Immigration Trump Card [A serious look at his proposed plan]

Maybe what is most remarkable about Trump’s immigration paper is that none of the other candidates beat him to it.

I mean no disrespect to his policy people, but anyone could have written it in a few days, a week maybe. The material is easily found online and unlike, say, health care policy, it’s really not that complicated.

Which suggests that the campaigns of most of the other leading candidates hoped they could avoid offering an actual plan, finessing the issue instead by mouthing platitudes for the yahoos without specifics that might upset donors. Trump’s paper takes direct aim at this strategy when it states “Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors.”

And that makes me pessimistic about anyone adopting Ian’s sensible suggestion that a “candidate who wants to be formidable, and knock Trump from his perch, would assert The Donald’s principles, then bolster them with solid policies.”

The three principles the paper offers wouldn’t even have to be articulated in a healthier society; of course immigration policy must be based exclusively on the interests of We the People of the United States, not wealthy donors, not corporations, not union bosses, not big-city politicians, and not foreign citizens. Their articulation is nonetheless useful as a way to flush out libertarian and leftist opponents of American sovereignty.

As to the specifics: When the WaPo reported that Trump called Sen. Jeff Sessions to talk immigration, I’d assumed the senator wouldn’t have been able to get a word in edgewise. Well, that does not seem to have been the case, because there’s a lot of specifics in Trump’s paper, and they’re mostly quite good. Among them: Nationwide E-Verify, visa-tracking for foreign visitors, cutting off aid to sanctuary cities, making overstay of a visa a criminal offense, tightening up on H-1B visas to prevent their being used to import cheap labor, ending birthright citizenship, and more. It even addresses the excesses of refugee resettlement.

The final item in the paper is a call for “immigration moderation,” a verbatim echo of Sen. Sessions’ words from earlier this year. But while Rick Santorum has called for a 25 percent cut in the current immigration level of 1 million per year (by eliminating the lottery and certain chain-migration categories), Trump’s paper doesn’t offer specifics here. On the other hand, it’s just a six-page paper, so there’s plenty of opportunity to elaborate.

I’m less enthusiastic about the first section of the paper, on Mexico and the border. Its antagonism toward Mexico is not constructive – Mexico is indeed obstructionist in many areas, but it has been induced to be helpful in others (for instance, by interdicting many of the Central American illegals headed north). Our approach to our neighbor to the south must be firm, but not ham-handed.

On the other hand, the paper makes Trump’s earlier comments about making Mexico pay for the construction of a border wall seem less absurd. It proposes a number of ways to extract funds, including “impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages” and increased visa fees on various Mexican travelers. These may or may not be good ideas, but they’re not preposterous.

So, while I think Ann Coulter exaggerates just a little when she calls Trump’s paper “The greatest political document since the Magna Carta,” it does clearly advance the immigration debate. Some of these specifics will almost certainly come up in the CNN debate next month and Trump’s rivals will have to respond. I sincerely hope one of the other candidates makes these ideas his own in order to “knock Trump from his perch,” but whether or not that happens, the Overton window for discussion of immigration has moved appreciably in the direction most of the public prefers.

I do not know anything about this guy’s credentials but I get the impression he is an intellectual bookworm who believes reality is the confines of his office and has never set foot on the border.

Quote:

“I mean no disrespect to his policy people, but anyone could have written it in a few days, a week maybe. The material is easily found online and unlike, say, health care policy, it’s really not that complicated.”

The last few words! “It’s really not that complicated.” Implying it is not that complicated to put together an immigration policy. After all it’s just a matter of a cut and paste of what you find on the web.

Are you kidding me?

I love the way these writers are so dismissive implying they know it all in the comfort of their little insignificant offices. This guy probably has never picked up a shovel in his life. It is quite an undertaking to build a wall of that magnitude. So far Trump is the only candidate I know who has shown what he will do for us regarding immigration.

Now Walker is falling all over himself saying his plan is the same. Carson is running down to the border to show he is also an illegal immigration hawk, but this guy just wants us to buy into his opinion that putting an immigration policy is not big deal. What a buffoon.

Quote:

“I’m less enthusiastic about the first section of the paper, on Mexico and the border. Its antagonism toward Mexico is not constructive – Mexico is indeed obstructionist in many areas, but it has been induced to be helpful in others (for instance, by interdicting many of the Central American illegals headed north). Our approach to our neighbor to the south must be firm, but not ham-handed.”

This last quote is the bouquet implying we must be nice to Mexico.

I live in Arizona and am witnessing first hand the illegal immigrant thing and it is a war zone. Mexico is doing nothing and taking advantage of every benefit it can. We must come down on Mexico like a ton of bricks to be taken seriously. I doubt this author has been on the border. If he had he would not be writing this stupid nonsense.

There are over 10,000 people killed on the Mexican border every year and at least for the last 5 years. Severed heads dumped on the local roads. Mass graves found regularly. Ranchers who have had property on the border have lost it all either being sued by illegals for getting injured on their properties or run off their property by drug cartels who want those properties as landing sites. Those are the lucky ones. A lot of property owner are simply killed.

On the way to Rocky Point in Mexico as you go through the Organ Pipe national park there are huge signs telling Americans not to go in certain parts of the park because these are drug corridors. The Feds admitting they have lost control. We are now no longer safe in the United States because Mexico is doing nothing about its drug cartels and we must be nice to them. Right!

In certain parts of Phoenix you don’t dare go through there without a gun because of all the illegals and the crime.

On the other hand if a gringo gets at all out of line in Mexico it is straight to jail. This is the most glaring double standard. Try working in Mexico illegally and that is an immediate felony and you go to jail. Mexico is indeed shipping all its welfare load to the US.

And with all this, this Kerkorian says we need to be nice to Mexico. Don’t think so. Mexico needs to know there is a new sheriff in town and given a major attitude adjustment.

Mexico has zero respect for us because the Federal gov’t has the same attitude as Kerkorian. Let’s all be nice and get along.

He is totally nuts and ignorant. He needs to spend some time down here and get a whiff of how many people are getting slaughtered by illegals. You now see people packing their guns on their hips. Tha’st what is required to stay safe.

This Kerkorian is totally nuts and ignorant and has no idea what he is talking about.

The three principles the paper offers wouldn’t even have to be articulated in a healthier society; of course immigration policy must be based exclusively on the interests of We the People of the United States, not wealthy donors, not corporations, not union bosses, not big-city politicians, and not foreign citizens.

Thank you. Nice to hear someone else say it for a change.

Immigration policy should serve the interests of the citizen. First, foremost, always.

The right to immigrate to the US is not a right at all, it is a privilege that should be extended carefully to people that we would want to share our sovereignty with, want to be neighbors to, want to share our vote with. Not just anyone qualifies.

And with half the country out of work, there may be some years that no one qualifies.

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.