Posted on 08/10/2015 9:30:44 PM PDT by Steelfish
Donald Trump’s Amnesty
by THE EDITORS August 10, 2015
That Donald Trump has said something incoherent is not remarkable. But even for a campaign that has largely substituted adjectives for ideas, Trump’s recent incoherent comments on immigration were remarkable, coming as they do from a candidate who has made immigration the keystone of his platform. His intellectual failure is instructive, and the other candidates should learn from it. Trump’s original proposal was to build a wall and force the government of Mexico to pay for it.
The latter half of that proposition is too silly to merit much criticism and may be dismissed as bluster. The first half is a little more complicated: The actual geography of the U.S.–Mexico border ensures that there will not be a wall, though a series of barriers is desirable. But that is only a small part of the solution: Walls can be ascended or tunneled under, and must be patrolled; recent research suggests that more than half of new illegals do not sneak cross any border but simply enter legally and overstay their visas; no effective national system is in place to enforce our immigration laws at the critical place: the work site.
“Build a wall” is at most a part of the broader solution. Asked about his immigration ideas on CNN, Trump was a mess, beginning with the old “jobs Americans won’t do” canard favored by open-borders proponents (a canard because it always leaves out the relevant qualifier: “at current wages”), then suggesting that we should deport the millions of illegals who are already here only to turn around and bring them back (“I want to move them out, and we’re going to move them back in, and let them be legal”).
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
cue the “National Review is just protecting the GOPe” crowd, who will conveniently ignore any negative facts about their beloved Trump.
"The latter half of that proposition is too silly to merit much criticism and may be dismissed as bluster."
Remember NAFTA ?
He's gonn'a tax the shit out of them ... they'll pay or they won't play
The entire Editorial is worth a read even if one disagrees with its premise and or conclusion.
Amazing to me so many are mystified at how this could work.
Are they really so stupid that they think they’re hurting him? No wonder they have to hold bake sales to keep that magazine open.
Its important to address the arguments raised in the Editorial. Whatever one might say of the National Review, it is a leading exponent of serious intellectual conservative thinking.
As I was saying...cue the “National Review is just protecting the GOPe” crowd, who will conveniently ignore any negative facts about their beloved Trump.
I cannot disagree more. The National Review came out forcibly against Bush appointee Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court because she wasn’t conservative enough.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/215689/start-over-editors
Oh, I agree. I may not agree with the National Review on every issue, but in general, most of their writers present their arguments in a clear, consistent and cogent manner. My point was simply that many Trump supporters have a habit of responding to any criticism with personal attacks rather than dealing with the substance, and so I would expect them to respond to this article by accusing the author of supporting the GOPe and writing a hit piece, without bothering to respond to any of the points raised in the article.
Perhaps I'm missing something in here, but I've yet to hear even the most conservative who doesn't believe that any solution starts at one place: Closing the border to illegals.
But hey, let's go with Bush who wants amnesty and more open borders or Rubio who wants amnesty and more open borders or — why the list goes on and on and on, and since it fits perfectly with Democrats who view these as their future voters, it will pass with ‘full bipartisan’ support which always means we get screwed.
I have zero delusions about Trump. I know he used to be quite liberal, and likely has quite a few bends in that direction today that would give me heartburn.
Democrats up until this point have absolutely shut down any discussion on the topic. Do you imagine that without Trump, there’d be ANY questions about illegal immigration?
Could someone who believes that Trump is a deep down conservative please raise your hand? Because I'm pretty sure there's no fools here. I do not expect him to declare on the first day he'll make a presidential directive outlawing abortion.
BUT he's done all of us a great favor. He's finally brought up conversations which have been forbidden. Illegal immigration, exporting of jobs, trade deals that strip the one real constitutional method of funding the government, crappy deals with Iran and the disaster fighting ISIS.
So, yes, I'm sitting here eagerly cheering him on, watching the heads of liberals in both parties explode with pent up frustration as he shatters every single ‘absolute political rule.’ They've pulled the racist card on him, he autographed it. They pulled the sexist card on him, he gave it a kiss.
Got a better idea, rather than railing on about Trump, how about getting out there and kicking the rumps of the idiot lazy politicians who are following the ‘sage’ advice of the same advisors who have lost the white house two times in a row now against - I mean this is just awesome - a first term senator who wouldn't even release his college transcripts.
Then all we'll have to deal with is the damn tunnels.
Charge a 3% border security fee on any transfer of funds to Mexico. Mexico will build the wall themselves rather than lose that much money. Illegals sending money home is the single largest source of income for the country.
You forgot your sarcasm tag.
Border security first, and as a stand alone requirement. Yes.
I wonder how this cogent, thoughtful article escaped NR which has been mau-mauing Trump, like tawdry little s***s since the, ahem, ‘debates’.
And they make a good point as well that, when you read what Trump has said, uh, often it doesn’t really make much sense.
As long as they don’t try to be Bill Buckley, and they aren’t by any means, I’ll read more like this.
And as long as Trump’s beating hell out of Uniparty, however, he can read the Manhattan phone book for all I care.
Republicans should press for enforcement as a standalone proposal, not as part of a wider immigration compromise. Once that enforcement is in place, then we can open the discussion about broader subsequent reforms. ...We don’t expect Donald Trump to grasp these subtleties. But there are 16 other candidates in the race, and one of them ought to try getting this right.
**************
That’s been Cruz’s position since Day 1. Cruz says that Congress promised Reagan to secure the border in exchange for amnesty— but that never happened. Cruz says before any further discussions, Congress must first make good on its promise.
Closing the border only solves part of the problem. 40% of the illegals came here legally and overstayed their visas. We need a system to track and deport visa overstays. We also need to cut off the job magnet with mandatory e-verify.
We also need to reduce legal immigration significantly from the current 1.1 million a year and guest worker programs that bring in 640,000 a year. We have the lowest labor participation rates in 38 years. Immigrants are taking American jobs and depressing wages. We have a huge surplus of labor. Only Santorum is talking about reducing legal immigration.
How awful that NR has gone GOPe.
Bill Buckley must be spinning in his grave.
For those who don’t read NR anymore, the editors came out for amnesty in early 2013 after Romney lost.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.