Donald Trump’s Amnesty

National Review ^ | August 10, 2015 | EDITORIAL

[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”).

[kabar]

I trust the GOPe even less. There are only two non-GOPe candidates in the race—Trump and Cruz. Jindal might be a third.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

What’s the sense of taking an “un-winnable” position “100% deportation” and losing the election?

By the way, you're wrong: the country is hungry for law and order. This is a winning position, always has been.

[Pelham]

” Whatever one might say of the National Review, it is a leading exponent of serious intellectual conservative thinking.”

In the years 1976 to 1990 maybe. And then the GOP girlyboys inherited what once had been an important magazine.

[South40]

I severed ties with the GOP in 2007. So I have no affinity for the party of McConnell and Boehner.

[VinL]

I have to tell you, some of these people have been here; they’ve done a good job; in some cases sadly they’ve been living under the shadows,” Trump said in his telephone interview. “We have to do something, so whether it’s merit, or whether it’s whatever, but — I’m a believer in the merit system. Somebody’s been outstanding, we (ought to) try to work something out.”

[Pelham]

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.

Worth repeating

[VinL]

Really— Then why is no one taking that position? If it’s a winner, they’d all be jumping on it. Name ‘em?

[kabar]

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.

There is no political will for mass deportation. Rounding up 12 to 30 million illegals is a non-starter.

The proponents of amnesty are wont to create the false choice between a blanket amnesty and mass deportation of 12 to 30 million illegal aliens. In reality, we have other choices and alternatives that don’t reward people who have broken our laws with the right to stay and work here and an eventual path to citizenship. The 12 to 30 million illegal aliens did not enter this country overnight and they will not leave overnight. Attrition through enforcement works. We have empirical data from Georgia, Oklahoma, and Arizona proving that it does.

If you take all the steps I mentioned in a previous posting, you can drastically reduce the number of lawbreakers and future lawbreakers. I see no sense of urgency of trying to round up all the lawbreakers. We can start with the estimated 2 million criminal aliens. We have about 1 million convicted criminal aliens who have been released by the federal government. These absconders were ordered deported, but they never left.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

I have to tell you, some of these people have been here; they’ve done a good job; in some cases sadly they’ve been living under the shadows,” Trump said in his telephone interview. “We have to do something, so whether it’s merit, or whether it’s whatever, but — I’m a believer in the merit system. Somebody’s been outstanding, we (ought to) try to work something out.”

In the context of: 100 percent deportation. It's the same thing he said previously. "AFTER" deportation, a merit system for legalized re-entry.

[nathanbedford]

He's gonn'a tax the shit out of them

It is not immediately clear to me how the president of country A is going to tax the shit out of the citizens of country B because the president of the United States has no authority to exact taxes from citizens of his own country much less from citizens of another country. I know of no powers vested in the president by article 2 of the Constitution which permit him to do any such thing.

Candidate Trump is long on soundbites and short on substance.

If we are suggesting that a president Trump will act in a manner repugnant to the Constitution, I as a conservative will no doubt be joined by many other conservatives to oppose him. Conservatives, if nothing else, stand for the proposition that our fidelity to the Constitution is not situational. If we are suggesting that Trump will convince Congress to impose sanctions on Mexico until they capitulate and fund the wall, I point out that is politically unrealistic.

The reason the wall has not been built is because it is not wanted by anyone except the people of America. The president flatly does not want it, the Democrats in Congress will not stand for it, the Republicans in Congress will conspire with the Democrats.The forces that oppose controlling immigration do so because it advantages them. Those forces are very strong or the wall would have been built long ago.

Now, exactly how is president Trump "gonn'a tax the shit out of them"?

[VinL]

Where? Show it to me? Go on Google, get the article where he says “100% deportation”.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

There is no political will for mass deportation. Rounding up 12 to 30 million illegals is a non-starter.

I think perhaps you are underestimating the feelings of the American people. People are pissed and are frankly tired about hearing about good and decent "illegal aliens." The hardest position is the best one.

That said, self-deportation combined with actual deportation upon enforcement of the law is certainly a useful combination. In Operation Wetback, they deported, I believe, about 1 million in a year. And quite frankly I think we can beat that record.

[montag813]

When I hear "National Review" I just put my hands over my ears and say "nananananaaaaa". They are so in the tank, and without integrity. The day they fired John Derbyshire for speaking simple truths about race and crime, was my last day reading them

[FreeReign]

How awful that NR has gone GOPe.

How awful some have gone pro amnesty.

[Steelfish]

Trump barely moved the needle in the post-debate NBC poll. He has reached his peak and will now start to fall as his flip-flops get more exposure and his policy prescriptions appear all rhetoric and no beef.

According to the poll the only two first-tier candidates who held their position were Donald Trump and Marco Rubio (still tied for fourth).

The closest to Trump’s post-debate 23 percent was Ted Cruz, moving up from a sixth-place tie to claim second place with 13 percent. That’s what I call the power of persuasion.

Ben Carson also got a boost, moving up from being tied for fourth place to sole possession of third place, with 11 percent. Behind these three were Carly Fiorina and Marco Rubio, both at 8 percent support.

The two big losers, however, were Jeb Bush and Scott Walker, who moved from being tied for second place down to being tied for sixth place, with only 7 percent support. That’s a pretty big drop for both of them, neither of whom can now claim to be even close to “frontrunner” status. Rand Paul and Mike Huckabee both got 5 percent, and no other candidate got better than 2 percent.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

It’s the one that National Review is criticizing! I don’t know if they bothered to quote him in its entirety, however, but from memory, he is clearly talking about a legal process for return after Deportation, and even says “I know it’s harsh, but we have to obey the law, we have borders, we have laws”, or something along those lines.

[Steelfish]

I agree with you on John Derbyshire. But they still have a first-class bench that includes Prof. Sowell, Andrew McCarthy; Rich Lowry; John Fund; Jonah Goldberg and Mona Charen.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Trump barely moved the needle in the post-debate NBC poll.

I find that poll questionable because it didn't really reflect the outrage I saw against Fox, so it was strange that he only moved up one point (though great that Jeb dropped a whole bunch). In another poll, Trump went up 7 points.

I think perhaps you are having wishful thinking.

[Steelfish]

Online monkey polls don’t count. Sooner or later the Showman reveals himself to be just that, a Showman. Trump is all about himself.

[knarf]

The magnificence of FR is the presence of cooler heads in hotter climes

Y'GOT me there, Nate.