VivaBarnesLaw
Politics • Culture • News
This is the VivaBarnesLaw Community.
Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
December 30, 2024

"For decades, many progressives, Democrats, and others on the Left have argued that Republicans were racist for criticizing the mass migration of unskilled, non-college-educated workers from foreign countries. Around 2016, Democratic leaders, who had recognized the need for border control a few years earlier, increasingly denounced Republicans and Trump supporters as white supremacists.

But the vast majority of those people weren’t racists at all, and they were rightly concerned about the downward pressure of mass migration on the wages of non-college-educated people, the high economic costs of mass migration, and the societal divisions it creates.

Over the past week, many conservatives, Republicans, and others on the Right have similarly argued that critics of mass migration by skilled, college-educated workers from foreign countries are racists. President Donald J. Trump and other Republican leaders, including those who have criticized mass low-skilled migration for the last decade, defended the expansive use of H-1B visas for skilled, college-educated workers. Some Trump allies demonized Republican critics of high-skilled migration as white supremacists.

Although some online commentators have expressed racist views, the vast majority of the H-1B program’s critics have consistently made economic, not race-based, arguments against the program. Like critics of mass low-skilled migration they are rightly concerned about the downward pressure of the H-1B system on wages, in this case of college-educated Americans in tech, as well as the societal costs of H-1B visa abuse and misuse.

The overheated conflict between Republicans over H-1B visas for skilled foreign migrants may resolve itself. Last week, President-elect Donald Trump said, “I have many H-1B visas on my properties. I’ve been a believer in H-1B. I have used it many times. It’s a great program.” Then, Trump advisors Elon Musk and David Sacks said they supported changing the rules around H-1B visas to raise the minimum salary and to make it more expensive to hire a foreign worker than an American citizen.

And yet the tempers between the protagonists of the debate today remain as high as ever, particularly on Musk’s X. Republicans who are more supportive of the migration of high-skilled workers are still accusing their opponents of engaging in racism and white identity politics, while Republicans who favor a more restrictive policy are accusing their opponents of selling out their fellow Americans for a cheap buck.

A lot of the excess heat over this issue is driven by some combination of a slow news period, holiday boredom, and the greater attention people naturally pay to conflicts among ostensible friends and allies than to conflicts between political competitors.

But the highly intense, emotional, and polarizing quality of the debate on the H-1B visa reveals a serious division within the Republican Party between its pro-business and nationalist wings — one that risks undermining the Trump presidency.

Nationalism, and in particular the protection of American jobs from foreign competition, has been central to Trump’s appeal and to his transformation of the Republican Party since 2016. Americans elected Trump to protect them from the effects of mass migration, in large measure for economic reasons, out of recognition that open border policies drive down working-class wages. It’s true that immigrants have always played a large role in shaping American culture and driving innovation. At the same time, many citizens have reasonable concerns about the economic effects of globalization on both the working and middle classes. The foreign-born share of the American population is at its highest level in over a century, and MAGA voters have repeatedly shown that they will not fall in line with the views of the party’s business leaders for the simple reason that they view mass migration as an existential threat to America’s future.

Support from the business community in general, and the high-tech community in particular, was crucial to getting Trump elected. Republicans need to maintain that support, both if they are to stay in power and if they are to govern. Democrats outspent Republicans in the 2024 elections, thanks to their support from unions, government employees, and much of the business world. Republicans thus need to expand, not shrink, their influence among entrepreneurs within the business world.

In office, Trump will need to find a way to bridge the intraparty divide over the specific H-1B visa question. The Musk and Sacks compromise may satisfy Trump’s nationalist base, particularly if he follows through on the other commitments he has made to them. Or, given the harshly negative reaction among Trump supporters to H-1B supporters, and the continued accusations of racism directed toward the MAGA base, the problem may prove more difficult to solve.

And a range of other questions, including over domestic manufacturing, the strength of the dollar, US trade policies, and relations with China may trigger similar fights in the coming months and years among the same nationalist and pro-business factions.

Please subscribe now to support Public's award-winning reporting and to read the rest of the article!"

https://x.com/shellenberger/status/1873775605533336035

Interested? Want to learn more about the community?
What else you may like…
Videos
Podcasts
Posts
Articles
SNEAK PEEK! Interview with George Simion

Grok summary:

In an exclusive interview, George Simion, a prominent Romanian political figure, shares his bold vision for the nation's future. The charismatic leader discusses his strategies to tackle pressing issues and rally public support. This concise yet revealing conversation offers a glimpse into Simion's ambitions and unfiltered perspectives.

01:10:02
March 29, 2025
Rachel Gilmore

It's a good one. Enjoy!

00:10:23
March 27, 2025
Behind the scenes

I’m totally getting a picture with RFK Junior!

00:01:03
February 17, 2024
Appearance on Richard Syrette

I did a quick hit on Richard Syrette yesterday. Gotta keep Canadians apprised of the U.S. madness.

Appearance on Richard Syrette
The Barnes Brief, Podcast Format: Monday, July 17, 2023

Closing Argument: Birthright citizenship is deeply American, and wholly Constitutional.

The Barnes Brief, Podcast Format: Monday, July 17, 2023
Declaration of Independence

Audio podcast style.

Declaration of Independence
1 minute ago

Big Pharma / leftist after finding out ...🤯
Dr. Stella Immanuel MD
@stella_immanuel
notified of my appt as deputy cdc director.
I’m ready to shake things up. 💪🏽. Washington DC here I come. 😉
If u not know who she is ...
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Dr.+Stella+Immanuel+MD

Ned Ryun
@nedryun
So the House got tied up on a stupid fight over proxy voting but was unable to vote on a bill to rein judges in. . . Clown show. ass holes

meeting with President Trump, Bill Maher brought a list of insults he had said about him over the years & handed it to him.
What did Trump do?
He signed it.
https://x.com/i/status/1907190294292123843

BONUS:
best of 2024

1776 Law Center Conference & Fundraiser

Pick the date: July 4th weekend or a different weekend? You choose. Event will include a masterclass conference, a hush hush conference, a live Bourbon, a live show & a special fundraiser dinner, with event scheduled from Friday night to Sunday night.

Questions for Bourbon with Barnes: Tuesday, April 1, 2025

Ask in replies and answering Live at 9ish eastern tonight...

post photo preview
The Barnes Brief: Friday, March 15, 2025

Schedule

Future

  • Friday at 9ish pm eastern: Betting w/ Barnes AMA
  • Saturday Night at 9 pm eastern: Comedy Movie TBD
  • Sunday at 6 pm eastern: Viva & Barnes, Law for the People

Book Recommendation: Framed by John Grisham. Non-fiction work on wrongfully convicted.

 

Art of the Day: Geometric ancient art found on walls, temples, and pottery from centuries ago across civilizations, societies, and geographies around the globe. Recently highlighted by the likes of Graham Hancock and other explorers of ancient civilizations, this unique geometric art depicted here in Greek pottery, represents a kind of collective unconscious across ancient societies. It stood out to me for a different reason: a tattoo artist from Tahiti (where the word tattoo originated) designed an engagement ring tattoo for me a decade+ ago mimicking the same identical design, though I neither requested nor he suggested it. Something deep in the human consciousness calls to this simple symbol of truth in life.

 

Wisdom of the Day: “The power in the judicial will enable them to mould the government into almost any shape they please.” Brutus, Anti-Federalist, 1788.

Closing Argument: Time to Judge the Judges

 

Only for Supporters
To read the rest of this article and access other paid content, you must be a supporter
Read full Article
post photo preview
The Barnes Brief: Friday, February 28, 2025

Schedule

Future

  • Friday at 9ish pm eastern: Betting w/ Barnes AMA
  • Saturday Night at 9 pm eastern: Movie TBD
  • Sunday at 6 pm eastern: Viva & Barnes, Law for the People

Book Recommendation: Have in a Heartless World by Christopher Lasch. The Family vs. the State.  https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/724188.Haven_in_a_Heartless_World

Art of the Day: The last photo of my father with the family around Christmas 1985. I sit right in front of him, with my brother and mother next to him, and my sisters Martha, Brenda and little Laura rounding out the family photo. My father loved Christmas, and lived for it, and it remains my first thought whenever I think of him. I think about this as I try to defend a father stripped of the chance to even talk to his son; I can only imagine what horrifying effect such an action could have had on my father, and it reminds me why taking on difficult cases against difficult odds remains critical to defend people like him from the harms the more powerful can inflict. The family remains the haven in a world especially when that world turns heartless.

Wisdom of the Day: “It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.” Frederick Douglas.

The Library: Five Curated Articles of the Week

  1. Zelensky Exposed
  2. IRS Leaks
  3. Trump tariffs
  4. Bureaucracy Revealed
  5. Epstein files hidden

*Bonus: Math to the rescue?

 

Top 5 Cases TBD Sunday

  1. Senseless in Seattle
  2. Big Tech vs. Parents
  3. Hollywood drama: Privacy in Discovery
  4. SCOTUS: Trump
  5. SCOTUS: Prosecutorial Duties

*Bonus: Washington Right to Parent

 

Closing Argument: Senseless in Seattle

 

  • The upcoming trial of Kurt Benshoof is a most peculiar one – the government seeks to imprison him for a decade or more. What purports to justify this? Benshoof texted his son, sought legal claims to his car, home and custody of his son, and texted and called his son’s mother concerning his son. The government labels this “stalking” and “harassment.” Why? Because Benshoof’s real crime is his beliefs.
  • Anyone familiar with family disputes and divorces knows that people involved in such disputes can be quite unkind to one another, but rarely is it prosecuted as a crime. Benshoof’s case reveals a new front of the culture conflict: weaponizing the legal system to take away the parental rights of dissidents in a war on the family, and especially a war on fathers.
  • Benshoof objected to trans ideologies being taught to his son, objected to vaccine and mask mandates on his son, and objected to his son being given the Covid 19 vaccine. As a consequence, his son’s mother got the son vaccinated in secret, without the father’s notice or knowledge, and without informing their teenage son of any of the risk of the vaccine.
  • After the father protested, the mother took him to court. The court also did not like Benshoof’s beliefs about Covid, the vaccine, and trans ideologies being taught his son, with guardians ad litem reporting him as a “transphobe” that should be denied contact with his son. The court ultimately agreed, and prohibited Benshoof from even contacting his son or responding to his son. When Benshoof responded to his son and told him he could live with him if he wanted when he was upset, the government charged Benshoof with the crime of stalking and harassment for talking to his son and for any attempts at communicating with his son’s mother about his son. How? Because dissident belief is now “abuse”. Dissident belief is now “stalking”. Dissident belief is now “harassment.”
  • This is why the Benshoof case is consequential beyond him. It’s the fundamental right to parent one’s own children without the government dictating what beliefs are ok to share or not share with your own children, what values they will be imparted with, and whether they have to be the guinea pig in a medical experiment.
  • I took on the case despite the difficult odds – a Seattle jury pool and judicial officials hostile to Benshoof and his beliefs and fully onboard the woke cultural revolution to impose on kids – because the family is still the haven in a heartless world, and we need more fathers to care for their sons, not fewer.
Read full Article
post photo preview
The Barnes Brief: Friday. February 21, 2025

Schedule

Past

  • Live w/ Duran
    placeholder

Future

  • Friday at 9ish pm eastern:  Betting w/ Barnes: SportsPicks Subscribers Exclusive AMA
  • Saturday Night at 9 pm eastern: Movie TBD
  • Sunday at 9 pm eastern: Viva & Barnes, Law for the People
  • Tuesday-Thursday February 25 to 27, Bourbon w/ Barnes at 9ish eastern

Book Recommendation: Lords of Poverty detailing the fraudulent way many “aid” NGOs work. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/53331.Lords_of_Poverty

Art of the Day: From one of the meme maker maestros, an elegant image of simply luxuries to end a hard day’s labor – a smooth glass with a big piece of ice draped in the inviting bourbon sharing the space with a lit cigar, against the backdrop of a whiskey cast with the name slipped in Viva/Barnes…very well done!

Wisdom of the Day: “I still remember, 40 years ago, when I was shackled and put in prison…Being an American citizen didn’t mean a thing then.” Fred Korematsu.

The Library: Top 5 Curated Articles of the Week

  1. A new disease: post Covid vaccination syndrome
  2. Language police
  3. Populist left protest
  4. Homeless rise
  5. Left uncovers why young people shifted                                                                                        

*Bonus: King of late night

Top 10 Cases TBD Sunday

  1. SCOTUS: Civil Rights
  2. SCOTUS: No Justice
  3. SCOTUS: Qui Tam Fraud
  4. SCOTUS: Prejudicial evidence
  5. Senseless in Seattle: Benshoof Case
  6. 1st Amendment Prosecutions
  7. Indentured servants
  8. Parental rights undermined
  9. Trans protections in prison
  10. Doge in court

*Bonus: High Seas power.

 

Closing Argument: Politicized Punishment

From my sentencing brief in the Senseless in Seattle case:

  • How much is enough? Mr. Benshoof has lost his car, lost his home, lost the right to contact his son, and lost his liberty for months in jail. He faces another trial on related charges. The Prosecution suggests an 81-year prison sentence, and formally now seeks an unprecedented, harsh, punitive six-year prison sentence with de facto termination of parental rights in a 5-year no contact order with his own son – for what?  A father texting his teenage son. The son often sought out the contact, and never complained about the contacts. Instead of the facts of this case, the government focuses on everything but this case, while ignoring the punishment that has already been imposed on the defendant. A just sentence conforming to Constitutional principles calls for a time served sentence, not a sentence longer than what some rapists get.  
  • Indeed, the entire case is predicated on a serious Constitutional offense – punishing a defendant for asserting his fundamental right to parent. A court cannot circumvent the Constitutional and statutory processes for terminating parental rights with “no contact” orders. The government’s sentence, if imposed, raises additional Constitutional questions, including terminating parental rights without due process of law and punishing defendants based on the individual interest of prosecutors and courts because the defendant brought legal complaints against them. 
  • Few fundamental rights are more important than the parental right to contact, control and custody of their minor children. Indeed, “[a] parent's right to control and to have the custody of his children is a fundamental civil right which may not be interfered with without the complete protection of due process safeguards.” In re Dependency of K.N.J., 171 Wash. 2d 568, 574, 257 P.3d 522, 526 (2011) (quoting Halsted v. Sallee, 31 Wash. App. 193, 195, 639 P.2d 877 (1982)). Mr. Benshoof, as a “natural parent, has a fundamental liberty interest in his custody and care of” his son. Id. (quoting In re Custody of C.C.M., 149 Wash.App. 184, 203, 202 P.3d 971 (2009)).  “Procedures used to terminate the relationship between parent and child must meet the requisites of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.” Id. at 574 (quoting Lassiter v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 24–32 (1981)). Indeed, the Court of Appeals has previously noted that relocation and dependency proceedings are distinguishable from termination proceedings because they do not “sever all contact between the nonresidential parent and child.”  In re Marriage of Wehr, 165 Wash. App. 610, 615, 267 P.3d 1045, 1048 (2011). Here, however, the no-contact order at issue in the case, and the no contact order recommended by the prosecution would sever all contact between Mr. Benshoof and his son: without Due Process or the required statutory termination procedures.
  • None of these steps ever occurred: the prior court order stripped the Defendant of his fundamental rights without conforming to Constitutional or statutory process, and punishing him for asserting that right is as problematic as now seeking to create a new no contact order stripping him of those fundamental rights into the future. The Prosecution seeks to skip right over all of the Due Process protections built into a termination procedure and skip directly to the results of the termination: preventing Mr. Benshoof from seeing or contacting his son ever again. The Prosecution is essentially demanding a constructive termination of the parental relationship. Worse still, they demand this against the wishes of Mr. Benshoof’s son – who has the legal right to choose which parent he wishes to retain custody.
  • The government asks this court to commit the very abuses of power that led to standardizing sentencing in the first place: the need to treat similarly situated people similarly. The government’s punitive sentencing request invites yet another legal error: it demands punishment because the defendant has brought legal action against prosecutors and judges. This demand violates the defendant’s right to petition the government for redress of grievances, a Constitutional policy that prevents people seeking extra-legal remedies. While the government objects to the defendant constantly seeking out the courts for remedy, the government ignores his Constitutional right to do so, including the defendant challenging the service of process of the no-contact order at issue in this case, and challenged its constitutionality and jurisdictional authority as well. No one – until now – has sought to imprison someone for petitioning the court for redress of grievances, a First Amendment protected right. Aside from the Constitutional concerns, the government’s complaints about the defendant’s pro se litigation ignores that this case doesn’t concern those matters and that the defendant had already been punished. Mr. Benshoof has already been penalized with denial of the right to sue without advance court permission, dismissal of his petitions, denial of his complaints and appeals, and financial fines. By contrast, a time served sentence conforms to other comparable cases, Constitutional principles, and just sentencing.
  • It is apparent the legal authorities of the Seattle area dislike Benshoof’s pro se litigant and Covid policy protest past, but that is not the basis for imposing the harshest punishment ever imposed on a middle aged defendant with very little criminal history, who has already lost his ability to seek judicial redress without advance judicial permission, lost his car, lost his residence, and lost custody of his son, when that sentence will undermine confidence in the legal system and not be a truly just sentence. How much is enough? 

 

Read full Article
See More
Available on mobile and TV devices
google store google store app store app store
google store google store app tv store app tv store amazon store amazon store roku store roku store
Powered by Locals