Archive for the ‘Illegal Immigration’ Category

Illegal migrants crossing to the Algarve increasing – The Portugal News

in News 19-06-2020 01:00:00 6 Comments

Over the past six months the Algarve region has seen 48 illegal immigrants from North Africa entering the country, with the last case recorded on 15 June in Vale do Lobo, when a vessel with 22 Moroccan migrants was intercepted.

In December 2019, a group of eight immigrants arrived on the Algarve coast and in January this year 11 Moroccan citizens were detected off the island of Armona, in the municipality of Olho.

On 6 June, seven migrants from North Africa were detected off Olho, and on 15 June a vessel with 22 men, allegedly of Moroccan origin, was intercepted when the crew prepared to disembark at Vale do Lobo beach.

In light of this new emerging trend, the Minister of Internal Administration, Eduardo Cabrita, said in January this year that it was premature to consider that this was a new migration route to Portugal.

It is very premature. There were tens of thousands of arrivals in Spain and we will not be able to draw any conclusions from the most recent arrivals in Portugal. We are attentive, I am in talks with Spanish and Moroccan authorities, and I hope to establish, in the coming weeks, a direct meeting with my Moroccan counterpart on several topics, including this one, said Eduardo Cabrita.

Eduardo Cabrita underlined that, at the moment, Portugal has three legal migration agreements pending with Morocco, India and Moldova.

What we want with Morocco is to open a mechanism for legal and prepared migration, he said, arguing that illegal immigration should be the object of investigation and legal treatment.

We have to be attentive. We have to be very attentive to that possibility because it is not very different to go to Spain or to go to the Algarve, it is just a matter of choice, he said.

In that sense, he added, it is necessary that the police authorities -SEF, the Maritime Police and the Republican National Guard, namely through the Coastal Control Unit - maintain the monitoring of such phenomena, as well as border surveillance.

In turn, the Mayor of Olho, Antnio Manuel Pina, revealed his concern for this growing trend and called for a correct framing of the situation, which, in his opinion, should not be attributed to the status of refugee.

It is true that we have to be welcoming, we are humans just like these Moroccan citizens, but we also should not confuse, in my opinion, these cases with citizens and migrants in the Mediterranean, in Syria, in Libya, where there are, in fact, fleeing from war and deplorable life situations, with these situations, said the mayor of Olho.

As long as they are not considered illegal immigrants and returned to their countries, groups of migrants will continue to try to reach the Algarve coast in boats, said Pina who is also the president of the Intermunicipal Community of the Algarve (AMAL).

Antnio Miguel Pina said that the various cases of small boats that have arrived in the Algarve with migrants on board since last year, and the interception of the latest vessel with 22 migrants, allow us to think that there is an organised structure for illegal immigration to the south coast of Portugal.

This new arrival only reinforces our concerns, which have already been expressed to the Minister of Internal Affairs, because those who arrived a week ago were from the same location as the others from the previous year.

Antnio Pina said he disagrees with the possibility of these young people being considered exiles or political refugees, because the situation in Morocco, the country from which they say they come from,is different from the situation in the Mediterranean, with people from countries where there is war, such as Syria or Libya.

Antnio Pina has called for an appropriate response to be quickly given to cases of illegal immigration, which is their return to their country of origin, instead of the granting of refugee or exile statutes that allows these citizens to remain in Portugal.

As long as this is not done, it gives the signal that this is possible, because nothing happens. These 22, in our opinion, even begin to configure some possibility of extra aid. This very small vessel, with 22 people, is the same size as the one in which seven people came in previously and this raises the concern that a more fixed route to help illegal immigration may have already been created here, he said.The President of AMAL has now called on the Government to give a clear signal to these citizens that they may not be considered exiles and will be returned to their countries of origin, because only in this way will it be possible to give an adequate response to discourage others from also trying to cross in the future, he defended.

Asked if the appearance of the 22 migrants intercepted on Monday in court could be a sign of the change in attitude of the Portuguese authorities, Antnio Pina replied that he will wait to understand what the final outcome of the case will be.

See the rest here:
Illegal migrants crossing to the Algarve increasing - The Portugal News

Tarrant County Continues with ICE Agreement for Immigration Enforcement – The Texan

The Tarrant County Commissioners Court voted 3-2 on Tuesday to allow law enforcement to continue its partnership with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency to question and possibly detain illegal immigrants who have been arrested and brought to the Tarrant County Jail.

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act authorizes agreements between ICE and local law enforcement agencies to perform limited immigration law enforcement functions after receiving appropriate training, according to the ICE website.

Tarrant County engages in the Jail Enforcement Model which involves identifying and processing removable aliens who are arrested and being booked into the Tarrant County jail. It does not involve seeking out illegal immigrants in the community.

Sheriff Bill Waybourn said the agreement gives us a solidified policy of how we are going to deal with immigration and those investigations are not taking place in the field. Tarrant County currently has seven officers trained under the 287(g) program.

25 counties in Texas have entered into 287(g) agreements with ICE. Tarrant County is the most populous of those.

In its presentation to the commissioners court, the Tarrant County Sheriffs Office (TCSO) submitted that 52,388 people were booked in the county jail from June 1, 2019 to May 31, 2020.

Of those, over 1,400 inmates had immigration detainers by ICE, most of which were applied by other law enforcement agencies. Out of the total number booked in that year, 309 inmates (0.59 percent) had immigration detainers placed on them by the TCSO officers in the jail trained by ICE.

TCSO released 236 inmates to ICE during the year. Of those, about 70 were deported and 61 voluntarily returned to their country of origin.

According to the TCSO, the 287(g) program costs about $18,000 per year.

Of the current 3,807 inmates in the jail, 264 have immigration detainers, most from other agencies. Detained inmates based on the 287(g) program amount to 56 of the total jail population.

Current inmates with detainers have been arrested for a variety of charges such as robbery, sex offenses, assault, burglary, DWI, drug offenses, and even homicide. Felonies and class A & B misdemeanor offenses are subject to 287(g) inquiries. Those who commit Class C misdemeanor offenses in Tarrant County are not subject to 287(g) immigration inquiries.

A representative from the Tarrant County District Attorneys office explained that even without a 287(g) agreement, the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure legally obligates county law enforcement to honor ICE detainers. The Penal Code makes failure to comply with an immigration detainer a Class A misdemeanor for which the sheriff could be removed from office based on Local Government Code section 87.031.

Additionally, the Texas Legislature passed a law in 2017 that prohibits law enforcement agencies from interfering in the enforcement of immigration laws.

Its important to note that ICE would still be in the jail even without a 287(g) agreement, the district attorneys representative pointed out.

Dozens of persons appeared before the commissioners court to express their position on the 287(g) agreement, most in opposition. The commissioners only received in-person comments on the June 16 agenda items rather than allowing call-in remarks as has been the courts habit since the start of the coronavirus pandemic.

Those in opposition expressed concerns about separating families, wasting taxpayer dollars, straining relations with minority communities, and violating rights of those detained if the officers are not properly trained. Some also accused the commissioners and sheriff of racism and promoting white supremacy.

Those who supported the continuation of the program spoke about the importance of the rule of law and holding those whove broken the law accountable.

Judge Glen Whitley (R) along with Commissioners Gary Fickes (R) and J.D. Johnson (R) voted for the agreement while Commissioners Roy Charles Brooks (D) and Devan Allen (D) opposed it.

In expressing his opposition to the 287(g) agreement, Commissioner Brooks said he found the agreement unnecessary as he believed that immigration status inquiries would take place in the jail without it. He also is concerned that it allows people to be transferred to ICE without due process.

Commissioner Johnson pointed out that Brooks voted for the 287(g) agreement two years earlier.

Judge Whitley supported the agreement, saying he knew it was something that many of the speakers would not be happy about. But if it stops one person from being assaulted, Im glad I did it.

After the vote, the crowd chanted for the removal of the sheriff and commissioners who voted in favor of the agreement for several minutes.

Disclosure: Unlike almost every other media outlet, The Texan is not beholden to any special interests, does not apply for any type of state or federal funding, and relies exclusively on its readers for financial support. If youd like to become one of the people were financially accountable to, click here to subscribe.

A free bi-weekly commentary on current events by Konni Burton.

View post:
Tarrant County Continues with ICE Agreement for Immigration Enforcement - The Texan

Kansas Senate candidate’s ad survey hits the wrong inbox – Roll Call

Its rare that candidates get to see a batch of television ads from their opponents campaign before they air, but thats what happened in the Kansas Senate race.

Plumbing company owner Bob Hamilton is one of nearly a dozen Republicans running for the seat being vacated by retiring Republican incumbent Pat Roberts. The political newcomer has been airing television ads since the beginning of May, but an online survey with five, fully-produced unaired ads was sent out last week and one survey found its way to someone supporting another candidate in the race.

Getting feedback on ads is commonplace in big races, particularly for statewide and presidential campaigns. For decades, that was done with an in-person focus group where a moderator shows the potential ad on a screen and asks for feedback. While more ad testing was moving online even before the coronavirus changed social protocols, its rare that opposing campaigns and reporters get to see ads before they are on the air.

In this case, potential respondents were texted a link last week to a survey where they could watch five different ads. After each one, the person was given a multiple-choice question, Did the advertisement make you more likely or less likely to vote for Bob Hamilton? If the ad made no difference on your vote, please just say so.

At the end, respondents were asked to choose a favorite. Of the 5 ads shown, which advertisement stood out to you the most? The video about making puns about what hell do in Washington. The video about not being establishment and fixing Washington politics. The video about illegal immigration, sancturary [sic] cities and China. The video about not being a sumo wrestler and not giving away pizza and cable. The video about law & order, riots, and the media. Not sure.

Continued here:
Kansas Senate candidate's ad survey hits the wrong inbox - Roll Call

DHS/DOJ: Send Credible-Fear Claimants to Asylum- and Withholding-Only Proceedings – Immigration Blog

In my last post, I briefly analyzed proposed regulations that the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) plan to roll out today as part of a Joint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (JNPR). The first of those proposals is to place aliens subject to expedited removal who have established a credible fear of persecution, or a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture, into asylum- or withholding-only proceedings (respectively), instead of removal proceedings under section 240 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) where their cases are currently referred. This move is truer to Congress' intent and the expedited-removal statute than current policy, and will streamline cases in immigration court.

Pursuant to the current regulations, certain aliens seeking asylum, statutory withholding of removal under section 241(b)(3) of the INA, or protection under the Convention Against Torture (CAT) are not entitled to be placed into section 240 removal proceedings, but may only have their claims heard in asylum- or withholding-only proceedings.

Specifically, identified alien crewmembers, stowaways, applicants for admission under the Visa Waiver Program (VWP), aliens admitted under the VWP who overstayed, applicants who are seeking admission or who have been admitted as witnesses or informants on S nonimmigrant visas, and applicants for admission and aliens who have been admitted to Guam or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) pursuant to the Guam-CNMI Visa Waiver Program and overstayed their visas can only have their protection claims heard in asylum-only proceedings.

Aliens who are subject to reinstated orders of removal under section 241(a)(5) of the INA and aliens who have been administratively ordered removed under section 238 of the INA (as a result of convictions for aggravated felonies), on the other hand, are eligible to apply only for statutory withholding of removal and CAT in withholding-only proceedings.

In those proceedings, the removability of the alien is not at issue they have either waived the right to removal proceedings or are deemed removable by law. Rather, the only issue is whether they are eligible for asylum, statutory withholding, or CAT (as the case may be) they may not seek other forms of relief or privileges under the INA.

This contrasts with section 240 removal proceedings, in which the immigration judge (IJ) must first determine whether the alien is removable before assessing whether the alien is eligible for any form of protection or relief. Not only does that initial determination of removability (which can involve complex issues of fact and law) take up the court's time, but in section 240 removal proceedings, an alien respondent is not limited in the forms of relief that he or she can seek (although few if any aliens in expedited removal proceedings apply for relief other than asylum, statutory withholding of removal, or CAT).

In addition, in section 240 removal proceedings, DHS must establish that the alien is removable as charged if he or she fails to appear in order to obtain an in absentia order of removal. In FY 2019, there were 17,786 such in absentia orders issued in cases originating with a credible fear claim. Assuming 10 minutes of court time for each, that is 2,964 hours or 370.5 eight-hour days wasted on the IJs' dockets.

In asylum-only or withholding-only proceedings, on the other hand, if the alien does not appear, the application is simply found to be abandoned: The alien has already been found removable.

The language of the expedited removal provisions in section 235(b)(1) of the INA demonstrates that Congress did not intend for aliens found to have a credible fear to be placed into those section 240 removal proceedings, however.

Specifically, section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the INA states: "If the [asylum] officer determines at the time of the interview that an alien has a credible fear of persecution ... , the alien shall be detained for further consideration of the application for asylum." [Emphasis added.]

Contrast the language in this provision with section 235(b)(2)(A) of the INA, which pertains to aliens seeking admission who are not subject to expedited removal (expressly excluded from the coverage of that provision under clause 235(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the INA), crewmen, stowaways, and aliens who are inadmissible on security and related grounds. It states that:

[I]n the case of an alien who is an applicant for admission, if the examining immigration officer determines that an alien seeking admission is not clearly and beyond a doubt entitled to be admitted, the alien shall be detained for a [removal] proceeding under section 240 [of the INA]. [Emphasis added.]

Note that there is no reference to removal proceedings or section 240 of the INA in the expedited removal provision (section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the INA) only in section 235(b)(2)(A), although Congress added both of these provisions to the INA, in section 302 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

That makes sense, because in expedited removal proceedings, a DHS immigration officer has already made the determination that the alien subject to expedited removal is removable. The only remaining question is whether the alien is eligible for asylum which is properly resolved in asylum-only proceedings.

And, as the conference report for that legislation explains:

The purpose of these provisions is to expedite the removal from the United States of aliens who indisputably have no authorization to be admitted to the United States, while providing an opportunity for such an alien who claims asylum to have the merits of his or her claim promptly assessed by officers with full professional training in adjudicating asylum claims. [Emphasis added.]

Also note that there is no reference to statutory withholding or CAT in the expedited-removal provision. Those were additional, extra-statutory protections that were added to the credible-fear regulation during the Clinton administration. The JNPR does not remove references to those forms of protection from the credible-fear regulation, although I have previously explained why authority to grant CAT should more properly be vested with DHS instead of the IJs not just in expedited removal cases, but more generally.

That notwithstanding, however, it is only appropriate that aliens in expedited removal proceedings found to have a credible fear of persecution or a reasonable possibility of persecution or torture should only have their claims heard in asylum- and withholding-only proceedings. Not only does the current regulation unduly burden IJs' dockets, but it is contrary to Congress's at least implied, if not express direction in section 235(b)(1)(B)(ii) of the INA.

Put more simply, the only purpose for referring such a case to the IJ is for "further consideration of the" alien's application for protection not for a de novo review of the respondent's removability.

This is not a new idea, by the way just one that took a while to come to fruition. In fact, in May 2019, I wrote a post captioned "President Wants 'Asylum Only' Hearings for Credible Fear Claimants: Why wasn't this done earlier?". I explained therein:

On April 29, 2019, the president issued a "Memorandum on Additional Measures to Enhance Border Security and Restore Integrity to Our Immigration System", which (among other things) calls on the secretary of Homeland Security, to: "propose regulations to ensure that aliens who receive positive fear determinations pursuant to section 235(b)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA)" are placed in asylum-only proceedings or withholding-only proceedings, as the case may be.

As I noted at the time: "This is such a commonsense proposal, the only question is why no one thought of it before." Now I can add: or issued a proposed regulation doing so before June 15, 2020. Better late than never.

More here:
DHS/DOJ: Send Credible-Fear Claimants to Asylum- and Withholding-Only Proceedings - Immigration Blog

The Tea Partys Last Stand – The American Prospect

As the ranks of the protesters against the murder of George Floyd grew to hundreds of thousands in the ensuing two weeks, the country saw the face of a young, racially diverse America determined to call out the racism shaping police misconduct. But those protesters were saying so much more. They were also calling out the racism at the heart of the deadly carnage from the pandemic and racism at the heart of the economic carnage. They were calling out a profoundly unequal America.

President Donald Trump was in a vengeful and dangerous mood. He was trapped in the White House, where the Secret Service sent him to a secure bunker; in return, he demanded a high fence be built around the White House compound. He demanded governors get tougher and claimed the right to use the U.S. armed forces to control domestic political protests. He told the country he was a law and order president and could use the unlimited power of the military. And on cue, his officers teargassed the peaceful protesters in Lafayette Square. An intimidating phalanx of police officers on horseback cleared the way for him to reach St. Johns Episcopal Church.

But most revealing was his tweet, Tonight, I understand, is MAGA NIGHT AT THE WHITE HOUSE??? That was his call to his millions of followers to rally and defend his presidency.

The rallying to defend Trump was pathetic.

More than 2,000 miles from the White House, scores of residents armed with assault weapons did turn out to guard the streets of Coeur dAlene, Idaho, protecting against a rumored attack by ANTIFA agitators that, of course, never came. White nationalists outside Philadelphia conducted a mock police execution of George Floyd.

More from Stanley B. Greenberg

Months ago, President Trump tweeted, liberate Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia and save your great 2nd Amendment. The national conservative funding network and Fox News jumped in to promote the protests, but the hundreds who joined the capitol protests fell far short of the Tea Party protests against President Barack Obama that shaped our country and polarized politics for the past decade.

Watching this weak, but nonetheless intimidating, defense of the president led me to a new conclusion about the 2020 election: The main issue is not whether President Donald Trump will get re-elected, but how a Tea Partydominated Republican Party reacts to its humiliating defeat.

Most observers understand that Trumps 2016 win was improbable, requiring an inside straight of Electoral College state wins. His rallies that year displayed a white working-class revolt that made Trump and his bravado possible.

But what almost everybody missed was how divided the Republican Party had become and how trapped Trump was within his own bloc of evangelical and Tea Party loyalists. Everyone missed how insecure was Donald Trumps hold on his own party, and how much of his politics is just bravado.

The right wings current pathetic defense of President Trump contrasts sharply with the Tea Party revolt against the election and re-election of President Barack Obamaa revolt against the first African American president and his multicultural coalition of women, millennials, blacks, and Hispanics.

Your donation keeps this site free and open for all to read. Give what you can...

SUPPORT THE PROSPECT

Then, the Tea Party groups had genuine grass roots. More than 500,000 people joined over 500 rallies; 250,000 would join Tea Party groups. Most already belonged to pro-life, gun rights, anti-immigrant, or white nationalist groups. They gained momentum with funding from the Koch brothers and their allies, and from Fox Newss most prominent personalities broadcasting from their protests. The Tea Party leaders were replete with birthers who wanted to take our country back. The members were infused with a deep anti-Obama venom, deep racial resentment. Stopping Obama meant repealing Obamacarethe new federal entitlement to health insurance.

The marches and protests translated into organization that elected a whole class of Tea Party members to the Congress and governors offices. Two-thirds of the House members first elected in 2010 supported the Tea Party; they took office with a mandate to go nuclear, to stop government spending and repeal Obamacare.

The Tea Party wave elections allowed Republicans to gridlock government, to shut down the federal government time and again, to force the acceptance of spending caps and fiscal austerity that slowed President Obamas efforts at economic recovery. They demanded votes to repeal Obamacare, and in the states, their leaders blocked all efforts to set up health care exchanges and expand Medicaid. Nationally, they blocked Obamas efforts to pass comprehensive immigration reform, and in the states, blocked undocumented immigrants getting any public benefits.

What animated them most of all was the legal and illegal immigration of the past three decadesa surge that had been welcomed and legalized on a bipartisan basis by Republican presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush, working quite publicly with Ted Kennedy and Bill Clinton.

The right wings current pathetic defense of President Trump contrasts sharply with the Tea Party revolt against the election and re-election of President Barack Obama.

Reagan legalized millions of the undocumented, the first President Bush joined with Kennedy to massively grow legal immigration, and George W. Bush tried to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Even after the 2012 election, the Republican National Committee and establishment Republican leaders in the Congress still called for immigration reform.

Imagine the building anger in Tea Party ranks when they watched the metropolitan elites and national leaders of both parties take irreversible actions that grew the percentage of foreign-born Americans every year, and saw that a growing majority of Americans since Obamas re-election welcomed a multicultural America replete with and open to immigrants.

These trends divided the Republican Party, one half of whose supporters backed the Tea Party movement in public polls in 2010. At an earlier point, these Republicans would have backed Pat Buchanan; later, they embraced Donald Trump.

Americas two political parties are now defined by the choices they made as America moved away from the traditional strictures on blacks, women, and immigrants. The modern Republican Party built its base in the white South, later expanding it to the deeply observant Appalachian regions and rural parts of the country. Largely ignoring the divisions in Republican ranks, the partys presidential nominees took pains to show they were champions of white people in the battles over civil rights and affirmative action. They scorned the sexual revolution, opposed abortion, and opposed women breaking free of the patriarchal family to achieve equality. The Republican Party would become the home of many observant Catholics, particularly in the Midwest.

Your donation keeps this site free and open for all to read. Give what you can...

SUPPORT THE PROSPECT

But on immigration, its national leaders pulled away from the Republican base that was increasingly anti-immigration and -immigrants. Reagan in California and the Bushes in Texas were open to Mexican immigrants and showed that Republicans could compete for their votes.

For a time, the GOP establishment fought the Tea Party in the Congress, and as late as 2013, the official Republican National Committee postmortem on Obamas re-election asserted that passing comprehensive immigration reform was required if the Republicans hoped to compete nationally in future elections.

In my first polls of Republicans base voters in 2013, the Tea Partysupporting coalition formed 44 percent of the Republican Party base. Those scorning the GOP establishment were the most pro-life, antigay marriage, pro-gun, anti-Obamacare and big government, and anti-immigration.

The largest bloc fighting the GOP establishment and Obama was the evangelicals, who made up 29 percent of Republican identifiers. They felt most threatened by a country where two-thirds would soon accept gay marriage as legal. They cheered the Tea Party protests and takeover of health care town halls. Finally, somebody had said, enough, and stood up to the GOP establishment.

The Tea Party supporters were 25 percent of the base. They were pro-life and against gay marriage, but they were most animated by their hatred of immigration, big-government bailout of the banks, Obamacare, and by threats to the Second Amendment.

In its entirety, however, the Republican Party could not have been more divided, as at least as many voters opposed this Tea Party bloc as supported it. Moderates made up a quarter of the GOP base in my first surveys after Obamas re-election. They were socially liberal, mostly women and college graduates. Nine in ten moderates thought it was OK for people to have sex without forming a long-term relationship, while seven in ten evangelicals said no.

John McCains openness to immigration and bipartisan civility made him the Tea Partys principal enemy within the party. The McCain secular conservatives formed nearly 20 percent of the baseand they were defined by their contempt for the incivility of the Tea Party.

The remaining Republicans were the observant Catholics who formed 16 percent of the base. They could break either way before Trump won them over.

Donald Trump determined that he would lead this deeply divided party into the 2016 electionand the fragility of his hold on this party defined his ugly battle for the nomination and has continued to define how hes governed as president.

Trump looked defiant and confident going down the escalator at Trump Tower in July 2015. He intended to woo the partys Tea Party base that was the most hostile to Obama and immigrants. He talked about trade, immigration, Obamacare, and the useless politicians who sold out the country to foreigners and let Mexico send us its murderers and rapists. He made no mention of abortion. His was a nationalistic cry against the elites and GOP politicians who had betrayed America and its working people.

Trumps surge into first place in the primary was produced entirely by his newfound Tea Party base.

But Trump couldnt get anywhere near a majority of the primary vote and delegates without winning over the evangelicals. Trump was secular to his bones, had been pro-choice and had said positive things about Planned Parenthood. But reversing field was no barrier to Trump. He embraced Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his running mate and announced his pro-life Supreme Court short list. Evangelicals had loved Trumps visceral attacks on Obama and immigrants, but that wasnt enough. They always expected to be betrayed by a GOP establishment that was always letting social liberalism advance.

Trump has never wavered from his anti-Obama and anti-immigrant Tea Party, anti-government instincts, but he has always had to remind the evangelicals that he was fighting for their priorities and values, too. Trump cant waver on abortion, Obamacare, or immigrationlest they be sold out again.

But even the unified bloc of Tea Party and evangelical voters in the 2016 nominating battle formed less than half the party. By the time of his nomination, hed also won over pro-life Catholics who like his America First agenda. With that, Trump had his working majoritya small working majority.

But Trump has never won the full-throated support of his own party, despite the enthusiasm of his Tea Party ralliesthen and now, it is all bravado.

He won only 55 percent of Republican primary voters in 2016and none of his primary opponents endorsed him at his nominating convention. No former Republican presidents attended either. Like the rest of the world, they thought Trump would be vanquished by Hillary Clinton.

Trump has never won the full-throated support of his own party, despite the enthusiasm of his Tea Party ralliesthen and now, it is all bravado.

When candidate Trump won the Electoral College without a plurality of the popular vote, President Trump determined to govern as an uncompromising, Tea Party/evangelic/pro-life conservative who would never sell out his base on immigration, Obamacare, or abortion. His goal was building a clear and punishing majority within his own party, not the country. His strategy was rooted in his insecurity, not his firm hold on a loyal party.

Accordingly, Trump has executed his strategy with little nuance. He appointed the former leader of the House Freedom Caucus, Mick Mulvaney, to lead the Office of Management and Budget and, eventually, to be acting chief of staff. He chose Cabinet secretaries who promised to hollow out the departments they would lead.

He wiped out every sign of climate science in the government. He withdrew America from the Paris climate accord because the Tea Party viewed it as an elite hoax to expand government, and evangelicals, as an elite intrusion on Gods role in the planets future.

He gave evangelicals and William Barr Catholics an assured social-conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court and up and down the federal bench.

He fought to repeal Obamacare but was blocked by two moderate Republican pro-choice women senators and John McCain. His efforts deepened Trumps support in the pro-life and observant bloc that formed 60 percent of the party by the end of his first year. That change in Republican composition allowed him to vanquish his opponents in any primary.

And Trump most defiantly and consistently moved to stop Muslim and Latino immigration. He began his Muslim ban and construction of that impenetrable wall along the Mexican border. He sent troops to the border to stop bus caravans traveling from Central America, separated refugee children from their parents, and created new camps on both sides of the border. The pandemic enabled Trump to effectively end immigration altogether.

But all this has come at a cost to Trumps political prospects: His relentless, venomous base strategy has created a bloc of Republican refugees who have nothing but contempt for his armed Tea Party, anti-stay-at-home protesters.

The proportion of Republicans who call themselves moderates has dropped from 23 percent in 2018 to only 16 percent now. When the McCain conservatives are added to those moderates, they now constitute 35 percent of the party, down from 41 percent two years ago. That leaves President Trump with a secure hold over his enthusiastic basebut as I wrote in March in The Atlantic, the Republican Party is a diminished party that is shedding voters.

When Trump took office, about 39 to 40 percent of Americans identified with the Republican Party. That fell to about 35 to 36 percent. Today, in the wake of the George Floyd protests, Republican identification has fallen to 33 percent.

The final push that has driven onetime Republicans from the partys ranks came after the pandemic struck with godly force. In a moment of nearly dark humor, Trump was required to lead a historic expansion of the federal government, and set the template for peoples every movement and every stage of the economic closures and reopenings. He appeared every day in a press conference, surrounded by unwanted experts from the deep state.

So, it was no surprise that he threw out the CDCs proposed detailed regulations to reopen the economy.

It was no surprise he promised to never return to stay-at-home orders, even as America faces a second wave of COVID-19.

It was no surprise he ordered all governors to reopen churches as essential services.

It was no surprise he used this moment to bar all immigration.

It was no surprise he tweeted in support of anti-stay-at-home protesters.

And it was no surprise he tweeted it was MAGA NIGHT AT THE WHITE HOUSE.

But these are very different times. Only 15 percent of Americans and a third of Republicans like the state-at-home demonstrators. Over 60 percent want their governors to modulate how they open their states. A stunning 65 percent support the Black Lives Matter protesters.

President Trump is trapped by a pandemic and protests that only magnify his insecurity and weak hold on his own partyand by his need to provoke a Tea Party to make its last stand.

Read more from the original source:
The Tea Partys Last Stand - The American Prospect