web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "Trump, Donald J" (Page 52)

U.S. Companies Working With Huawei Get More Time to Stop

Westlake Legal Group 19dc-HUAWEI-facebookJumbo U.S. Companies Working With Huawei Get More Time to Stop Trump, Donald J Ross, Wilbur L Jr International Trade and World Market Huawei Technologies Co Ltd Commerce Department Blacklisting 5G (Wireless Communications)

WASHINGTON — The United States will allow American companies to continue doing business with Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications giant, for an additional 90 days, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said Monday.

The government’s reprieve is intended to give rural telecommunications companies in the United States more time to wean themselves off Huawei, which supplies many of those providers with parts and equipment. Rural telecom firms in the United States have been scrambling to figure out how they will replace Huawei equipment since the Trump administration effectively banned the company from United States communications networks in May and have been lobbying the White House for more time.

“As we continue to urge consumers to transition away from Huawei’s products, we recognize that more time is necessary to prevent any disruption,” Mr. Ross said in a statement.

Huawei has been thrust into the middle of President Trump’s trade fight with China and the president has given mixed signals about the telecom giant’s fate. After trade talks broke down in May, Mr. Trump’s Commerce Department added the company to a United States “entity list” that effectively banned the firm from buying American technology and other products without government approval.

Mr. Trump has also called the company a national security threat. The United States has concerns that Huawei could pose a national security threat by being used to help the Chinese government’s espionage efforts and to disrupt American telecommunications infrastructure in the event of a conflict.

But after adding Huawei to the entity list in May, Commerce promptly offered a reprieve for American firms doing business with the company until Aug. 19. Mr. Trump had hinted that he could yield further on Huawei in exchange for China purchasing more American farm products, but no such agreement has emerged.

Speaking to reporters on Sunday, Mr. Trump suggested that there might not be another extension.

“Huawei is a company we may not do business with at all,” he said.

The temporary relief for Huawei comes as trade negotiations between the United States and China remain at an impasse.

Mr. Trump agreed last week to delay some additional tariffs on toys and electronics until December but the United States is still expected to slap levies on more Chinese imports on Sept. 1, Earlier this month it labeled China a currency manipulator for the first time since 1994. China is expected to unveil plans to retaliate.

Despite escalating tension, Mr. Trump said that he and President Xi Jinping of China were planning to speak and that the two countries would continue to have trade talks.

Republicans and Democrats in Congress have been urging Mr. Trump to keep his hard line on Huawei. Lifting the ban outright would likely be met with strong bipartisan disapproval.

Speaking on the Fox Business Network on Monday, Mr. Ross said that the administration would offer another extension through mid-November.

In a sign that the administration is not easing pressure on Huawei, the Commerce Department said that it was also adding 46 affiliates of Huawei to the entity list.

The Trump administration has warned that Huawei poses a national security threat and American officials have been warning allies for months that the United States would stop sharing intelligence if they use Huawei and other Chinese technology to build the core of their fifth-generation, or 5G, networks.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

U.S. Companies Get More Time to Stop Working With Huawei

Westlake Legal Group 19dc-HUAWEI-facebookJumbo U.S. Companies Get More Time to Stop Working With Huawei Trump, Donald J Ross, Wilbur L Jr International Trade and World Market Huawei Technologies Co Ltd Commerce Department Blacklisting 5G (Wireless Communications)

WASHINGTON — The United States will allow American companies to continue doing business with Huawei, the Chinese telecommunications giant, for an additional 90 days, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said Monday.

The government’s reprieve is intended to give rural telecommunications companies in the United States more time to wean themselves off Huawei, which supplies many of those providers with parts and equipment. Rural telecom firms in the United States have been scrambling to figure out how they will replace Huawei equipment since the Trump administration effectively banned the company from United States communications networks in May and have been lobbying the White House for more time.

“As we continue to urge consumers to transition away from Huawei’s products, we recognize that more time is necessary to prevent any disruption,” Mr. Ross said in a statement.

Huawei has been thrust into the middle of President Trump’s trade fight with China and the president has given mixed signals about the telecom giant’s fate. After trade talks broke down in May, Mr. Trump’s Commerce Department added the company to a United States “entity list” that effectively banned the firm from buying American technology and other products without government approval.

Mr. Trump has also called the company a national security threat . The United States has concerns that Huawei could pose a national security threat by being used to help the Chinese government’s espionage efforts and to disrupt American telecommunications infrastructure in the event of a conflict.

But after adding Huawei to the entity list in May, Commerce promptly offered a reprieve for American firms doing business with the company until Aug. 19. Mr. Trump had hinted that he could yield further on Huawei in exchange for China purchasing more American farm products, but no such agreement has emerged.

Speaking to reporters on Sunday, Mr. Trump suggested that there might not be another extension.

“Huawei is a company we may not do business with at all,” he said.

The temporary relief for Huawei comes as trade negotiations between the United States and China remain at an impasse.

Mr. Trump agreed last week to delay some additional tariffs on toys and electronics until December but the United States is still expected to slap levies on more Chinese imports on Sept. 1, Earlier this month it labeled China a currency manipulator for the first time since 1994. China is expected to unveil plans to retaliate.

Despite escalating tension, Mr. Trump said that he and President Xi Jinping of China were planning to speak and that the two countries would continue to have trade talks.

Republicans and Democrats in Congress have been urging Mr. Trump to keep his hard line on Huawei. Lifting the ban outright would likely be met with strong bipartisan disapproval.

Speaking on the Fox Business Network on Monday, Mr. Ross said that the administration would offer another extension through mid-November.

In a sign that the administration is not easing pressure on Huawei, the Commerce Department said that it was also adding 46 affiliates of Huawei to the entity list.

The Trump administration has warned that Huawei poses a national security threat and American officials have been warning allies for months that the United States would stop sharing intelligence if they use Huawei and other Chinese technology to build the core of their fifth-generation, or 5G, networks.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

In Economic Warning Signals, Trump Sees Signs of a Conspiracy

Westlake Legal Group 18dc-memo-facebookJumbo In Economic Warning Signals, Trump Sees Signs of a Conspiracy United States Politics and Government United States Economy Unemployment Trump, Donald J Treasury Department Recession and Depression Presidential Election of 2020 Powell, Jerome H News and News Media Navarro, Peter Kudlow, Lawrence A International Trade and World Market Federal Reserve System China

President Trump, confronting perhaps the most ominous economic signs of his time in office, has unleashed what is by now a familiar response: lashing out at what he believes is a conspiracy of forces arrayed against him.

He has insisted that his own handpicked Federal Reserve chair, Jerome H. Powell, is intentionally acting against him. He has said other countries, including allies, are working to hurt American economic interests. And he has accused the news media of trying to create a recession.

“The Fake News Media is doing everything they can to crash the economy because they think that will be bad for me and my re-election,” Mr. Trump tweeted last week. “The problem they have is that the economy is way too strong and we will soon be winning big on Trade, and everyone knows that, including China!”

Mr. Trump has repeated the claims in private discussions with aides and allies, insisting that his critics are trying to take away what he sees as his calling card for re-election. Mr. Trump has been agitated in discussions of the economy, and by the news media’s reporting of warnings of a possible recession. He has said forces that do not want him to win have been overstating the damage his trade war has caused, according to people who have spoken with him. And several aides agree with him that the news media is overplaying the economic fears, adding to his feeling of being justified, people close to the president said.

The claims provide a ready target to help Mr. Trump deflect blame if the economy does tip into recession. But whether they could truly insulate the president on what could be a significant issue of the 2020 election after he has so conspicuously wrapped himself in the good economic news of the past two years remains an open question, and he and his advisers have sought to tamp down concerns that a downturn is on the way.

“Our economy is the best in the world, by far,” Mr. Trump tweeted on Sunday. “Lowest unemployment ever within almost all categories. Poised for big growth after trade deals are completed.”

“I don’t see a recession,” he told reporters later on Sunday before leaving his private golf club in Bedminster, N.J., for Washington. But he added that if the economy slowed down, “it would be because I have to take on China and some other countries,” singling out the European Union as among those treating the United States “very badly.”

The president’s broadsides follow a long pattern of conspiratorial thinking. He has claimed, without evidence, that undocumented immigrants cast millions of ballots, costing him the popular vote in the 2016 election. During the campaign, he predicted that the system might prove to be “rigged” if he did not win. He conjured up a “deep state” conspiracy within the government to thwart his election and, more recently, his agenda. And he has said reporters are trying to harm him with pictures of empty seats at his rallies.

The attacks come as the economy has begun flashing some warning signs, despite unemployment near historic lows and relatively high marks by voters on Mr. Trump’s economic stewardship. Global growth has been slowing. Last week, stock markets plunged as the yield on the 10-year Treasury note briefly fell below that of the two-year Treasury note, an unusual situation known as an inversion of the yield curve that is considered one of the most reliable leading indicators of recession in the United States.

And signs of damage from Mr. Trump’s trade war with China have been mounting.

In some conversations, the president has been preoccupied with the trade war, as well as with how to handle the pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong, according to the people who have spoken with him. “I’d love to see it worked out in a humane fashion,” Mr. Trump told reporters on Sunday, referring to potential retaliation against the demonstrators by China. “It does put pressure on the trade deal,” he added.

Mr. Trump also indicated that the Chinese tech giant Huawei, which his administration sees as a national security threat, might not receive an extension of a reprieve that allows American companies to supply it with certain goods despite a ban on such trade.

“Huawei is a company we may not do business with at all,” the president said, casting doubt on reports that the reprieve, which is set to expire on Monday, would be extended.

On Sunday, his advisers battled any notion that the trade war could be harming the economy. Peter Navarro, a top trade adviser who has urged the president on in his trade war, dismissed a study from researchers at Harvard, the University of Chicago, the International Monetary Fund and the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston that showed that the cost of Mr. Trump’s tariffs had “fallen largely on the U.S.,” not on China and other countries, as the administration has asserted.

“There’s no evidence whatsoever that American consumers are bearing any of this,” Mr. Navarro said on CNN’s “State of the Union,” insisting, despite abundant data to the contrary, that “they’re not hurting anybody here.”

While maintaining that any turmoil in the economy is overstated, Mr. Navarro and Larry Kudlow, the White House economic adviser, also said the Federal Reserve had slowed economic growth, mirroring Mr. Trump’s criticisms.

Mr. Kudlow, appearing on “Fox News Sunday,” said that the state of the economy under the Trump administration “is kind of a miracle, because we face severe monetary restraint from the Fed.”

Mr. Navarro, appearing on CBS’s “Face the Nation,” blamed the Fed for raising interest rates “too far, too fast,” adding that “they have cost us a full point” of growth in gross domestic product.

Mr. Trump has also struck an increasingly strident economic tone.

“You have no choice but to vote for me because your 401(k), everything is going to be down the tubes” if Democrats win, he told a crowd at a campaign rally in Manchester, N.H., last week. “Whether you love me or hate me, you’ve got to vote for me.”

The rally was one a few departures from a relatively low-profile period during a nearly two-week trip to his club in Bedminster, where he typically spends part of August. He also took official trips to El Paso, Tex., and Dayton, Ohio, after the gun massacres there, and he went to Pennsylvania ostensibly to talk about energy sources, but instead delivered remarks indistinguishable from those at one of his rallies.

But the dyspeptic diatribes came in spurts, and the president whipsawed between frustration and freewheeling meetings and golf outings, including one on Saturday with the president of the P.G.A. and the chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, according to two people familiar with his playing partners. Still, Mr. Trump was frustrated by the news media’s coverage of his rally in New Hampshire. He repeatedly complained about misleading pictures of empty seats, or that attendance at the arena had beat Elton John’s record crowd there, but no one was covering it.

Long-serving aides say that Mr. Trump understands that presidents face harder re-election battles in a bad economy, and he has made the issue central to his presidency.

But even as he returns to Washington facing new pressures, Mr. Trump did not seem to anticipate a quick resolution to the trade war. “The tariffs have cost nothing, in my opinion, or certainly very little,” in terms of pain to American consumers and businesses, Mr. Trump insisted, adding that “China is eating the tariffs.”

“China would like to make a deal,” he said. “I’m not ready.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

How Stephen Miller Seized the Moment to Battle Immigration

WASHINGTON — When historians try to explain how opponents of immigration captured the Republican Party, they may turn to the spring of 2007, when President George W. Bush threw his waning powers behind a legalization plan and conservative populists buried it in scorn.

Mr. Bush was so taken aback, he said he worried about America “losing its soul,” and immigration politics have never been the same.

That spring was significant for another reason, too: An intense young man with wary, hooded eyes and fiercely anti-immigrant views graduated from college and began a meteoric rise as a Republican operative. With the timing of a screenplay, the man and the moment converged.

Stephen Miller was 22 and looking for work in Washington. He lacked government experience but had media appearances on talk radio and Fox News and a history of pushing causes like “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week.” A first-term congresswoman from Minnesota offered him a job interview and discovered they were reading the same book: a polemic warning that Muslim immigration could mean “the end of the world as we know it.”

By the end of the interview, Representative Michele Bachmann had a new press secretary. And a dozen years later, Mr. Miller, now a senior adviser to President Trump, is presiding over one of the most fervent attacks on immigration in American history.

The story of Mr. Miller’s rise has been told with a focus on his pugnacity and paradoxes. Known more for his enemies than his friends, he is a conservative firebrand from liberal Santa Monica, Calif., and a descendant of refugees who is seeking to eliminate refugee programs. He is a Duke graduate in bespoke suits who rails against the perfidy of so-called elites. Among those who have questioned his moral fitness are his uncle, his childhood rabbi and 3,400 fellow Duke alumni.

Less attention has been paid to the forces that have abetted his rise and eroded Republican support for immigration — forces Mr. Miller has personified and advanced in a career unusually reflective of its times.

Rising fears of terrorism after the Sept. 11 attacks brought new calls to keep immigrants out. Declining need for industrial labor left fewer businesses clamoring to bring them in. A surge of migrants across the South stoked a backlash in the party’s geographic base.

Conservative media, once divided, turned against immigration, and immigration-reduction groups that had operated on the margins grew in numbers and sophistication. Abandoning calls for minority outreach, the Republican Party chose instead to energize its conservative white base — heeding strategists who said the immigrant vote was not just a lost cause but an existential threat.

Arriving in Washington as these forces coalesced, Mr. Miller rode the tailwinds with zeal and skill. Warning of terrorism and disturbed by multicultural change, he became the protégé of a Southern senator especially hostile to immigration, Jeff Sessions of Alabama. And he courted allies in the conservative media and immigration-restriction groups.

Mr. Miller, who declined to comment for this article, affects the air of a lone wolf — guarded, strident, purposefully provocative. But he has been shaped by the movement whose ideas and lieutenants he helped install across the government as he consolidated a kind of power unusual for a presidential aide and unique in the Trump White House.

“I don’t agree with his policy on reducing legal immigration, but I’m in awe of how he’s been able to impact this one issue,” said Cesar Conda, who battled Mr. Miller on Capitol Hill as an aide to Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. “He’s got speech writing, he’s got policy, he’s got his own little congressional-relations operation, he’s got allies whom he’s helped place across the government.”

“Years ago, the restrictionist movement was a ragtag group” with no strong ties to either party, he added. Mr. Miller “embodies their rise into the G.O.P. mainstream.”

The story that has defined Mr. Miller’s life began two decades before his birth, when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed a 1965 law ending quotas that chose immigrants based on their national origin and heavily favored white people from Northern Europe. Although Mr. Johnson called the new law a largely symbolic measure that would neither increase immigrants’ numbers nor alter their ethnic mix, it did both on a vast scale — raising the foreign-born share of the population to near-record highs and setting the United States on course for non-Hispanic whites to become a minority of the population.

ImageWestlake Legal Group 00miller-johnson-articleLarge How Stephen Miller Seized the Moment to Battle Immigration United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Race and Ethnicity Miller, Stephen (1985- ) Immigration and Emigration Illegal Immigration discrimination Conservatism (US Politics)

President Lyndon B. Johnson said the immigration bill he signed in 1965 would be a largely symbolic measure. Instead, it sent the foreign-born share of the population soaring.CreditBettmann/CORBIS, via Getty Images

Opposition initially came from the left, especially from environmentalists worried about population growth.

The first major immigration-control group, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, was founded in 1979 by Dr. John Tanton, a Michigan ophthalmologist and Sierra Club member, with funding from Cordelia Scaife May, an heiress to the Mellon banking fortune. Mindful of the bigotry in earlier anti-immigration movements, Dr. Tanton vowed to keep it “centrist/liberal in political orientation.”

[Newly unearthed personal writings by Cordelia Scaife May reveal why she dedicated her fortune to the cause.]

But his arguments about environmental harm and wage competition found little traction in a Democratic Party eager to court minorities. By the mid-1980s, Dr. Tanton was making the racial arguments he had pledged to avoid, decrying the “Latin onslaught” and insisting on the need for “a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.”

How Immigrants’ Share of the Population Has Changed

Since the late 1960s, a surge of immigrants from Latin America and Asia has altered America’s ethnic mix and has driven the foreign-born share of the population close to a record high.

Westlake Legal Group byregion-720 How Stephen Miller Seized the Moment to Battle Immigration United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Race and Ethnicity Miller, Stephen (1985- ) Immigration and Emigration Illegal Immigration discrimination Conservatism (US Politics)

Foreign-born share of the population by region of origin

In 1921, Congress imposed national-origin

quotas, which it toughened three years later.

13.6% total

foreign-born

in 2017

President Lyndon B.

Johnson ended quotas

based on national

origin in 1965.

7.0% Latin America

1.5% Europe

0.9% Other

Westlake Legal Group byregion-460 How Stephen Miller Seized the Moment to Battle Immigration United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Race and Ethnicity Miller, Stephen (1985- ) Immigration and Emigration Illegal Immigration discrimination Conservatism (US Politics)

Foreign-born share of the population by region of origin

In 1921, Congress imposed national-origin

quotas, which it toughened three years later.

13.6% total

foreign-born

in 2017

President Lyndon B.

Johnson ended quotas

based on national

origin in 1965.

7.0% Latin America

1.5% Europe

0.9% Other

Westlake Legal Group byregion-300 How Stephen Miller Seized the Moment to Battle Immigration United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Race and Ethnicity Miller, Stephen (1985- ) Immigration and Emigration Illegal Immigration discrimination Conservatism (US Politics)

Foreign-born share of the population by region of origin

In 1921, Congress imposed national-origin

quotas,which it toughened three years later.

13.6% total

foreign-born

in 2017

President Lyndon B.

Johnson ended quotas

based on national

origin in 1965.

7.0% Latin America

1.5% Europe

0.9% Other

Sources: U.S. Census; American Community Survey 2012-17

By Juliette Love

At the time, the Republican Party was divided on immigration. While cultural conservatives were wary of rapid demographic change, businesses wanted cheap labor and Cold Warriors embraced anti-Communist refugees, including large waves of Cubans and Vietnamese. Running for president, a conservative as definitional as Ronald Reagan hailed “millions of immigrants from every corner of the earth” as a sign that God had made America a “city on a hill.”

But by the 1990s, the Cold War had ended, and globalization was sending manufacturing abroad. The business wing of the Republican Party, its main pro-immigrant faction, had less need for foreign workers. “It’s not that the business lobby became anti-immigration; it’s just that they cared a lot less,” said Margaret Peters, a political scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Where Immigrants’ Population Share Has Grown the Most

Green areas had an increase in their share of foreign-born, with darker shading signifying a larger uptick. Purple areas had a decrease.

Westlake Legal Group map-720 How Stephen Miller Seized the Moment to Battle Immigration United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Race and Ethnicity Miller, Stephen (1985- ) Immigration and Emigration Illegal Immigration discrimination Conservatism (US Politics)

Percentage change in the foreign-born share of the population by county, 1990-2017

Westlake Legal Group map-460 How Stephen Miller Seized the Moment to Battle Immigration United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Race and Ethnicity Miller, Stephen (1985- ) Immigration and Emigration Illegal Immigration discrimination Conservatism (US Politics)

Percentage change in the foreign-born share of the population by county, 1990-2017

Westlake Legal Group map-300 How Stephen Miller Seized the Moment to Battle Immigration United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Race and Ethnicity Miller, Stephen (1985- ) Immigration and Emigration Illegal Immigration discrimination Conservatism (US Politics)

Percentage change in the foreign-born share

of the population by county, 1990-2017

Sources: U.S. Census; American Community Survey 2012-17

By Juliette Love

Not least among the forces shaping the debate was immigration itself: It accelerated and spread to the South, with the number of unauthorized immigrants growing especially fast.

In 1986, President Reagan signed a compromise law that gave legal status to nearly three million people while adding new penalties to curb flows of illegal immigrants. But enforcement proved weak, and the unauthorized population reached a record 12 million. Restrictionists, feeling betrayed, swore never to allow another “amnesty.”

President Ronald Reagan signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986, which gave nearly three million people legal status.CreditBettmann, via Getty Images

After a Republican backlash in the 1990s led more immigrants to vote for Democrats, Mr. Bush ran in 2000 as a pro-immigrant conservative. He saw Latinos as proto-Republican — religious, entrepreneurial, family-oriented — and was considering a legalization plan when the Sept. 11 attacks consumed his administration.

By the time he returned to the issue in 2007, his party’s skepticism toward legalization had hardened into implacable opposition. Amplified by talk radio, populist critics denounced his plan as “shamnesty”; one called it an effort to make America a “roach motel.” Three-quarters of Republican senators opposed it.

Just a year before, a rising Republican star had urged fellow conservatives not to abandon the party’s Reaganite support for immigration.

“We are either going to prove that we believe in the ideas enshrined on the Statue of Liberty, or the American people will go looking elsewhere,” said a congressman from Indiana, Mike Pence.

But the party’s shift proved decisive. Now, as vice president, Mr. Pence loyally defends the policies set by the president and Mr. Miller.

The forces that pushed the Republican Party to the right also shaped Mr. Miller.

Born in 1985, he grew up in a post-Cold War world where the acceptance of refugees was no longer seen as part of America’s resistance to a hostile foreign power. Rapid ethnic change was shaping his world.

The son of an affluent real estate investor, he entered high school in a self-consciously multicultural Santa Monica in 1999, just as California became a majority-minority state. At the start of his junior year, the attacks on Sept. 11 took nearly 3,000 lives.

The terrorist plot was central to his political awakening. Complaining that school officials were insufficiently patriotic, Mr. Miller won an uphill fight to make them enforce regulations requiring the Pledge of Allegiance. “Osama bin Laden would feel very welcome at Santa Monica High School,” he wrote in 2002 in a local publication.

Tellingly, he took his case to talk radio, as a frequent guest on “The Larry Elder Show.” It was a pattern Mr. Miller would repeat in subsequent years: airing hyperbolic claims of liberal treachery to conservative media allies. “He loved being the provocative conservative behind liberal lines,” said Ari Rosmarin, who was editor of the school newspaper and now works on criminal justice issues at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Mr. Miller’s main issue was assimilation, or what he saw as its failures. Writing in a local paper, he complained that “a number of students lacked basic English skills,” and his yearbook page quoted Theodore Roosevelt: “There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism.” The school paper ran a parody of him railing against ethnic food and demanding white bread and “fine Virginia hams, just as the founding fathers used to enjoy on their bountiful plantations.”

Classmates were often unsure whether his provocative views were sincere or a bid for attention. “Am I the only one who is sick and tired of being told to pick up my trash when we have janitors who are paid to do it for us?” he said in a speech for student government. A video shows him flashing a self-satisfied smile as classmates jeer.

His uncle, Dr. David S. Glosser, a vocal critic, dismissed the antics as “just an early adolescent desire to be noticed.”

“This talk of his philosophy seems disingenuous to me,” he said in an interview. “It’s very seductive. All the sudden, you become the darling of media big shots and you get notoriety for it at home.”

A Santa Monica High School yearbook. Mr. Miller’s classmates were often unsure whether his provocative views were sincere or a bid for attention.

Some of Mr. Miller’s Latino classmates say his comments made them feel personally attacked. In an interview, Jason Islas said Mr. Miller told him he was ending their friendship for reasons that included “my Latino heritage.” He added, “I think he is a racist.”

But with prominent allies like David Horowitz, a conservative author and organizer, Mr. Miller headed to Duke in 2003 with the beginnings of a national reputation.

The defining issue of Mr. Miller’s college career was the arrest, when he was a junior, of three white lacrosse players accused of raping a black stripper. Mr. Miller leaped to the players’ defense, charging that administrators and faculty members saw them as emblems of white privilege and simply assumed they were guilty — a case he made on the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor,” then the most-watched cable news program. He demanded that the school president be fired and the prosecutor jailed.

The case collapsed. North Carolina’s attorney general declared the players innocent, the prosecutor was disbarred for misconduct and the accuser was later convicted of murdering her boyfriend. For Mr. Miller, it was a two-part vindication — reinforcing his conviction that liberal dogma about racial oppression was wrong and that his scorched-earth tactics were effective.

In his last column for the Duke Chronicle before graduating, he called himself “a deeply committed conservative who considers it his responsibility to do battle with the left.” Then he headed for Washington.

Most of Mr. Miller’s work for Mrs. Bachmann was unrelated to immigration. He wrote news releases about gas prices and fire department grants. But in February 2008, soon after he began the job, an undocumented immigrant in rural Minnesota, Olga Franco, drove through a stop sign and killed four children. Mrs. Bachmann appeared on “The O’Reilly Factor,” where she framed the issue as “anarchy versus the rule of law.”

Although Ms. Franco was convicted of vehicular homicide, the National Academy of Sciences, a group founded to convey academic consensus, has written that immigrants are “much less likely than natives to commit crimes,” and recent evidence suggests that the undocumented are no exception.

But immigrant crime would be a running theme in Mr. Miller’s career, and his emphasis on the issue borrowed from the broader restrictionist movement. To erode public support for immigration, FAIR maintains an online archive of “serious crimes by illegal aliens.”

Mr. Miller was working for Representative Michele Bachmann in 2008 when, in a campaign debate, she said immigrants were “bringing in diseases, bringing in drugs, bringing in violence.”CreditDave Schwarz/The St. Cloud Times, via Associated Press

In a 2008 congressional campaign debate, Mrs. Bachmann’s opponent accused her of exploiting the tragedy, but she argued that unauthorized immigrants were “bringing in diseases, bringing in drugs, bringing in violence” — language nearly identical to what Mr. Trump would later employ with Mr. Miller as his aide — and she mustered a slender win.

Soon after that election, Mr. Miller went to work for Representative John Shadegg of Arizona, and then quickly crossed the Capitol to work for Mr. Sessions. Perhaps the leading immigration foe in the Senate, Mr. Sessions was a product of a region where immigration had soared, largely in places unaccustomed to it. In two decades, the number of immigrants had grown fourfold in Alabama, Kentucky and South Carolina; fivefold in Arkansas, Georgia and Tennessee; and sixfold in North Carolina.

Mr. Miller had opposed immigration mostly on cultural grounds, warning that newcomers were failing to learn English and endangering public safety. But Mr. Sessions emphasized economic concerns and what he called “the real needs of working Americans,” saying foreigners threatened their jobs and wages.

As a defender of the working class, Mr. Miller had uncertain credentials. If his high school gibe about janitors was a joke, he returned to the issue at Duke. He mocked a campaign to have students thank their dorm-cleaning staff, arguing that employment was thanks enough. “The janitors need a job, which we provide,” he wrote.

Striking a self-consciously elitist pose, he ridiculed calls for improved relations with working-class Durham, N.C. (“one of the last spots in America anyone would visit”) and asked for a student smoking lounge with “plenty of mahogany and leather.”

The impact of immigrants on jobs and wages is much debated — they take jobs but make jobs, too. Most economists see greater downward pressure on wages coming from other forces, including the decline of the minimum wage (adjusted for inflation), weak unions, outsourcing and technological change.

The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 2017 that immigration’s overall effect on wages was “very small,” but added that “some studies have found sizable negative short-run impacts for high school dropouts” (who account for about 8 percent of the work force). Even among dropouts, some economists find the effects modest or nonexistent.

One prominent scholar, the Harvard economist George Borjas, consistently finds negative impacts much larger than his peers do. He is the figure Mr. Miller most often cites.

In moving to Mr. Sessions’s Senate suite, Mr. Miller arrived at a crossroads for the restrictionist movement’s people and ideas.

As head of communications, Mr. Miller acquired a deep knowledge of the movement’s players and policy goals. Others in the office would also go on to influential jobs in the Trump administration, not least Mr. Sessions himself, who as attorney general presided over a policy that separated thousands of young immigrant children from parents illegally crossing the border.

Mr. Miller’s minor moment of Capitol Hill renown stems from his efforts to defeat the so-called Gang of Eight bill, a bipartisan attempt to pair new enforcement measures with legalization for most of the country’s 11 million undocumented immigrants, and to offer them a long path to citizenship.

He opposed the bill with the same zeal that had inspired high school parodies, haranguing reporters into the night and earning a gadfly reputation.

In retrospect, three elements of Mr. Miller’s approach foreshadowed his future exercise of power. One was his rejection of the view that Republicans needed to court minorities. The Gang of Eight bill was born after the 2012 presidential race, in which the defeated Republican, Mitt Romney, lost the Latino vote by 44 points.

Mitt Romney conceding the 2012 presidential race, having lost the Hispanic vote by 44 percentage points.CreditJosh Haner/The New York Times

No less a hard-liner than the Fox News host Sean Hannity called for legalizing most of the country’s undocumented immigrants. “Pathway to citizenship — done,” he said on his radio show. The Republican National Committee urged the party “to empower and support ethnic minorities” and “champion comprehensive immigration reform,” meaning legalization.

Mr. Miller took the opposite view, which the party ultimately followed: Mobilize the white working-class base, among whom turnout had fallen.

While Mr. Bush had seen Latinos as natural Republicans, most restrictionists saw them as an electoral threat. “If four out of five Latinos are registering with the Democrats, perhaps less immigration would be in the interest of the Republican Party, no?” wrote Jon Feere of the Center for Immigration Studies, a spinoff of FAIR. (Mr. Feere later joined the Trump administration as an immigration adviser. )

A second feature of Mr. Miller’s efforts was his symbiotic relationship with conservative media, especially online publications like Breitbart News.

Lacking gatekeepers, the internet was a medium tailor-made for anti-establishment causes. Right-wing populism had long flourished on talk radio, but Breitbart, with few restrictions on space, could cover the issue in greater depth, bringing intense scrutiny to hot-button issues. And social media made articles easy to share.

Breitbart ran three stories making the false charge, circulated by Mr. Sessions’s staff, that the bill offered undocumented immigrants free cellphones.

Mr. Miller and Breitbart worked together closely.

“Sessions: Special Interest, Extremist Groups Wrote Immigration Bill,” claimed one Breitbart headline.

“Sessions: ‘Tide is Beginning to Turn’ Against Immigration Bill,” announced another.

A third element of Mr. Miller’s work involved his alliance with outside groups, especially three that Dr. Tanton helped create and that received millions of dollars from Mrs. May’s foundation. (Over a recent 12-year period alone, the foundation gave the Center for Immigration Studies $17.6 million, FAIR $56.7 million and NumbersUSA $58.2 million.)

Once a lonely cause, restrictionism had grown into a mature movement — an intellectual ecosystem of sorts — with groups specializing in areas as diverse as litigation and voter mobilization.

When Mr. Sessions claimed on a conference call that the Gang of Eight bill threatened jobs, an analyst from the Center for Immigration Studies was on the line to vouch for the data, and Breitbart covered it as news. When the center presented its journalism award, Mr. Miller was the speaker, and his first-name references to the Center’s staff — “all the great work that Mark and Jessica and Steve are doing”— made it clear that he felt among friends.

Despite Mr. Sessions’s opposition, the bill passed in the Democratic Senate in 2013. As it headed to the Republican House, Mr. Miller drafted a 30-page memo that Mr. Sessions shared with the House Republican caucus, urging members to oppose the bill on behalf of “millions of struggling American workers.”

House leaders were mulling how to proceed when, in June 2014, an obscure Virginia professor toppled the majority leader, Eric Cantor, in a Republican primary. Though vastly outspent, the newcomer, Dave Brat, prevailed in large part by attacking Mr. Cantor for being “in cahoots” with Democrats on immigration.

“The world just changed,” Mr. Miller exulted the next day.

Indeed, it had. Among those commenting in Breitbart was the “conservative provocateur” Donald J. Trump, who said the upset showed that the Republican establishment was at risk. “Everybody is now vulnerable,” he said.

Circulating the article, Mr. Miller told friends that he wished Mr. Trump would run for president. When Mr. Trump did — demanding a wall and a ban on Muslims entering the country — Mr. Miller soon signed on.

Mr. Miller rose quickly on the small staff. A prolific writer and combative surrogate, he was the person most knowledgeable about the campaign’s central issue, and he lavished Mr. Trump with praise. (The Trump candidacy, Mr. Miller said, had altered “Western civilization.”) He also served as an ideological chaperone to a candidate given to sudden reversals of signature policies, a role Mr. Miller continues to play in the White House.

Mr. Miller, in the foreground, has consolidated power over a single issue in a way that’s unusual for a presidential aide and unique in the Trump White House.CreditStephen Crowley/The New York Times

Mr. Trump scored a coup by winning the support of some tech workers who, after being laid off by the Walt Disney Company, were forced to train foreign replacements admitted on temporary H-1B visas.

The workers embodied Mr. Trump’s larger argument that immigration hurt American employment. Yet days after appearing with them at a rally, Mr. Trump said in a televised debate that he would drop his plan to restrict the H-1B program.

“I’m changing, I’m changing,” he told the stunned interviewer. “I’m softening the position because we have to have talented people in this country.”

Within hours, Mr. Trump reversed himself again, issuing a statement to assure his followers that he planned to “end forever the use of H-1B as a cheap labor program.”

Despite the president’s public image as an unrelenting immigration foe, some restrictionist leaders view him as soft — a businessman whose desire for labor will lead him to support more immigration. That unreliability, they say, makes Mr. Miller’s presence especially important.

“If he weren’t there, I’m pretty sure it’d be worse,” said Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

Mr. Miller now occupies a large West Wing office and has influence on virtually every element of immigration policy, from the words the president uses to the regulations he promulgates. Mr. Miller is a speechwriter, policy architect, personnel director, legislative aide, spokesman and strategist. At every step, he has pushed for the hardest line.

When Mr. Trump wavered on his pledge to abolish protections for 800,000 so-called Dreamers — people brought illegally to the United States as children — Mr. Miller urged conservative states to threaten lawsuits. Mr. Trump then canceled the protections.

When the president later mulled a deal to restore them, Mr. Miller stacked the negotiations with people who opposed the move, leading Mr. Trump to abandon compromise and rail against immigrants from “shithole countries.”

“As long as Stephen Miller is in charge of negotiating immigration, we are going nowhere,” complained Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who supported a deal.

President Trump at the United States-Mexico border in April with the Homeland Security secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, left, shortly before she was pushed out of the job.CreditAl Drago for The New York Times

The Trump effort to curb immigration has played out amid so much chaos — judicial setbacks, congressional defeats, personnel purges, Twitter wars — that it can be hard to keep a running tally of its impact.

The attempt to revoke Dreamer protections has been blocked in court. An effort to bar travelers from certain predominantly Muslim countries was struck down twice. The promised border wall has not been built. A campaign to deter illegal immigration by separating thousands of children from their mothers was abandoned amid blistering criticism, including some from the right.

Still, Mr. Miller has left a big mark, in ways both obvious and obscure. After two highly publicized failures, he helped craft a travel ban that passed court muster. A fervent critic of refugee programs, he has helped cut annual admissions by about three-quarters since the end of the Obama administration.

Writing in Politico, his uncle, Dr. Glosser, expressed an “increasing horror” at his nephew’s hostility to refugees and noted that their ancestor, Wolf-Leib Glosser, arrived at Ellis Island after fleeing Russian pogroms. Had Mr. Miller’s policies prevailed then, he wrote, the Glossers probably “would have been murdered by the Nazis,” as most in their village were.

With less fanfare, Mr. Miller has guided a series of policy changes that critics liken to building an “invisible wall.” The Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group, counted more than 100 of them, noting that “most have moved forward untouched.”

The Trump administration quadrupled the number of work site investigations. It slowed the processing of temporary H-1B visas. It imposed new performance measures on immigration judges, to encourage faster deportations.

Though Mr. Miller was often the driving force, many of these changes were longstanding goals of the restrictionist movement. “He comes from a community of people who’ve been working on this, some of them, since the ’90s,” said Roy Beck, the president of NumbersUSA.

Beyond the commas and clauses of government rules, Mr. Miller and Mr. Trump are trying to change something deeper: America’s self-conception as a land of immigrants. Mr. Trump is the son of an immigrant. Two of the three women he married are immigrants. Four of his five children have an immigrant parent. Yet his immigration agency rewrote its mission statement to remove the phrase “nation of immigrants.”

Mr. Miller even took to the White House briefing room to offer a revisionist view of the Statue of Liberty. Like many in his movement, he argued it should not be seen as welcoming immigrants because it was originally built for a different purpose (to celebrate political freedom) and that the Emma Lazarus poem hailing the “huddled masses” carries little meaning because it was added later.

Speaking to reporters in 2017, Mr. Miller dismissed the poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty that includes the line, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”CreditDoug Mills The New York Times

The border wars intensified this spring as large numbers of Central American families sought asylum and Mr. Trump, with Mr. Miller urging him on, purged top officials from the Homeland Security Department, including the secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen; he argued they weren’t doing enough to keep them out.

But a quieter bureaucratic story may have revealed as much about Mr. Miller’s priorities and bureaucratic skill.

After long deliberation, the administration last week released a 217-page rule making it easier to deny admission or permanent residency to low-income immigrants deemed likely to receive public benefits. Unlike the border disputes, this so-called public charge rule affects only legal immigrants, since the unauthorized are already barred from most safety-net programs.

Critics say the rule is already causing needy immigrants to forgo health care and nutritional aid. They call it a backdoor way of circumventing Congress and creating a new immigration system that admits fewer people, excludes the “huddled masses,” and favors Europeans over poorer Mexican and Central Americans.

Mr. Miller was so eager to see the rule enacted, he helped push out a one-time ally, L. Francis Cissna, the head of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, for not moving fast enough.

Mr. Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies argued that the rule would have only modest effects on immigrant numbers but praised Mr. Miller for asserting a principle. “The point of immigration policy is to benefit Americans,” he said, not “strain the social safety net.”

While the restrictionist movement had long taken that principle to heart, he said “Stephen understood how to operationalize it.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump’s Pittsburgh Speech Was a Paying Gig for the Audience

Westlake Legal Group merlin_159239505_4e807107-7136-4960-90c1-2c2bcefda2b0-facebookJumbo Trump’s Pittsburgh Speech Was a Paying Gig for the Audience United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Royal Dutch Shell Plc Organized Labor

Thousands of union workers at a multibillion-dollar petrochemical plant being built outside Pittsburgh were given the choice of attending a speech by President Trump on Tuesday or staying away — and losing some of their pay for the week.

“Your attendance is not mandatory,” one of the construction site’s contractors wrote in rules for the speech that were shared with its employees, according to The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, which first reported on the matter. But the rules said that only those who arrived at 7 a.m., had their work IDs scanned and then stood waiting for the president for several hours would get paid for the time.

“NO SCAN, NO PAY,” a supervisor for the contractor wrote, according to the paper.

The president’s appearance at the Royal Dutch Shell facility in Beaver County, where natural gas will be converted into plastic for a wide range of products, was publicized as a speech about energy, but it was hard to distinguish it from a standard campaign rally. Mr. Trump repeatedly targeted rivals and aired his political grievances.

At one point, Mr. Trump said he was going to speak to some of the union leaders representing the assembled workers about supporting his re-election. “And if they don’t,” Mr. Trump told the workers, “vote them the hell out of office, because they’re not doing their job.”

Ray Fisher, a spokesman for Shell, said in an email to The Times that workers who didn’t show up for the speech would still have gotten paid for their workweek, but not as much as those who scanned in and stayed on site all day.

The day “was treated as a training (work) day with a guest speaker who happened to be the president,” Mr. Fisher said in the email.

“We do these several times a year with various speakers,” he said, adding that there was a morning session before the speech that started at 7 a.m. and lasted for three hours. It “included safety training and other work-related activities,” Mr. Fisher said.

“It was understood some would choose not to attend the Presidential visit and were given the option to take paid time off” instead, he wrote. “As with any workweek, if someone chooses to take PTO,” he said, referring to paid time off, “they are not eligible to receive the maximum overtime available.”

According to The Post-Gazette, workers were told that “anything viewed as resistance” to Mr. Trump would not be tolerated at the event, which, the workers were told, was intended to foster “good will” with the building trade unions.

The decision was greeted with acceptance by some union leaders.

“This is just what Shell wanted to do, and we went along with it,” Ken Broadbent, a business manager for Steamfitters Local 449, told The Post-Gazette. He said that workers respected the office of the president, and that people could have chosen not to show up.

A White House spokesman did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

How Stephen Miller Rode an Anti-Immigration Wave to the White House

WASHINGTON — When historians try to explain how opponents of immigration captured the Republican Party, they may turn to the spring of 2007, when President George W. Bush threw his waning powers behind a legalization plan and conservative populists buried it in scorn.

Mr. Bush was so taken aback, he said he worried about America “losing its soul,” and immigration politics have never been the same.

That spring was significant for another reason, too: An intense young man with wary, hooded eyes and fiercely anti-immigrant views graduated from college and began a meteoric rise as a Republican operative. With the timing of a screenplay, the man and the moment converged.

Stephen Miller was 22 and looking for work in Washington. He lacked government experience but had media appearances on talk radio and Fox News and a history of pushing causes like “Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week.” A first-term congresswoman from Minnesota offered him a job interview and discovered they were reading the same book: a polemic warning that Muslim immigration could mean “the end of the world as we know it.”

By the end of the interview, Representative Michele Bachmann had a new press secretary. And a dozen years later, Mr. Miller, now a senior adviser to President Trump, is presiding over one of the most fervent attacks on immigration in American history.

The story of Mr. Miller’s rise has been told with a focus on his pugnacity and paradoxes. Known more for his enemies than his friends, he is a conservative firebrand from liberal Santa Monica, Calif., and a descendant of refugees who is seeking to eliminate refugee programs. He is a Duke graduate in bespoke suits who rails against the perfidy of so-called elites. Among those who have questioned his moral fitness are his uncle, his childhood rabbi and 3,400 fellow Duke alumni.

Less attention has been paid to the forces that have abetted his rise and eroded Republican support for immigration — forces Mr. Miller has personified and advanced in a career unusually reflective of its times.

Rising fears of terrorism after the Sept. 11 attacks brought new calls to keep immigrants out. Declining need for industrial labor left fewer businesses clamoring to bring them in. A surge of migrants across the South stoked a backlash in the party’s geographic base.

Conservative media, once divided, turned against immigration, and immigration-reduction groups that had operated on the margins grew in numbers and sophistication. Abandoning calls for minority outreach, the Republican Party chose instead to energize its conservative white base — heeding strategists who said the immigrant vote was not just a lost cause but an existential threat.

Arriving in Washington as these forces coalesced, Mr. Miller rode the tailwinds with zeal and skill. Warning of terrorism and disturbed by multicultural change, he became the protégé of a Southern senator especially hostile to immigration, Jeff Sessions of Alabama. And he courted allies in the conservative media and immigration-restriction groups.

Mr. Miller, who declined to comment for this article, affects the air of a lone wolf — guarded, strident, purposefully provocative. But he has been shaped by the movement whose ideas and lieutenants he helped install across the government as he consolidated a kind of power unusual for a presidential aide and unique in the Trump White House.

“I don’t agree with his policy on reducing legal immigration, but I’m in awe of how he’s been able to impact this one issue,” said Cesar Conda, who battled Mr. Miller on Capitol Hill as an aide to Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. “He’s got speech writing, he’s got policy, he’s got his own little congressional-relations operation, he’s got allies whom he’s helped place across the government.”

“Years ago, the restrictionist movement was a ragtag group” with no strong ties to either party, he added. Mr. Miller “embodies their rise into the G.O.P. mainstream.”

The story that has defined Mr. Miller’s life began two decades before his birth, when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed a 1965 law ending quotas that chose immigrants based on their national origin and heavily favored white people from Northern Europe. Although Mr. Johnson called the new law a largely symbolic measure that would neither increase immigrants’ numbers nor alter their ethnic mix, it did both on a vast scale — raising the foreign-born share of the population to near-record highs and setting the United States on course for nonwhite Hispanics to become a majority of the population.

ImageWestlake Legal Group 00miller-johnson-articleLarge How Stephen Miller Rode an Anti-Immigration Wave to the White House United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Race and Ethnicity Miller, Stephen (1985- ) Immigration and Emigration Illegal Immigration discrimination Conservatism (US Politics)

President Lyndon B. Johnson said the immigration bill he signed in 1965 would be a largely symbolic measure. Instead, it sent the foreign-born share of the population soaring.CreditBettmann/CORBIS, via Getty Images

Opposition initially came from the left, especially from environmentalists worried about population growth.

The first major immigration-control group, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, or FAIR, was founded in 1979 by Dr. John Tanton, a Michigan ophthalmologist and Sierra Club member, with funding from Cordelia Scaife May, an heiress to the Mellon banking fortune. Mindful of the bigotry in earlier anti-immigration movements, Dr. Tanton vowed to keep it “centrist/liberal in political orientation.”

[Newly unearthed personal writings by Cordelia Scaife May reveal why she dedicated her fortune to the cause.]

But his arguments about environmental harm and wage competition found little traction in a Democratic Party eager to court minorities. By the mid-1980s, Dr. Tanton was making the racial arguments he had pledged to avoid, decrying the “Latin onslaught” and insisting on the need for “a European-American majority, and a clear one at that.”

How Immigrants’ Share of the Population Has Changed

Since the late 1960s, a surge of immigrants from Latin America and Asia has altered America’s ethnic mix and has driven the foreign-born share of the population close to a record high.

Westlake Legal Group byregion-720 How Stephen Miller Rode an Anti-Immigration Wave to the White House United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Race and Ethnicity Miller, Stephen (1985- ) Immigration and Emigration Illegal Immigration discrimination Conservatism (US Politics)

Foreign-born share of the population by region of origin

In 1921, Congress imposed national-origin

quotas, which it toughened three years later.

13.6% total

foreign-born

in 2017

President Lyndon B.

Johnson ended quotas

based on national

origin in 1965.

7.0% Latin America

1.5% Europe

0.9% Other

Westlake Legal Group byregion-460 How Stephen Miller Rode an Anti-Immigration Wave to the White House United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Race and Ethnicity Miller, Stephen (1985- ) Immigration and Emigration Illegal Immigration discrimination Conservatism (US Politics)

Foreign-born share of the population by region of origin

In 1921, Congress imposed national-origin

quotas, which it toughened three years later.

13.6% total

foreign-born

in 2017

President Lyndon B.

Johnson ended quotas

based on national

origin in 1965.

7.0% Latin America

1.5% Europe

0.9% Other

Westlake Legal Group byregion-300 How Stephen Miller Rode an Anti-Immigration Wave to the White House United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Race and Ethnicity Miller, Stephen (1985- ) Immigration and Emigration Illegal Immigration discrimination Conservatism (US Politics)

Foreign-born share of the population by region of origin

In 1921, Congress imposed national-origin

quotas,which it toughened three years later.

13.6% total

foreign-born

in 2017

President Lyndon B.

Johnson ended quotas

based on national

origin in 1965.

7.0% Latin America

1.5% Europe

0.9% Other

Sources: U.S. Census; American Community Survey 2012-17

By Juliette Love

At the time, the Republican Party was divided on immigration. While cultural conservatives were wary of rapid demographic change, businesses wanted cheap labor and Cold Warriors embraced anti-Communist refugees, including large waves of Cubans and Vietnamese. Running for president, a conservative as definitional as Ronald Reagan hailed “millions of immigrants from every corner of the earth” as a sign that God had made America a “city on a hill.”

But by the 1990s, the Cold War had ended, and globalization was sending manufacturing abroad. The business wing of the Republican Party, its main pro-immigrant faction, had less need for foreign workers. “It’s not that the business lobby became anti-immigration; it’s just that they cared a lot less,” said Margaret Peters, a political scientist at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Where Immigrants’ Population Share Has Grown the Most

Green areas had an increase in their share of foreign-born, with darker shading signifying a larger uptick. Purple areas had a decrease.

Westlake Legal Group map-720 How Stephen Miller Rode an Anti-Immigration Wave to the White House United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Race and Ethnicity Miller, Stephen (1985- ) Immigration and Emigration Illegal Immigration discrimination Conservatism (US Politics)

Percentage change in the foreign-born share of the population by county, 1990-2017

Westlake Legal Group map-460 How Stephen Miller Rode an Anti-Immigration Wave to the White House United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Race and Ethnicity Miller, Stephen (1985- ) Immigration and Emigration Illegal Immigration discrimination Conservatism (US Politics)

Percentage change in the foreign-born share of the population by county, 1990-2017

Westlake Legal Group map-300 How Stephen Miller Rode an Anti-Immigration Wave to the White House United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Race and Ethnicity Miller, Stephen (1985- ) Immigration and Emigration Illegal Immigration discrimination Conservatism (US Politics)

Percentage change in the foreign-born share

of the population by county, 1990-2017

Sources: U.S. Census; American Community Survey 2012-17

By Juliette Love

Not least among the forces shaping the debate was immigration itself: It accelerated and spread to the South, with the number of unauthorized immigrants growing especially fast.

In 1986, President Reagan signed a compromise law that gave legal status to nearly three million people while adding new penalties to curb flows of illegal immigrants. But enforcement proved weak, and the unauthorized population reached a record 12 million. Restrictionists, feeling betrayed, swore never to allow another “amnesty.”

President Ronald Reagan signing the Immigration Reform and Control Act in 1986, which gave nearly three million people legal status.CreditBettmann, via Getty Images

After a Republican backlash in the 1990s led more immigrants to vote for Democrats, Mr. Bush ran in 2000 as a pro-immigrant conservative. He saw Latinos as proto-Republican — religious, entrepreneurial, family-oriented — and was considering a legalization plan when the Sept. 11 attacks consumed his administration.

By the time he returned to the issue in 2007, his party’s skepticism toward legalization had hardened into implacable opposition. Amplified by talk radio, populist critics denounced his plan as “shamnesty”; one called it an effort to make America a “roach motel.” Three-quarters of Republican senators opposed it.

Just a year before, a rising Republican star had urged fellow conservatives not to abandon the party’s Reaganite support for immigration.

“We are either going to prove that we believe in the ideas enshrined on the Statue of Liberty, or the American people will go looking elsewhere,” said a congressman from Indiana, Mike Pence.

But the party’s shift proved decisive. Now, as vice president, Mr. Pence loyally defends the policies set by the president and Mr. Miller.

The forces that pushed the Republican Party to the right also shaped Mr. Miller.

Born in 1985, he grew up in a post-Cold War world where the acceptance of refugees was no longer seen as part of America’s resistance to a hostile foreign power. Rapid ethnic change was shaping his world.

The son of an affluent real estate investor, he entered high school in a self-consciously multicultural Santa Monica in 1999, just as California became a majority-minority state. At the start of his junior year, the attacks on Sept. 11 took nearly 3,000 lives.

The terrorist plot was central to his political awakening. Complaining that school officials were insufficiently patriotic, Mr. Miller won an uphill fight to make them enforce regulations requiring the Pledge of Allegiance. “Osama bin Laden would feel very welcome at Santa Monica High School,” he wrote in 2002 in a local publication.

Tellingly, he took his case to talk radio, as a frequent guest on “The Larry Elder Show.” It was a pattern Mr. Miller would repeat in subsequent years: airing hyperbolic claims of liberal treachery to conservative media allies. “He loved being the provocative conservative behind liberal lines,” said Ari Rosmarin, who was editor of the school newspaper and now works on criminal justice issues at the American Civil Liberties Union.

Mr. Miller’s main issue was assimilation, or what he saw as its failures. Writing in a local paper, he complained that “a number of students lacked basic English skills,” and his yearbook page quoted Theodore Roosevelt: “There can be no fifty-fifty Americanism.” The school paper ran a parody of him railing against ethnic food and demanding white bread and “fine Virginia hams, just as the founding fathers used to enjoy on their bountiful plantations.”

Classmates were often unsure whether his provocative views were sincere or a bid for attention. “Am I the only one who is sick and tired of being told to pick up my trash when we have janitors who are paid to do it for us?” he said in a speech for student government. A video shows him flashing a self-satisfied smile as classmates jeer.

His uncle, Dr. David S. Glosser, a vocal critic, dismissed the antics as “just an early adolescent desire to be noticed.”

“This talk of his philosophy seems disingenuous to me,” he said in an interview. “It’s very seductive. All the sudden, you become the darling of media big shots and you get notoriety for it at home.”

A Santa Monica High School yearbook. Mr. Miller’s classmates were often unsure whether his provocative views were sincere or a bid for attention.

Some of Mr. Miller’s Latino classmates say his comments made them feel personally attacked. In an interview, Jason Islas said Mr. Miller told him he was ending their friendship for reasons that included “my Latino heritage.” He added, “I think he is a racist.”

But with prominent allies like David Horowitz, a conservative author and organizer, Mr. Miller headed to Duke in 2003 with the beginnings of a national reputation.

The defining issue of Mr. Miller’s college career was the arrest, when he was a junior, of three white lacrosse players accused of raping a black stripper. Mr. Miller leaped to the players’ defense, charging that administrators and faculty members saw them as emblems of white privilege and simply assumed they were guilty — a case he made on the Fox News show “The O’Reilly Factor,” then the most-watched cable news program. He demanded that the school president be fired and the prosecutor jailed.

The case collapsed. North Carolina’s attorney general declared the players innocent, the prosecutor was disbarred for misconduct and the accuser was later convicted of murdering her boyfriend. For Mr. Miller, it was a two-part vindication — reinforcing his conviction that liberal dogma about racial oppression was wrong and that his scorched-earth tactics were effective.

In his last column for the Duke Chronicle before graduating, he called himself “a deeply committed conservative who considers it his responsibility to do battle with the left.” Then he headed for Washington.

Most of Mr. Miller’s work for Mrs. Bachmann was unrelated to immigration. He wrote news releases about gas prices and fire department grants. But in February 2008, soon after he began the job, an undocumented immigrant in rural Minnesota, Olga Franco, drove through a stop sign and killed four children. Mrs. Bachmann appeared on “The O’Reilly Factor,” where she framed the issue as “anarchy versus the rule of law.”

Although Ms. Franco was convicted of vehicular homicide, the National Academy of Sciences, a group founded to convey academic consensus, has written that immigrants are “much less likely than natives to commit crimes,” and recent evidence suggests that the undocumented are no exception.

But immigrant crime would be a running theme in Mr. Miller’s career, and his emphasis on the issue borrowed from the broader restrictionist movement. To erode public support for immigration, FAIR maintains an online archive of “serious crimes by illegal aliens.”

Mr. Miller was working for Representative Michele Bachmann in 2008 when, in a campaign debate, she said immigrants were “bringing in diseases, bringing in drugs, bringing in violence.”CreditDave Schwarz/The St. Cloud Times, via Associated Press

In a 2008 congressional campaign debate, Mrs. Bachmann’s opponent accused her of exploiting the tragedy, but she argued that unauthorized immigrants were “bringing in diseases, bringing in drugs, bringing in violence” — language nearly identical to what Mr. Trump would later employ with Mr. Miller as his aide — and she mustered a slender win.

Soon after that election, Mr. Miller went to work for Representative John Shadegg of Arizona, and then quickly crossed the Capitol to work for Mr. Sessions. Perhaps the leading immigration foe in the Senate, Mr. Sessions was a product of a region where immigration had soared, largely in places unaccustomed to it. In two decades, the number of immigrants had grown fourfold in Alabama, Kentucky and South Carolina; fivefold in Arkansas, Georgia and Tennessee; and sixfold in North Carolina.

Mr. Miller had opposed immigration mostly on cultural grounds, warning that newcomers were failing to learn English and endangering public safety. But Mr. Sessions emphasized economic concerns and what he called “the real needs of working Americans,” saying foreigners threatened their jobs and wages.

As a defender of the working class, Mr. Miller had uncertain credentials. If his high school gibe about janitors was a joke, he returned to the issue at Duke. He mocked a campaign to have students thank their dorm-cleaning staff, arguing that employment was thanks enough. “The janitors need a job, which we provide,” he wrote.

Striking a self-consciously elitist pose, he ridiculed calls for improved relations with working-class Durham, N.C. (“one of the last spots in America anyone would visit”) and asked for a student smoking lounge with “plenty of mahogany and leather.”

The impact of immigrants on jobs and wages is much debated — they take jobs but make jobs, too. Most economists see greater downward pressure on wages coming from other forces, including the decline of the minimum wage (adjusted for inflation), weak unions, outsourcing and technological change.

The National Academy of Sciences concluded in 2017 that immigration’s overall effect on wages was “very small,” but added that “some studies have found sizable negative short-run impacts for high school dropouts” (who account for about 8 percent of the work force). Even among dropouts, some economists find the effects modest or nonexistent.

One prominent scholar, the Harvard economist George Borjas, consistently finds negative impacts much larger than his peers do. He is the figure Mr. Miller most often cites.

In moving to Mr. Sessions’s Senate suite, Mr. Miller arrived at a crossroads for the restrictionist movement’s people and ideas.

As head of communications, Mr. Miller acquired a deep knowledge of the movement’s players and policy goals. Others in the office would also go on to influential jobs in the Trump administration, not least Mr. Sessions himself, who as attorney general presided over a policy that separated thousands of young immigrant children from parents illegally crossing the border.

Mr. Miller’s minor moment of Capitol Hill renown stems from his efforts to defeat the so-called Gang of Eight bill, a bipartisan attempt to pair new enforcement measures with legalization for most of the country’s 11 million undocumented immigrants, and to offer them a long path to citizenship.

He opposed the bill with the same zeal that had inspired high school parodies, haranguing reporters into the night and earning a gadfly reputation.

In retrospect, three elements of Mr. Miller’s approach foreshadowed his future exercise of power. One was his rejection of the view that Republicans needed to court minorities. The Gang of Eight bill was born after the 2012 presidential race, in which the defeated Republican, Mitt Romney, lost the Latino vote by 44 points.

Mitt Romney conceding the 2012 presidential race, having lost the Hispanic vote by 44 percentage points.CreditJosh Haner/The New York Times

No less a hard-liner than the Fox News host Sean Hannity called for legalizing most of the country’s undocumented immigrants. “Pathway to citizenship — done,” he said on his radio show. The Republican National Committee urged the party “to empower and support ethnic minorities” and “champion comprehensive immigration reform,” meaning legalization.

Mr. Miller took the opposite view, which the party ultimately followed: Mobilize the white working-class base, among whom turnout had fallen.

While Mr. Bush had seen Latinos as natural Republicans, most restrictionists saw them as an electoral threat. “If four out of five Latinos are registering with the Democrats, perhaps less immigration would be in the interest of the Republican Party, no?” wrote Jon Feere of the Center for Immigration Studies, a spinoff of FAIR. (Mr. Feere later joined the Trump administration as an immigration adviser. )

A second feature of Mr. Miller’s efforts was his symbiotic relationship with conservative media, especially online publications like Breitbart News.

Lacking gatekeepers, the internet was a medium tailor-made for anti-establishment causes. Right-wing populism had long flourished on talk radio, but Breitbart, with few restrictions on space, could cover the issue in greater depth, bringing intense scrutiny to hot-button issues. And social media made articles easy to share.

Breitbart ran three stories making the false charge, circulated by Mr. Sessions’s staff, that the bill offered undocumented immigrants free cellphones.

Mr. Miller and Breitbart worked together closely.

“Sessions: Special Interest, Extremist Groups Wrote Immigration Bill,” claimed one Breitbart headline.

“Sessions: ‘Tide is Beginning to Turn’ Against Immigration Bill,” announced another.

A third element of Mr. Miller’s work involved his alliance with outside groups, especially three that Dr. Tanton helped create and that received millions of dollars from Mrs. May’s foundation. (Over a recent 12-year period alone, the foundation gave the Center for Immigration Studies $17.6 million, FAIR $56.7 million and NumbersUSA $58.2 million.)

Once a lonely cause, restrictionism had grown into a mature movement — an intellectual ecosystem of sorts — with groups specializing in areas as diverse as litigation and voter mobilization.

When Mr. Sessions claimed on a conference call that the Gang of Eight bill threatened jobs, an analyst from the Center for Immigration Studies was on the line to vouch for the data, and Breitbart covered it as news. When the center presented its journalism award, Mr. Miller was the speaker, and his first-name references to the Center’s staff — “all the great work that Mark and Jessica and Steve are doing”— made it clear that he felt among friends.

Despite Mr. Sessions’s opposition, the bill passed in the Democratic Senate in 2013. As it headed to the Republican House, Mr. Miller drafted a 30-page memo that Mr. Sessions shared with the House Republican caucus, urging members to oppose the bill on behalf of “millions of struggling American workers.”

House leaders were mulling how to proceed when, in June 2014, an obscure Virginia professor toppled the majority leader, Eric Cantor, in a Republican primary. Though vastly outspent, the newcomer, Dave Brat, prevailed in large part by attacking Mr. Cantor for being “in cahoots” with Democrats on immigration.

“The world just changed,” Mr. Miller exulted the next day.

Indeed, it had. Among those commenting in Breitbart was the “conservative provocateur” Donald J. Trump, who said the upset showed that the Republican establishment was at risk. “Everybody is now vulnerable,” he said.

Circulating the article, Mr. Miller told friends that he wished Mr. Trump would run for president. When Mr. Trump did — demanding a wall and a ban on Muslims entering the country — Mr. Miller soon signed on.

Mr. Miller rose quickly on the small staff. A prolific writer and combative surrogate, he was the person most knowledgeable about the campaign’s central issue, and he lavished Mr. Trump with praise. (The Trump candidacy, Mr. Miller said, had altered “Western civilization.”) He also served as an ideological chaperone to a candidate given to sudden reversals of signature policies, a role Mr. Miller continues to play in the White House.

Mr. Miller, in the foreground, has consolidated power over a single issue in a way that’s unusual for a presidential aide and unique in the Trump White House.CreditStephen Crowley/The New York Times

Mr. Trump scored a coup by winning the support of some tech workers who, after being laid off by the Walt Disney Company, were forced to train foreign replacements admitted on temporary H-1B visas.

The workers embodied Mr. Trump’s larger argument that immigration hurt American employment. Yet days after appearing with them at a rally, Mr. Trump said in a televised debate that he would drop his plan to restrict the H-1B program.

“I’m changing, I’m changing,” he told the stunned interviewer. “I’m softening the position because we have to have talented people in this country.”

Within hours, Mr. Trump reversed himself again, issuing a statement to assure his followers that he planned to “end forever the use of H-1B as a cheap labor program.”

Despite the president’s public image as an unrelenting immigration foe, some restrictionist leaders view him as soft — a businessman whose desire for labor will lead him to support more immigration. That unreliability, they say, makes Mr. Miller’s presence especially important.

“If he weren’t there, I’m pretty sure it’d be worse,” said Mark Krikorian, director of the Center for Immigration Studies.

Mr. Miller now occupies a large West Wing office and has influence on virtually every element of immigration policy, from the words the president uses to the regulations he promulgates. Mr. Miller is a speechwriter, policy architect, personnel director, legislative aide, spokesman and strategist. At every step, he has pushed for the hardest line.

When Mr. Trump wavered on his pledge to abolish protections for 800,000 so-called Dreamers — people brought illegally to the United States as children — Mr. Miller urged conservative states to threaten lawsuits. Mr. Trump then canceled the protections.

When the president later mulled a deal to restore them, Mr. Miller stacked the negotiations with people who opposed the move, leading Mr. Trump to abandon compromise and rail against immigrants from “shithole countries.”

“As long as Stephen Miller is in charge of negotiating immigration, we are going nowhere,” complained Senator Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who supported a deal.

President Trump at the United States-Mexico border in April with the Homeland Security secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen, left, shortly before she was pushed out of the job.CreditAl Drago for The New York Times

The Trump effort to curb immigration has played out amid so much chaos — judicial setbacks, congressional defeats, personnel purges, Twitter wars — that it can be hard to keep a running tally of its impact.

The attempt to revoke Dreamer protections has been blocked in court. An effort to bar travelers from certain predominantly Muslim countries was struck down twice. The promised border wall has not been built. A campaign to deter illegal immigration by separating thousands of children from their mothers was abandoned amid blistering criticism, including some from the right.

Still, Mr. Miller has left a big mark, in ways both obvious and obscure. After two highly publicized failures, he helped craft a travel ban that passed court muster. A fervent critic of refugee programs, he has helped cut annual admissions by about three-quarters since the end of the Obama administration.

Writing in Politico, his uncle, Dr. Glosser, expressed an “increasing horror” at his nephew’s hostility to refugees and noted that their ancestor, Wolf-Leib Glosser, arrived at Ellis Island after fleeing Russian pogroms. Had Mr. Miller’s policies prevailed then, he wrote, the Glossers probably “would have been murdered by the Nazis,” as most in their village were.

With less fanfare, Mr. Miller has guided a series of policy changes that critics liken to building an “invisible wall.” The Migration Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research group, counted more than 100 of them, noting that “most have moved forward untouched.”

The Trump administration quadrupled the number of work site investigations. It slowed the processing of temporary H-1B visas. It imposed new performance measures on immigration judges, to encourage faster deportations.

Though Mr. Miller was often the driving force, many of these changes were longstanding goals of the restrictionist movement. “He comes from a community of people who’ve been working on this, some of them, since the ’90s,” said Roy Beck, the president of NumbersUSA.

Beyond the commas and clauses of government rules, Mr. Miller and Mr. Trump are trying to change something deeper: America’s self-conception as a land of immigrants. Mr. Trump is the son of an immigrant. Two of the three women he married are immigrants. Four of his five children have an immigrant parent. Yet his immigration agency rewrote its mission statement to remove the phrase “nation of immigrants.”

Mr. Miller even took to the White House briefing room to offer a revisionist view of the Statue of Liberty. Like many in his movement, he argued it should not be seen as welcoming immigrants because it was originally built for a different purpose (to celebrate political freedom) and that the Emma Lazarus poem hailing the “huddled masses” carries little meaning because it was added later.

Speaking to reporters in 2017, Mr. Miller dismissed the poem on the base of the Statue of Liberty that includes the line, “Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free.”CreditDoug Mills The New York Times

The border wars intensified this spring as large numbers of Central American families sought asylum and Mr. Trump, with Mr. Miller urging him on, purged top officials from the Homeland Security Department, including the secretary, Kirstjen Nielsen; he argued they weren’t doing enough to keep them out.

But a quieter bureaucratic story may have revealed as much about Mr. Miller’s priorities and bureaucratic skill.

After long deliberation, the administration last week released a 217-page rule making it easier to deny admission or permanent residency to low-income immigrants deemed likely to receive public benefits. Unlike the border disputes, this so-called public charge rule affects only legal immigrants, since the unauthorized are already barred from most safety-net programs.

Critics say the rule is already causing needy immigrants to forgo health care and nutritional aid. They call it a backdoor way of circumventing Congress and creating a new immigration system that admits fewer people, excludes the “huddled masses,” and favors Europeans over poorer Mexican and Central Americans.

Mr. Miller was so eager to see the rule enacted, he helped push out a one-time ally, L. Francis Cissna, the head of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, for not moving fast enough.

Mr. Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies argued that the rule would have only modest effects on immigrant numbers but praised Mr. Miller for asserting a principle. “The point of immigration policy is to benefit Americans,” he said, not “strain the social safety net.”

While the restrictionist movement had long taken that principle to heart, he said “Stephen understood how to operationalize it.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Israel’s Alliance With Trump Creates New Tensions Among American Jews

A rabbi in St. Louis Park, Minn., was more than six thousand miles from Jerusalem when he heard the Israeli government decided to bar two Muslim members of Congress from making an official visit to the Jewish state.

But within minutes, his phone was flooded with calls from congregants, local Jewish agencies and lay leaders who plunged into what had become a familiar routine: Figuring out how to respond to yet another political battle over their congresswoman, Representative Ilhan Omar, and Israel.

“There was very much an attitude of, ‘oh, here we go again,’” said Rabbi Avi S. Olitzky. “The pendulum keeps swinging left and right, left and right. It’s dizzying and exhausting and distracting. Emotions are raw.”

For months, American Jews in Ms. Omar’s district and beyond have found themselves enmeshed in a deeply uncomfortable debate over the growing distance between traditional liberal American Jewish values and the political realities of an Israeli government that’s embraced hard-line policies and a deep alliance with President Donald Trump. On Thursday, in one of Mr. Trump’s most audacious moves yet, he successfully urged Israel to deny entrance to Ms. Omar and Representative Rashida Tlaib, who planned to tour the West Bank.

At Shabbat dinner tables, in synagogue sanctuaries, and even at summer camps, the new political firestorm in Washington and Jerusalem — and Mr. Trump’s fierce determination to turn anti-Semitism and support for Israel into partisan issues — has forced a series of emotional conversations over the place of Jews in American political life. It’s a conversation that comes at a particularly fraught moment, less than a year after deadly attacks on synagogues in Poway, Calif., and Pittsburgh, and as support for Israel divides the Democratic Party as never before.

To some Jews, the president’s attacks on the congresswomen are a fierce renunciation of anti-Semitism and a defense of Israel. But many others see their identity being used as a pawn for the political ambitions of Mr. Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a dynamic they fear could undermine the historically strong alliance between the United States and Israel and increase the security risks for their community at home.

“If Israel equals Trump, then there is a concern that opposition to Trump will transition, God forbid, into opposition to Israel,” Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld, who leads Ohev Sholom, an Orthodox congregation in Washington, D.C., said a few hours before shabbat on Friday. “It is very dangerous.”

In a striking sign of united concern, major American Jewish organizations largely opposed the Israeli government’s decision to block the congresswomen on Thursday, even as some condemned the women for what they described as anti-Israel or anti-Semitic positions. Even the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the bulwark Israel lobbying organization, took the unusual step of breaking with the Netanyahu government.

Sheila Katz, who leads the National Council of Jewish Women, called Israel’s ban “undemocratic and shortsighted.”

“I don’t think any of us want to be in this position and we don’t think it is actually helpful for Israel either,” said Ms. Katz. “We’d ask the president to not influence and pressure the prime minister of Israel to be carrying out what feels like bullying because of issues he has with congresswomen here in the U.S.”

ImageWestlake Legal Group 16Jews-02-articleLarge Israel’s Alliance With Trump Creates New Tensions Among American Jews United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J tlaib, rashida Synagogues Omar, Ilhan Netanyahu, Benjamin Jews and Judaism

The American Jewish community has found itself emmeshed in a fraught debate over President Trump’s efforts to demonize Ms. Omar and the only other Muslim congresswomen.CreditAnna Moneymaker/The New York Times

In Houston, congregants at United Orthodox Synagogues discussed the situation at breakfast after Friday morning services. Some people wondered why President Trump would get involved, some suggested Israel’s decisions were connected to the September election there, and some thought it was an opportunity for Mr. Trump to energize his own electoral base, said Rabbi Barry Gelman.

He said he did not think the entire debacle was good for relations between the United States and Israel.

“I’d like to think that both the president and the Republican Party and the Democratic Party are all allies of the American Jewish community,” he said.

In Omaha, a purple dot in a red state, Rabbi Steven Abraham spent time on Friday considering how to address the latest controversy at services this weekend.

“Right now, in the Jewish community, this is becoming a left-right issue, support for Israel, the settlements, all those conversations are becoming a huge divide,” said Rabbi Abraham, who leads Beth El synagogue, a Conservative congregation. “There is a real wedge being created in the Jewish community.”

Some worry that the implicit effort to exploit Democratic Party divisions over Israel for political gain will only worsen as the presidential campaign season unfolds, pointing to Jewish populations in key swing states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Michigan, as a reason for both sides to keep Jews in the political spotlight.

“We fear that in places like Florida over the campaign the weaponization of Jews and of Israel could become totally out of control,” said David Harris, head of the American Jewish Committee, a nonpartisan pro-Israel advocacy organization. “You have a very substantial Jewish voting population, that’s to some degree older, and perhaps more vulnerable to these kinds of anti-Israel, anti-Zionism fears.”

For other Jewish voters and activists, this political moment has roused both ancient fears and modern security concerns. Hate crimes against Jews have risen for three years, according to the F.B.I., accounting for a majority of all religion-based hate crimes at 58.1 percent of incidents. Muslims were the second most frequent target, at 18.6 percent.

Armed guards and metal detectors in synagogues and schools have become more prevalent at Jewish institutions in the United States.

Jewish Republicans are standing by a president that they see as a strong supporter of Israel, pointing to steps taken by his administration including breaking with decades of U.S. policy to relocate the United States Embassy last year from Tel Aviv to the holy city of Jerusalem.

“I don’t think our president did anything wrong at all. He has a first amendment right to say what he thinks,” said Fred Zeidman, a Houston-based Republican donor who sits on the board of the Republican Jewish Coalition, “My God, when I look at what he’s done for Israel, I’m not going take issue with anything he’s said or done.”

But Democrats fear that Mr. Trump’s alliance with Mr. Netanyahu will further politicize support for Israel, driving liberals away from backing the Jewish state and driving more observant Jews away from backing the Democratic Party.

Democrats fear that Mr. Trump’s alliance with Mr. Netanyahu will politicize support for Israel.CreditTom Brenner/The New York Times

While Jews still vote overwhelmingly with the Democratic Party, polling reflects a partisan divide that tracks along levels of religious observance.

Seventy-nine percent of Jews voted for Democrats in the 2018 midterms, according to exit polls. But eight percent of ultra-Orthodox and 33 percent of modern Orthodox Jews consider themselves Democrats, compared to 64 percent of reform Jews and 58 percent of self-identified secular Jews, according to the annual Survey of American Jewish Opinion released in June.

The political dynamics haven’t made it any easier for Jewish leaders forced to confront political concerns along with their security challenges.

At the politically-divided Conservative congregation in Los Angeles led by Rabbi David Wolpe, a humanitarian drive for families at the border led to a debate over immigration policy.

“I’m trying to depoliticize the conversation in my own congregation,” he said. “To say not everything is about Trump and not everything is about ‘the squad.’ There is so much more to life.”

In Pinecrest, Florida, just south of Miami, an area known for its strong support of Israel, Rabbi Rachel G. Greengrass who leads Temple Beth Am, a Reform congregation, called Mr. Trump’s move “shocking,” and separate from the conversations about the congresswomen’s views of Israel, which some in the Jewish community have seen as anti-Semitic or tone-deaf.

She said there is a growing division between American and Israeli Jews, and division that often arises within families as well, as young people in her area are more likely to speak critically about Israel.

“Many congregations tend to avoid talking about things like this because there is so much conflict,” said Ms. Greengrass.

In Oakland, Calif., Rabbi Gershon Albert said he supported Israel “unequivocally,” and yet when he first saw Mr. Netanyahu’s decision, he worried. Anti-Semitic posters have appeared near the doors of his Orthodox congregation, Beth Jacob, in recent months. A man was recently arrested after threatening a repeat of the shooting that took place this year at a synagogue in Poway, near San Diego.

“I personally see the erosion of support for Jews and Israel as the only Jewish state on both the far right and the far left,” said Rabbi Albert. “Anti-Semitism seems to be a blind spot on both sides, I’m concerned this could expand that blind spot.”

And in Minnesota, Ms. Omar’s district, Rabbi Olitzky is still thinking about a call he joined with local Jewish leaders, the congresswoman and her staffers a week ago. Local Jewish leaders suggested places to visit in Israel and offered to arrange meetings during her trip.

“Ms. Omar represents a district that has a great number of friends of Israel so some of us were actually hopefully that she’d go to Israel and maybe the ball would be begin to move a bit,” he said. “Instead, we’re back to just emboldening the extremes on both sides. It’s bad for the Jewish community in the U.S. and it’s bad for the world.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

A Year of Stock Market Fury, Signifying Nearly Nothing

Despite wild swings stemming from the trade war, gains over the last 12 months have been tiny.

Westlake Legal Group market-12-months-300 A Year of Stock Market Fury, Signifying Nearly Nothing United States Economy Trump, Donald J Stocks and Bonds Recession and Depression Interest Rates Inflation (Economics) Federal Reserve System

Year-to-date

change +15.2%

12-month

change +1.7%

Westlake Legal Group market-12-months-335 A Year of Stock Market Fury, Signifying Nearly Nothing United States Economy Trump, Donald J Stocks and Bonds Recession and Depression Interest Rates Inflation (Economics) Federal Reserve System

Year-to-date

change +15.2%

12-month

change +1.7%

Westlake Legal Group market-12-months-600 A Year of Stock Market Fury, Signifying Nearly Nothing United States Economy Trump, Donald J Stocks and Bonds Recession and Depression Interest Rates Inflation (Economics) Federal Reserve System

Year-to-date

change +15.2%

12-month

change +1.7%

Westlake Legal Group market-12-months-1050 A Year of Stock Market Fury, Signifying Nearly Nothing United States Economy Trump, Donald J Stocks and Bonds Recession and Depression Interest Rates Inflation (Economics) Federal Reserve System

Year-to-date change +15.2%

12-month change +1.7%

Source: Refinitiv

By The New York Times

Aug 17, 2019


The stock market is having a banner year.

The stock market has barely budged in the past year.

Both of those statements are true: The S&P 500 is up about 15 percent in 2019, a great performance by historical standards, but it is essentially flat since last August. And that is just one of the many paradoxes bedeviling investors this strange summer.

The economy is humming, with historically low unemployment levels, yet the economy is flashing warning signs, some of which have turned out to be false alarms in the recent past. The Federal Reserve went from raising interest rates to lowering them to now, under pressure from President Trump, appearing poised to cut them again. From day to day and from tweet to tweet, the country’s trade war with China runs hot and cold and hot again.

The S&P 500 dropped 1.2 percent on Monday, jumped almost 2 percent on Tuesday, tumbled 3 percent on Wednesday, didn’t move at all on Thursday and then closed out Friday with a 1.44 percent rally.

Given all the mixed messages emanating from the economy and central bankers and politicians, the turbulence this past week is likely to continue. The question is where it will come from. And when it will hit. And how violent it will be.

This matters to anyone with a 401(k) or a mutual fund. But it especially matters to the president, who has repeatedly used the market’s performance as a proxy for his performance in the White House. As the 2020 campaign intensifies, the market’s ups and downs will therefore take on even greater importance.

It is impossible — or at least unwise — to predict where the market is heading. What’s clear is that some of the powerful engines that propelled stock markets to record highs over the last year have been sputtering.

The Republican tax cuts that took effect in 2018 juiced companies’ earnings and catapulted stocks higher. But the sugar high appears to be fading: Corporate profits at S&P 500 companies probably shrank 0.4 percent in the three months that ended in June, according to FactSet, a provider of financial data.

If that happens, it will put pressure on companies’ stock prices, which will discourage corporate spending, which will weaken the economy, which will erode corporate profits, and round and round we go. This is what economists call a negative feedback loop.

Already, the mighty United States economy — in its 10th year of an expansion, boasting the lowest unemployment rate in a half-century — is showing signs of wear and tear. Growth slowed to a 2.1 percent annual pace in the second quarter from a 2.5 percent clip last year. Job growth and production in manufacturing are waning.

Americans are also becoming more cautious — a potentially ominous sign for an economy that relies on healthy consumer spending. On Friday, the University of Michigan’s closely watched index of consumer confidence showed a sharp drop for August.

Making matters worse — certainly less stable — the trade war is dealing a direct blow to the world’s major economies. China’s economy, second only to that of the United States, has softened fast, while Germany’s, the world’s fourth largest, has shrunk.

“What we see right now is what we call already an industrial recession,” said Iaroslav Shelepko, an economist with Barclays in London.

Investors have more reasons to be anxious. A financial metric known as the yield curve — basically the difference between interest rates, or yields, on bonds that come due relatively soon and those with longer maturities — is now inverted. That means interest rates on some long-term bonds are below those on shorter-term bonds.

This odd phenomenon signals that nervous investors are hunting for super-safe places (like long-term bonds) to park their money. Inverted yield curves are also one of the most reliable leading indicators of recession. Indeed, every recession in the past 60 years has been preceded by an inverted yield curve.

The fact that an obscure finance metric entered the vernacular this summer is testament to America’s economic jitters — and that is where Mr. Trump comes in.

Even before he was sworn in as president in January 2017, Mr. Trump was treating the stock market as a yardstick of, and a referendum on, his leadership. Over the nearly three years since his election, the S&P 500 is up 35.5 percent.

But since last August, the market has been treading water with a 1.7 percent rise that’s slightly behind the pace of inflation.

That is not to say things have been calm. In the final months of 2018, markets plunged nearly 20 percent — the toll coming due for an intensifying trade war and the prospect that central banks, most of all the Fed, would continue to push interest rates higher to prevent the economy from overheating.

Then the Fed signaled it would stop raising rates, and investors celebrated, driving stocks to their best start since 1987. Stocks surged 8 percent in January and were up almost 18 percent through April.

By early June, even after trade tensions took a turn for the worse, investors happily — and correctly — anticipated that the Fed would react by cutting interest rates. The central bank said the cut, which it delivered on July 31, was “intended to ensure against downside risks from weak global growth and trade tensions.”

By then, the market had fully clawed its way back from its late-2018 meltdown, notching a series of new highs that Mr. Trump noted triumphantly.

Now, though, the euphoria has again vanished, amid increasingly hostile trade talk shooting back and forth between Mr. Trump’s Twitter account and Beijing and economic data in the United States and other countries that hints at tougher times to come.

Whatever the reason, Mr. Trump was frustrated. “Our problem is with the Fed,” he wrote on Twitter on Wednesday, as stock markets suffered one of their worst declines of the year. “Raised too much & too fast. Now too slow to cut.”

This coming week, central bankers are scheduled to gather in Jackson, Wyo., for an annual conference where policymakers sometimes telegraph shifts in their thinking about interest rates and other aspects of monetary policy.

If Jerome H. Powell, the Fed’s chair, suggests that the central bank intends to keep slicing interest rates, investors — and Mr. Trump — are likely to smile, or at least relax a little.

If he doesn’t, prepare for another round of turbulence.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

A Year of Stock Market Fury, Signifying Nearly Nothing

Despite wild swings stemming from the trade war, gains over the last 12 months have been tiny.

Westlake Legal Group market-12-months-300 A Year of Stock Market Fury, Signifying Nearly Nothing United States Economy Trump, Donald J Stocks and Bonds Recession and Depression Interest Rates Inflation (Economics) Federal Reserve System

Year-to-date

change +15.2%

12-month

change +1.7%

Westlake Legal Group market-12-months-335 A Year of Stock Market Fury, Signifying Nearly Nothing United States Economy Trump, Donald J Stocks and Bonds Recession and Depression Interest Rates Inflation (Economics) Federal Reserve System

Year-to-date

change +15.2%

12-month

change +1.7%

Westlake Legal Group market-12-months-600 A Year of Stock Market Fury, Signifying Nearly Nothing United States Economy Trump, Donald J Stocks and Bonds Recession and Depression Interest Rates Inflation (Economics) Federal Reserve System

Year-to-date

change +15.2%

12-month

change +1.7%

Westlake Legal Group market-12-months-1050 A Year of Stock Market Fury, Signifying Nearly Nothing United States Economy Trump, Donald J Stocks and Bonds Recession and Depression Interest Rates Inflation (Economics) Federal Reserve System

Year-to-date change +15.2%

12-month change +1.7%

Source: Refinitiv

By The New York Times

Aug 17, 2019


The stock market is having a banner year.

The stock market has barely budged in the past year.

Both of those statements are true: The S&P 500 is up about 15 percent in 2019, a great performance by historical standards, but it is essentially flat since last August. And that is just one of the many paradoxes bedeviling investors this strange summer.

The economy is humming, with historically low unemployment levels, yet the economy is flashing warning signs, some of which have turned out to be false alarms in the recent past. The Federal Reserve went from raising interest rates to lowering them to now, under pressure from President Trump, appearing poised to cut them again. From day to day and from tweet to tweet, the country’s trade war with China runs hot and cold and hot again.

The S&P 500 dropped 1.2 percent on Monday, jumped almost 2 percent on Tuesday, tumbled 3 percent on Wednesday, didn’t move at all on Thursday and then closed out Friday with a 1.44 percent rally.

Given all the mixed messages emanating from the economy and central bankers and politicians, the turbulence this past week is likely to continue. The question is where it will come from. And when it will hit. And how violent it will be.

This matters to anyone with a 401(k) or a mutual fund. But it especially matters to the president, who has repeatedly used the market’s performance as a proxy for his performance in the White House. As the 2020 campaign intensifies, the market’s ups and downs will therefore take on even greater importance.

It is impossible — or at least unwise — to predict where the market is heading. What’s clear is that some of the powerful engines that propelled stock markets to record highs over the last year have been sputtering.

The Republican tax cuts that took effect in 2018 juiced companies’ earnings and catapulted stocks higher. But the sugar high appears to be fading: Corporate profits at S&P 500 companies probably shrank 0.4 percent in the three months that ended in June, according to FactSet, a provider of financial data.

If that happens, it will put pressure on companies’ stock prices, which will discourage corporate spending, which will weaken the economy, which will erode corporate profits, and round and round we go. This is what economists call a negative feedback loop.

Already, the mighty United States economy — in its 10th year of an expansion, boasting the lowest unemployment rate in a half-century — is showing signs of wear and tear. Growth slowed to a 2.1 percent annual pace in the second quarter from a 2.5 percent clip last year. Job growth and production in manufacturing are waning.

Americans are also becoming more cautious — a potentially ominous sign for an economy that relies on healthy consumer spending. On Friday, the University of Michigan’s closely watched index of consumer confidence showed a sharp drop for August.

Making matters worse — certainly less stable — the trade war is dealing a direct blow to the world’s major economies. China’s economy, second only to that of the United States, has softened fast, while Germany’s, the world’s fourth largest, has shrunk.

“What we see right now is what we call already an industrial recession,” said Iaroslav Shelepko, an economist with Barclays in London.

Investors have more reasons to be anxious. A financial metric known as the yield curve — basically the difference between interest rates, or yields, on bonds that come due relatively soon and those with longer maturities — is now inverted. That means interest rates on some long-term bonds are below those on shorter-term bonds.

This odd phenomenon signals that nervous investors are hunting for super-safe places (like long-term bonds) to park their money. Inverted yield curves are also one of the most reliable leading indicators of recession. Indeed, every recession in the past 60 years has been preceded by an inverted yield curve.

The fact that an obscure finance metric entered the vernacular this summer is testament to America’s economic jitters — and that is where Mr. Trump comes in.

Even before he was sworn in as president in January 2017, Mr. Trump was treating the stock market as a yardstick of, and a referendum on, his leadership. Over the nearly three years since his election, the S&P 500 is up 35.5 percent.

But since last August, the market has been treading water with a 1.7 percent rise that’s slightly behind the pace of inflation.

That is not to say things have been calm. In the final months of 2018, markets plunged nearly 20 percent — the toll coming due for an intensifying trade war and the prospect that central banks, most of all the Fed, would continue to push interest rates higher to prevent the economy from overheating.

Then the Fed signaled it would stop raising rates, and investors celebrated, driving stocks to their best start since 1987. Stocks surged 8 percent in January and were up almost 18 percent through April.

By early June, even after trade tensions took a turn for the worse, investors happily — and correctly — anticipated that the Fed would react by cutting interest rates. The central bank said the cut, which it delivered on July 31, was “intended to ensure against downside risks from weak global growth and trade tensions.”

By then, the market had fully clawed its way back from its late-2018 meltdown, notching a series of new highs that Mr. Trump noted triumphantly.

Now, though, the euphoria has again vanished, amid increasingly hostile trade talk shooting back and forth between Mr. Trump’s Twitter account and Beijing and economic data in the United States and other countries that hints at tougher times to come.

Whatever the reason, Mr. Trump was frustrated. “Our problem is with the Fed,” he wrote on Twitter on Wednesday, as stock markets suffered one of their worst declines of the year. “Raised too much & too fast. Now too slow to cut.”

This coming week, central bankers are scheduled to gather in Jackson, Wyo., for an annual conference where policymakers sometimes telegraph shifts in their thinking about interest rates and other aspects of monetary policy.

If Jerome H. Powell, the Fed’s chair, suggests that the central bank intends to keep slicing interest rates, investors — and Mr. Trump — are likely to smile, or at least relax a little.

If he doesn’t, prepare for another round of turbulence.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

A Year of Stock Market Fury, Signifying Nearly Nothing

Despite wild swings stemming from the trade war, gains over the last 12 months have been tiny.

Westlake Legal Group market-12-months-300 A Year of Stock Market Fury, Signifying Nearly Nothing United States Economy Trump, Donald J Stocks and Bonds Recession and Depression Interest Rates Inflation (Economics) Federal Reserve System

Year-to-date

change +15.2%

12-month

change +1.7%

Westlake Legal Group market-12-months-335 A Year of Stock Market Fury, Signifying Nearly Nothing United States Economy Trump, Donald J Stocks and Bonds Recession and Depression Interest Rates Inflation (Economics) Federal Reserve System

Year-to-date

change +15.2%

12-month

change +1.7%

Westlake Legal Group market-12-months-600 A Year of Stock Market Fury, Signifying Nearly Nothing United States Economy Trump, Donald J Stocks and Bonds Recession and Depression Interest Rates Inflation (Economics) Federal Reserve System

Year-to-date

change +15.2%

12-month

change +1.7%

Westlake Legal Group market-12-months-1050 A Year of Stock Market Fury, Signifying Nearly Nothing United States Economy Trump, Donald J Stocks and Bonds Recession and Depression Interest Rates Inflation (Economics) Federal Reserve System

Year-to-date change +15.2%

12-month change +1.7%

Source: Refinitiv

By The New York Times

Aug 17, 2019


The stock market is having a banner year.

The stock market has barely budged in the past year.

Both of those statements are true: The S&P 500 is up about 15 percent in 2019, a great performance by historical standards, but it is essentially flat since last August. And that is just one of the many paradoxes bedeviling investors this strange summer.

The economy is humming, with historically low unemployment levels, yet the economy is flashing warning signs, some of which have turned out to be false alarms in the recent past. The Federal Reserve went from raising interest rates to lowering them to now, under pressure from President Trump, appearing poised to cut them again. From day to day and from tweet to tweet, the country’s trade war with China runs hot and cold and hot again.

The S&P 500 dropped 1.2 percent on Monday, jumped almost 2 percent on Tuesday, tumbled 3 percent on Wednesday, didn’t move at all on Thursday and then closed out Friday with a 1.44 percent rally.

Given all the mixed messages emanating from the economy and central bankers and politicians, the turbulence this past week is likely to continue. The question is where it will come from. And when it will hit. And how violent it will be.

This matters to anyone with a 401(k) or a mutual fund. But it especially matters to the president, who has repeatedly used the market’s performance as a proxy for his performance in the White House. As the 2020 campaign intensifies, the market’s ups and downs will therefore take on even greater importance.

It is impossible — or at least unwise — to predict where the market is heading. What’s clear is that some of the powerful engines that propelled stock markets to record highs over the last year have been sputtering.

The Republican tax cuts that took effect in 2018 juiced companies’ earnings and catapulted stocks higher. But the sugar high appears to be fading: Corporate profits at S&P 500 companies probably shrank 0.4 percent in the three months that ended in June, according to FactSet, a provider of financial data.

If that happens, it will put pressure on companies’ stock prices, which will discourage corporate spending, which will weaken the economy, which will erode corporate profits, and round and round we go. This is what economists call a negative feedback loop.

Already, the mighty United States economy — in its 10th year of an expansion, boasting the lowest unemployment rate in a half-century — is showing signs of wear and tear. Growth slowed to a 2.1 percent annual pace in the second quarter from a 2.5 percent clip last year. Job growth and production in manufacturing are waning.

Americans are also becoming more cautious — a potentially ominous sign for an economy that relies on healthy consumer spending. On Friday, the University of Michigan’s closely watched index of consumer confidence showed a sharp drop for August.

Making matters worse — certainly less stable — the trade war is dealing a direct blow to the world’s major economies. China’s economy, second only to that of the United States, has softened fast, while Germany’s, the world’s fourth largest, has shrunk.

“What we see right now is what we call already an industrial recession,” said Iaroslav Shelepko, an economist with Barclays in London.

Investors have more reasons to be anxious. A financial metric known as the yield curve — basically the difference between interest rates, or yields, on bonds that come due relatively soon and those with longer maturities — is now inverted. That means interest rates on some long-term bonds are below those on shorter-term bonds.

This odd phenomenon signals that nervous investors are hunting for super-safe places (like long-term bonds) to park their money. Inverted yield curves are also one of the most reliable leading indicators of recession. Indeed, every recession in the past 60 years has been preceded by an inverted yield curve.

The fact that an obscure finance metric entered the vernacular this summer is testament to America’s economic jitters — and that is where Mr. Trump comes in.

Even before he was sworn in as president in January 2017, Mr. Trump was treating the stock market as a yardstick of, and a referendum on, his leadership. Over the nearly three years since his election, the S&P 500 is up 35.5 percent.

But since last August, the market has been treading water with a 1.7 percent rise that’s slightly behind the pace of inflation.

That is not to say things have been calm. In the final months of 2018, markets plunged nearly 20 percent — the toll coming due for an intensifying trade war and the prospect that central banks, most of all the Fed, would continue to push interest rates higher to prevent the economy from overheating.

Then the Fed signaled it would stop raising rates, and investors celebrated, driving stocks to their best start since 1987. Stocks surged 8 percent in January and were up almost 18 percent through April.

By early June, even after trade tensions took a turn for the worse, investors happily — and correctly — anticipated that the Fed would react by cutting interest rates. The central bank said the cut, which it delivered on July 31, was “intended to ensure against downside risks from weak global growth and trade tensions.”

By then, the market had fully clawed its way back from its late-2018 meltdown, notching a series of new highs that Mr. Trump noted triumphantly.

Now, though, the euphoria has again vanished, amid increasingly hostile trade talk shooting back and forth between Mr. Trump’s Twitter account and Beijing and economic data in the United States and other countries that hints at tougher times to come.

Whatever the reason, Mr. Trump was frustrated. “Our problem is with the Fed,” he wrote on Twitter on Wednesday, as stock markets suffered one of their worst declines of the year. “Raised too much & too fast. Now too slow to cut.”

This coming week, central bankers are scheduled to gather in Jackson, Wyo., for an annual conference where policymakers sometimes telegraph shifts in their thinking about interest rates and other aspects of monetary policy.

If Jerome H. Powell, the Fed’s chair, suggests that the central bank intends to keep slicing interest rates, investors — and Mr. Trump — are likely to smile, or at least relax a little.

If he doesn’t, prepare for another round of turbulence.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com