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 ...
Cruz Tries to Claim the Middle Ground on Immigration
Immigration-reform legislation from the Senate’s so-called Gang of Eight passed that chamber in June and includes a 13-year path to citizenship. Mr. Cruz pushed unsuccessfully for amendments that would have, among other things, eliminated the citizenship component. Asked about what to do with the people here illegally, however, he stressed that he had never tried to undo the goal of allowing them to stay.
“The amendment that I introduced removed the path to citizenship, but it did not change the underlying work permit from the Gang of Eight,” he said during a recent visit to El Paso. Mr. Cruz also noted that he had not called for deportation or, as Mitt Romney famously advocated, self-deportation.
Mr. Cruz said recent polling indicated that people outside Washington support some reform, including legal status without citizenship. He said he was against naturalization because it rewarded lawbreakers and was unfair to legal immigrants. It also perpetuates illegal crossings, he added.
Besides barring citizenship while instituting some level of legalization for those here already, Mr. Cruz has proposed increasing the number of green cards awarded annually, to 1.35 million from 675,000. He also wants to eliminate the per-country limit that he said left applicants from countries like Mexico, China and India hamstrung when they tried to gain legal entry to this country.
So my take away from this moron's article is:
1) He basically wants the same thing as Donald Trump, which is border security, enforcement of laws and a wall (though this scumbag suspiciously poo poos the concept of the wall, saying that "geography" will stop it) first and foremost.
2) He criticizes Trump by accusing him of wanting to kick them all out and immediately bring them back in, but then he himself poo poos the concept of deportation, saying it isn't a priority. Basically saying that they'll figure out what to do with everyone once the border is secured. He then mentions self-deportation-- but, what about the people who do not self-deport? Is this guy going to offer them amnesty? Ironically, after this guy calls Trump "soft" on illegal immigration for advocating 100 percent deportation and a legal process that would-- exactly as this guy recommends-- allow us to pick and choose who we want in our country, he ends up coming out as the real softy on illegal immigration, just too cowardly to say so directly.
3) He then concludes-- even though he agrees with Trump 90 percent or so-- with a typical "we know Trump is a moron, too stupid to have this all figured out as we do." Which only causes me to get pissed off, and does nothing but cement my conviction that he's a lying, elitest RINO.
Now what you say is correct, but I want to point out something. The guy in the article makes the same statement-- I suspect primarily just to ridicule Trump and to discredit the wall.
But where is 90 percent of the drugs coming from? Anything not coming in across the water is passing through those borders--- another reason to build the wall and man it with the national guard, like how O'Reilly used to ask for.
Bill Buckley wrote we must elect the “most conservative,” and one who “can win.” In terms of the national electorate, Trump is neither. His ideas are typical shoot-from-the-hip type and they turn out to be of no practical consequence.
The Editorial methodically dissects his ideas that border on the loony. The National Review is still the leading intellectual journal of the conservative movement. Simply dismissing its arguments is neither helpful to Trump, his supporters or to the American electorate.
Ted Cruz on the other hand is a real heavyweight and a first-class intellectual who adds gravitas to his ideas and political will.
You should be credited for reading the whole article and making some interesting counterpoints.
But that really strikes me as a dangerous cop out. I want to know what these people have planned after they declare the border "secured." They have to have an idea. Why exactly do I want to give my vote to a bunch of scumbags who will "enforce the border," and then immediately turn around and say "Oh, well, deporting them all is impossible. So let's make them legal!"
Trump makes it real clear what is going to happen to these people after enforcing the border. People criticize him for stating that there will be a legal process to bring some of these people we deport back in-- but I see that as a compromise for the inevitable sob story that comes out about the 12 year old with straight As who came in as a Baby. But the fact that Trump is talking about 100 percent deportation AND a legal process so we can vet these people, to see if they are really going to be people we might want back, is better than NOT knowing what Cruz or the rest plan to do later.
Ultimately the only person 100 percent perfect on immigration is Ann Coulter. I suspect that Trump feels the same way and that the legal process in the end will take into account our nation's best interests, not the best interest's of the person involved. Nevertheless, even the worst case scenario is better.
Read my last one to VinL, probably the best point of all
These people really need a new narrative. The ideological pitch is a waste of time. I don’t know any Trump supporter who think he’s a true conservative. I’m not sure he even really knows what he is. He seems to be a non ideologue business guy who was conservative leaning. Now he’s slinging populism.
For all his past positions or whatever, no one can say he was known as some liberal activist.
But no matter, he’s screwing up the GOPe plans, and as each day goes by, Jeb loses, Cruz wins, and Trump has fun.
You can build a wall and develop a system to track and deport visa overstays. You can cut off the job magnet, which is why most of the illegals enter the US. You can step up interior enforcement leveraging state and local law enforcement to enforce our immigration laws. These steps can be taken concurrently and should be.
Securing the border is a national security issue. The two main threats to our national security posed by immigration relate to terrorism and drugs. First, tens of thousands of persons from countries that support international terrorism have come across our southern border undetected since 9/11. Testifying before Congress in March 2006, FBI Director Robert Mueller said that his agency busted a smuggling ring organized by the terrorist group Hezbollah that had operatives cross the Mexican border to carry out possible terrorist attacks inside the U.S. “This was an occasion in which Hezbollah operatives were assisting others with some association with Hezbollah in coming to the United States,” Mueller told a House Appropriations subcommittee during a hearing on the FBI's budget.
Hezbollah was responsible for the October 1983 bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut, which killed 243 U.S. troops. A total of 20 foreign-born terrorists were involved in 9/11, 19 of whom took part in the attack that resulted in nearly 3,000 deaths. The terrorists had entered the country on tourist or student visas. Four of them, however, had overstayed their visas and become illegal aliens and the others should not have been granted visas for various immigration control reasons.
Second, Michael Hayden, the outgoing head of the CIA stated in January 2009 that the threat of a narco state in Mexico is one of the gravest dangers to American security, on a par with a nuclear-armed Iran. An assessment by the United States Joint Forces Command, published in February 2009, concluded that the two countries most at risk of becoming failed states were Pakistan and Mexico. The descent of Mexico into a failed narco state, marked by increased violence and brutality, which has already spilled over into the U.S., has enormous implications for immigration, legal and illegal.
With over 13 million Mexican-born residents in the U.S. plus their U.S.-born relatives, there are strong familial ties to Mexico, which would attract Mexicans fleeing a disintegrating state seeking asylum and safety in the U.S. And the pressure on our porous, unsecured southern border would increase dramatically. Currently, the Border Patrol apprehends more than half a million people annually trying to enter the U.S. illegally from Mexico and hundreds of thousands more illegal aliens are successful in gaining entry. There is no way the U.S. could stop a tidal wave of Mexicans seeking asylum in this country and it would be even more difficult to remove them.
There has been a confluence of interests between drugs, illegal immigration, and terrorism. The systems for moving terrorists illegally across the border have become increasingly sophisticated, with Mexican drug kingpins now playing a major facilitating role using the same routes and methods to bring in illegal aliens and drugs. In view of the carnage that the 19 terrorists created on 9/11, the virtual certainty that our government has allowed substantial numbers of terrorists and their supporters to enter our country illegally is an outrage.
Can you- and the folks who post as you do- understand one simple point-— no one, no one— is going to come out for complete deportation because they won’t get elected.
Can you not see that? Look at Trump, he said he would deport- and then, had to back off.
OK- I got a solution, you run for President. Seriously, here you are Kabar for President and your platform is I will deport all illegals— just like Santorum. How do you think you will do?
This isn't really true since: 1) Trump has highly detailed plans. It's just that nobody likes to talk about them or to ask him about them, instead opting for questions about bimbos or ex-wives. I do agree Trump needs to put these prominently on his website, which he hasn't, but it's not like he hasn't given speeches, talked about them, or doesn't have a book on the topic.
2) The rest of the candidates can't win either because they're all politicians, with the exception of Ben Carson who I think is a strong candidate. I watch these people in contrast to Trump, even Cruz, and they are politicians. Cruz is well crafted, deliberate, but ultimately artificial and doesn't come off anywhere near as sincere as Trump. I noticed this especially with his recent dodges on Trump and the Kelly fiasco, instead opting to praise both of them. See, I don't like a guy who picks and chooses his fights, who holds his tongue, even if it's the smartest thing. I like a guy who is honest and always tells you what's on his mind. Carson also comes off incredibly sincere. It is this sincerity-- this genuine love for the country-- this feeling that they will stand for what they stand for-- this is really one of their greatest selling points and makes both of these men far more electable than fake Hillary or Santorum or any of the other candidates.
I think that you underestimate this "realness", ironically from one reality TV star, and another a doctor, at your own peril.
What kind of executive experience has he had?
When did he back off 100 percent deportation?
Great post
No politician is talking about mass deportation. What is wrong with attrition thru enforcement?
As one who has been pointing out how liberal Trump is I can tell you there are many here who believe he is conservative. He's not, of course, he is in fact very liberal. Discount that if you will but I don't trust any liberal and thus, I do not trust Donald Trump.
Trump will not run in the primaries, or in the general, on 100% deportation. He’s already back-tracking- and I’m not blaming him. Walker backtracked on a moratorium on legal immigration.
What’s the sense of taking an “un-winnable” position “100% deportation” and losing the election?
Nothing wrong with it at all, but Trump has indeed talked about 100 percent deportation, which, I imagine, qualifies as "mass." I don't know if he intends to do it all at once (if that is the proper definition of "mass") or through attrition however.
Exactly! Everyone knows how strong National Review has been on the issue of illegal aliens!
What? Wait a minute.... nevermind....
Where did he backtrack? Link?
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.