Ying Ma's Blog, page 11
January 15, 2019
What Trump Said About Making Mexico Pay for the Wall
Fox News, January 15, 2019
Trump-haters are again foaming at the mouth over comments made by the president regarding the border wall he has promised to build. Once again, they are wrong about their criticism of the president.
President Trump noted last week that his campaign promise to build a wall and have Mexico pay for it “obviously” did not mean getting a check from the Mexican government directly. Rather, he said, Mexico will be paying for the wall indirectly, “many, many times over” via the trade agreement his administration recently renegotiated with Canada and Mexico to replace NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement).
[image error]
The anti-Trump media wasted no time accusing the president of lying. CNN, featuring all-out indignation from its anchors, promptly replayed video footage from Trump campaign rallies showing Trump and his raucous crowds chanting that Mexico will pay for the wall.
The Washington Post has chimed in as well and declared in a headline: “Trump falsely asserts he never promised Mexico would directly pay for the border wall.”
Meanwhile, Politifact screamed out its own verdict: “Trump says he didn’t say Mexico would write US a check for border wall. But he did.”
The media have pointed to two policy documents issued by the Trump campaign as “proof” that the president is lying. But in reality, both documents show that the current controversy is an example of where ignorance and sloppiness meet anti-Trump political bias.
The first document, issued in August 2015, was a wide-ranging call for immigration reform. In it, the Trump campaign outlined possible ways through which a Trump administration would get Mexico to pay for the wall.
Specifically, the campaign document said the following: “Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico (Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options). We will not be taken advantage of anymore.”
In other words, even in the early days of the GOP primaries, the Trump campaign understood that getting Mexico pay for a border wall was going to require multiple forms of pressure, including the type of trade pressure the president recently highlighted.
Trump-haters also found a second campaign policy paper, titled “Compelling Mexico to Pay for the Wall.” Issued in April 2016, the memo again focused on remittance payments to Mexico, and threatened the following action on the first three days of a Trump presidency: the United States would impound the $24 billion that flow to Mexico annually from Mexican nationals unless Mexico contributed $5 billion to $10 billion to wall construction.
Trump bashers eagerly point out that this is proof that the Trump campaign had indeed promised the U.S. would get a check from Mexico. A closer read of the memo shows that the campaign believed there were “several ways to compel Mexico to pay for the wall.”
In addition to the three-day plan, the memo also outlined other options discussed previously in the immigration reform paper, including tariffs, the canceling of visas for Mexican nationals, and increases in visa fees.
Certainly, the president has a habit of speaking imprecisely and not being familiar with the details of his campaign’s or administration’s policy proposals.
Nevertheless, it is disingenuous for his critics to huff and puff over what they perceive as a lie. Campaign policy memos clearly show that – as the president now indicates – using trade negotiations and measures is a key tactic he advocated for pursuing his border wall objective and getting get Mexico to contribute to wall funding indirectly.
One can certainly question whether such the tactics are effective or will even increase the coffers of the federal government for wall construction. But in the end, all the consternation from Trump opponents in the latest manufactured controversy reveals that – once again – they have missed the point.
The campaign’s policy memos, now several years old, still succinctly lay out the crux of Trump’s political argument – and this is what the squabbling, self-congratulating Trump-haters do not get.
Just a few lines from the immigration reform memo shed light on Trump’s promise about the wall: “When politicians talk about ‘immigration reform’ they mean: amnesty, cheap labor and open borders. The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill (from New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer and Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio in 2013) was nothing more than a giveaway to the corporate patrons who run both parties. Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors.”
The second memo is similarly revealing. It says: “There is no doubt that Mexico is engaging in unfair subsidy behavior that has eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs, and which we are obligated to respond to.”
One could disagree with the substance, but those pretending to be honest and objective observers of President Trump should at least try to understand why “build the wall” and “Mexico will pay for it” became a rallying cry during the last presidential campaign.
The chant reflected voters’ frustration that Mexico was engaging in unfair practices, whether in trade or immigration, while politicians in Washington on both the left and the right did nothing about this.
Candidate Trump promised to change this. If Trump-haters paid attention to this core idea, they might understand why Trump supporters care far more about whether the president builds the wall and strengthen border security than they care about whether Mexico pays for the wall directly or indirectly.
Image: The fence between the USA and Mexico along the Pacific Ocean just south of San Diego. Photo by Tony Webster; CC by 2.0.
November 2, 2018
Stop Using Diversity to Justify Racism at Harvard
The National Interest, November 2, 2018
Modern America likes to hail diversity in higher education as a virtue. So much so that the admissions offices of elite universities habitually invoke it to justify treating different applicants differently on the basis of race.
Rather than accepting the value of diversity on faith, Americans should ask what exactly is so great about diversity that it can be trotted out to defend actions that are normally legally suspect and morally indefensible.
To read the entire article, please click HERE.
October 15, 2018
Harvard’s racism cannot stand — Elite universities have protected the diversity sham for too long
Fox News, October 15, 2018
The racism of one of America’s most elite institutions, Harvard University, is on trial. Oral arguments begin on Monday for Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University, a case in which Harvard is accused of systematically discriminating against Asian-American applicants in college admissions.
For far too long, elite institutions like Harvard have justified complicated schemes of racial discrimination by invoking the concept of diversity.
In particular, Asian-Americans have borne the cost.
To read the entire article, please click HERE.
October 10, 2018
Ying Ma Discusses Racial Preferences and Harvard’s Anti-Asian Discrimination
United Chinese Americans Convention 2018, September 28, 2018
Ying Ma appeared at the United Chinese Americans 2018 annual convention to discuss racial preferences and Harvard’s anti-Asian discrimination in university admissions.
Correction: One of the slides in Ying’s presentation was unclear about the chances of admission to Harvard for different races. According to research modeling by the plaintiffs currently suing Harvard University for racial discrimination against Asian Americans, an Asian-American applicant with a 25 percent chance of admission would have a 35 percent chance if he were white, a 75 percent chance if he were Hispanic, and a 95 percent chance if he were African American.
More information about this issue is available here.
Additionally, Ying mistakenly said that her former boss, Ward Connerly, from the California Civil Rights Initiative (Proposition 209) was part Asian. Ward is white, black, and Native American, but Asian does not appear to be part of the mix.
Apologies for any confusion.
To view the lively discussion about affirmative action in higher education, please click HERE or player below. (Ying’s presentation beings at 34:18.)
September 26, 2018
Not all Asians, or even Chinese Americans, are the same
Washington Examiner, September 25, 2018
Sometimes, Hollywood unwittingly reveals important but little-noticed political chasms.
This summer, “Crazy Rich Asians” did precisely that. A rare Hollywood production with an all-Asian cast and attractive Asian-Americans in leading roles, this blockbuster hit earned rave reviews and was broadly hailed as historic.
But there was a small Hollywood pretense, a little white lie that went largely unnoticed.
The pretense, however, is a reminder that the success of this movie in America has been fueled in part by identity politics. “Asian-American” in many ways is a made-up political construct, and inevitably, a movie touted to serve that construct is built on flimsy foundations.
To read the entire article, please click HERE.
August 31, 2018
‘Never Trumpers’ eat crow as Trump’s Justice Department opposes Harvard’s racist admission policies
Washington Examiner, August 31, 2018
On Thursday, Never-Trumpers were shown to be wrong again.
The Trump Justice Department sided with Asian students and parents suing Harvard University. The lawsuit, brought by the nonprofit group Students for Fair Admissions, alleges that Harvard has systematically discriminated against Asian-American applicants in college admissions.
The department filed a “Statement of Interest” with the court presiding over the case, supporting the plaintiffs’ claims and arguing against Harvard’s motion to dismiss the case without a hearing.
“Bravo” is what conservatives should say. Of course, the Hillary Clinton administration, for which many Never-Trumpers were pining, would have never taken such action.
To read entire column, please click HERE.
August 7, 2018
The new face of racism is an Asian woman blinded by identity politics
Washington Examiner, August 7, 2018
The new face of racism is now an Asian-American woman. To be specific, it’s Sarah Jeong, the newest hire of the New York Times editorial board. Who would have thought?
For decades, Asian Americans have been a mere afterthought in the Left’s paradigm of political correctness and identity politics. Now all of a sudden, one of them has not only sparked nationwide outrage over her despicable personal opinions, she has also cast a spotlight on the Left’s absurd core teachings about race and identity.
To read the entire article, please click HERE.
August 6, 2018
Ying Ma Talks to CNN About Race, Identity Politics, and the Racist Tweets of the NYT Editorial Board’s Newest Hire
CNN, August 3, 2018
Ying Ma joined CNN Tonight with Don Lemon last Friday to discuss racism, identity politics, and the numerous anti-white tweets sent out by the New York Times editorial board’s newest hire, Sarah Jeong.
Watch the spirited conversation HERE. (Ying’s segment begins at 29:43 and lasts for approximately 15 minutes.)
July 23, 2018
Racism committed in the name of diversity
, July 23, 2018
Modern racists like to justify their racism by invoking “diversity,” but their schemes are as sordid and complicated as their rationales are sanctimonious and phony.
In higher education, Asian-Americans often bear the brunt of the racial discrimination committed in the name of diversity. A lawsuit filed by Students for Fair Admissions, a nonprofit group, against Harvard University recently revealed just how egregious the offense is.
Yet even when diversity practices are meant to benefit Asian-Americans, they are problematic and undesirable just the same. These practices take many forms across America’s corporate entities and elite institutions, but tokenism and absurdity are the common byproducts.
To read the rest of the article, please click .
July 13, 2018
The real racists in the Trump era, Harvard discriminates against Asian-Americans
Washington Examiner, July 13, 2018
In modern America, certain elites believe that engaging in racial discrimination is not only acceptable, but desirable. Such racism comes not from President Trump, who is daily lambasted as a racist by his critics. Rather, it is practiced systematically by one of the most prestigious institutions in the country: Harvard University.
Let us begin with anecdotal evidence.
Richard Jenkins, an 18-year-old from Philadelphia, made national news recently when he was accepted into Harvard. As a child, he battled poverty, health problems, and homelessness. He decided to focus on his studies and believed school to be his path to a better life. When it came time for college, Harvard sent him an email encouraging him to apply for admissions. He did, and was accepted on a full scholarship.
I grew up in inner-city Oakland, California. I arrived at age 10 from Communist China without speaking more than a few words of English. Battling poverty, racism, and crime was a daily routine throughout my childhood and adolescence in America.
I graduated from high school with a 4.1 GPA and solid SAT scores. Harvard did not try to recruit me. No Ivy League university contacted me except for Cornell, which sent me a giant brochure without much of an explanation.
I am Asian. Jenkins is black.
(To read the rest of the column, please click HERE.)
