Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Donald Trump’s Amnesty
National Review ^ | August 10, 2015 | EDITORIAL

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 ...


TOPICS: Politics
KEYWORDS: 2016election; aliens; amnesty; election2016; newyork; steelfish; tedcruz; texas; trolling; trump
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last

1 posted on 08/10/2015 9:30:44 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

cue the “National Review is just protecting the GOPe” crowd, who will conveniently ignore any negative facts about their beloved Trump.


2 posted on 08/10/2015 9:32:35 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
So many respected sources saying stupid things

"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

3 posted on 08/10/2015 9:33:27 PM PDT by knarf (I say things that are true ... I have no proof ... but they're true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

The entire Editorial is worth a read even if one disagrees with its premise and or conclusion.


4 posted on 08/10/2015 9:33:44 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
"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."

Amazing to me so many are mystified at how this could work.

5 posted on 08/10/2015 9:34:21 PM PDT by moehoward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


6 posted on 08/10/2015 9:34:47 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (TED CRUZ. You can help: https://donate.tedcruz.org/c/FBTX0095/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

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.


7 posted on 08/10/2015 9:35:40 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet
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.

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.

8 posted on 08/10/2015 9:38:57 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

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


9 posted on 08/10/2015 9:41:00 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


10 posted on 08/10/2015 9:45:20 PM PDT by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
A) Illegal immigration is a massive problem. B) LEGAL immigration can't be increased when there's tens of millions of illegals here. C) Enforcing immigration has NO power when you can simply skip across the border whenever you're deported.

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.

11 posted on 08/10/2015 9:45:54 PM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
Charge a toll 500 ft past the border line. $1 per vehicle...you'll have that wall built no time.

Then all we'll have to deal with is the damn tunnels.

12 posted on 08/10/2015 9:48:22 PM PDT by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
Charge a toll 500 ft past the border line. $1 per vehicle...you'll have that wall built no time. 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.

13 posted on 08/10/2015 9:49:59 PM PDT by kingu (Everything starts with slashing the size and scope of the federal government.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
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

You forgot your sarcasm tag.

14 posted on 08/10/2015 9:50:37 PM PDT by Greetings_Puny_Humans (I mostly come out at night... mostly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish
The actual geography of the U.S.–Mexico border ensures that there will not be a wall, though a series of barriers is desirable.

I've always preferred a 4' barbed-wire fence with landmines. Drones mapping explosions/breakthroughs direct surface reinforcement. Drop leaflets in Mehico informing would-be violators of the consequences as humanitarian gesture.


15 posted on 08/10/2015 9:53:25 PM PDT by 867V309 (Trump: Bull in a RINO Shoppe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


16 posted on 08/10/2015 9:54:00 PM PDT by tumblindice (America's founding fathers: all armed conservatives.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

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.


17 posted on 08/10/2015 9:58:43 PM PDT by VinL (It is better to suffer every wrong, then to consent to wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kingu
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.

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.

18 posted on 08/10/2015 10:00:22 PM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

How awful that NR has gone GOPe.

Bill Buckley must be spinning in his grave.


19 posted on 08/10/2015 10:02:46 PM PDT by dsc (Any attempt to move a government to the left is a crime against humanity.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steelfish

For those who don’t read NR anymore, the editors came out for amnesty in early 2013 after Romney lost.


20 posted on 08/10/2015 10:03:56 PM PDT by Empire View
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-88 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson