from a friend or relative once a month, but first Hurst has to be driven to the nearest police substation and pass a breathalyzer test.

It’s cheap, easy and a small price to pay for safety.

Finally, Hurst can buy a burner phone for a neighbor he’s not on good terms with and ask her to keep an eye on him. If he starts bringing too many boxes from the ABC store into his house or he posts pictures of alcohol on social media the neighbor can call the authorities and have Hurst’s car impounded.

Here’s a chance for a gun–grabber who’s crossed the line to impose the same type of sanctions on himself he’s so eager to impose on gun owners. I predict safety or not, it’s a chance he won’t grab.publicity hound