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”).

[VinL]

My friend, I think you’re telling me what you wish to hear. But, I have to sign off. You find his quote about 100% deportation, or whatever supports your position- and post it— and we’ll discuss it further.

[2ndDivisionVet]

I’m not a Trump backer, so how does that work?

[Steelfish]

They still have some first rate writers and it hasn’t lost it’s perch as an intellectual lighthouse of conservative ideas.

Perhaps you read this article on Trump’s empty suit:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/422347/donald-trump-progressive-left-virus-conservative

[South40]

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3319550/posts

[NurdlyPeon]

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.

No, it's called asking for more than you expect to get. It's called having a throw-away negotiating demand. It gets the discussion moving in the right direction. Now we will be arguing about who will pay for the fence, not whether there will be a fence.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

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

Because they're sissies bought and paid for by the Chamber of Commerce and GOP interests. I thought we established this.

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

Your posts degenerated too quickly. I thought we were having a decent discussion on this!

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

I suspect it’s the other way around

[kabar]

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.

Congress passed the Secure Fence Act in 2006. It was overwhelmingly approved by Congress (just before the midterms. Hillary and Obama voted for it. However over time the Act was amended led by Kay Bailey Hutchison. There was a lot of pressure from US border towns in Texas to keep the free flow of Mexicans in and out of the country. The Mexicans came across to buy things helping the local economies. Mexico is our third largest trading partner after Canada and China.

Obviously, Mexico has no interest in securing its Northern border like it does its Southern border. Mexico facilitates migrants from Central America to transit Mexico and enter the US, like it did when the kids surged across our border.

What Trump is suggesting is that the Mexicans take control of their side of the border. The US does have leverage if it wants to force Mexico to secure its Northern border with the US. Trade and visa policies are some of the ways we can put pressure on Mexico to get what we want. Mexicans in the US send remittances of $23.6 billion annually to Mexico, which eclipses their oil revenue from the US. We can make it difficult to send much of the money back.

Every year close to $125 billion a year is sent from the US to the rest of world, primarily from the 41.5 million foreign born in this country. That money is not spent in the US economy.

[Rona Badger]

Perry has said the same thing and I'm sure other candidates have as well. Why do people think it couldn't happen? Am I missing something?

Trump says we give Mexico millions in aid each year, and he would take the cost of securing the border off that amount so Mexico wouldn't receive as much. That's his specific plan for making Mexico "pay" for securing the border.

See how much money we give to Mexico here: US Foreign Aid Mexico

[kabar]

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.

I think you underestimate the logistics and costs of trying to deport 30 million people. And the Democrats and interest groups will try to block it. Already, many of these groups are comparing mass deportation to the Nazis and the rounding up of the Jews for the Holocaust. The MSM would have a field day. From a political standpoint, attrition thru enforcement is the way to go.

[Mariner]

"But Goldwater never had Trump's populist appeal."

What part of "build a wall and make the Mexicans pay for it does his retard not understand?

OF COURSE it's possible to build a wall, while not impenetrable, is formidable. And patrolled with penalty.

[montag813]

Perhaps you read this article on Trump’s empty suit:

I did. The section:

The Trump virus’s primary effect is twofold: First, it implants in its hosts the unshakable conviction that one of the most execrable clowns in the history of these United States is a hero who deserves to be elevated to the White House; ...actually made me think of John McCain

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

I think you underestimate the logistics and costs of trying to deport 30 million people

Not at all! And, frankly, people who claim it can't be done are just afraid to try.

And the Democrats and interest groups will try to block it. Already, many of these groups are comparing mass deportation to the Nazis and the rounding up of the Jews for the Holocaust.

Let them do it. Deportation must be included in any program that purports to enforce the law.

[Mariner]

" has no authority to exact taxes from citizens of his own country "

It's called Tariff by Executive.

"That batch of Tomatoes is rotten"

Those motors were sourced from defective steel" etc.

If you think a POTUS cannot stop the import of anything he damn well leases, you probably thin a POTUS cannot open the border to anything he damn well pleases.

We have created a king, and there's no going back except by arms.

[Pelham]

I used to read National Review back when James Burnham, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Chilton Williamson, James Kirkpatrick, Joe Sobran, Russell Kirk and that crew wrote for the magazine. Charles W Cooke reads like a tabloid writer, which fits the current state of National Review.

[kabar]

Deportation is part of attrition thru enforcement. Mass deportation is not feasible and it is politically impossible. No politician supports mass deportation including Jeff Sessions and Steve King.

[Eagles6]

I have no problem with this editorial. The concepts are sound.

We don't have 11 million illegals though.

Probably in the range of 25 - 40 million.

[Pelham]

“But they still have a first-class bench that includes Prof. Sowell, Andrew McCarthy; Rich Lowry; John Fund; Jonah Goldberg and Mona Charen.”

Sowell, McCarthy and Fund are good writers, but who are you kidding with Rich Lowry, Jonah Goldberg and Mona Charen?

[P-Marlowe]

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.

By "intellectual" conservative you mean GOPe conservative. Anyone to the right of National Review is not considered intellectual. Just blow off the whackos. That's their attitude.