Posted on 02/12/2016 2:12:41 PM PST by conservativejoy
Good old BS propaganda that tells only 25% of the story to misrepresent Trump’s position yet again...
If the MSM is too inept and corrupt to get it right, accurately, why should we expect a fifth tier "news" source to do any better?
There is a profound chasm between "will come back" and "might come back"
You are displaying an embarrassing level of credibility.
That is precisely the point of this entire thread!
That is just a minor issue; There are at least a half dozen major issues, which are also unconstitutional, that the African and the muslim contingent and their supporters avoid like the plague.
I admire competency of every sort. It's simple.
Claiming to know the future has been an eternal scam of megalomaniacs, but anything is possible.
Just list all the assertions you have made of future events that can be documented s accurate over, say, a period of 8 to 12 years, and you can no longer be considered loony tunes.
Or just STFU!
It only sounds insane when it is so drastically misrepresented as it was in this article. Trump has made it clear on many occasions that not all of the deported can come back in and the ones who do will be well-vetted. That they all get to return is the one, most fundamental incorrect assumption that the Trump haters make, even in the face of a lot of evidence to the contrary.
Check out Trump's speech from Beaumont, TX at the 4:26 mark:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KUMb_7LH9Q
Here's what he says about the big door in his wall: "And people will come through the openings in that wall, and we'll have a few of them, and they'll come in and they're going to come in legally into our country." "A few of them" is what he said, not "all of them"--he has never at any time said that he wants all of the deported to come back.
First of all, in his book, Time to Get Tough, his Nov. speech in Knoxville (on YouTube), and various other places, he has made it clear that those with criminal records can never come back in again.
Secondly, he said they can apply to become legal immigrants, but it is important to keep in mind that he has written repeatedly about reforming the legal immigration system to allow the most educated and talented into the country and to keep out those who would damage it and harm American workers. Look at his requirements about the H1-B visas in his policy paper on his website for some of his strategies to ensure that those legal immigrants aren't taking jobs from Americans and driving wages down. If there is a legitimate need, however, he is not against bringing people in from abroad to fill it. This does not mean that he believes the old canard that all the illegals are only doing jobs Americans won't. He wrote in 2011: "We've all heard it a million times: 'We need illegal immigrants because they are willing to do jobs Americans just won't.' To that one I say, 'Says who?' We have 25 million citizens who need jobs, and 7 million illegal immigrants holding American jobs. Do the math..."
As his immigration policy paper on his campaign website says, "We need to control the admission of new low-earning workers in order to: help wages grow, get teenagers back to work, aid minorities' rise into the middle class, help schools and communities falling behind, and to ensure our immigrant members of the national family become part of the American dream." Another aspect of his position is having immigrants who will not need welfare: "Applicants for entry to the United States should be required to certify that they can pay for their own housing, healthcare and other needs before coming to the U.S."
In all three of his political books (from 2000, 2011, and 2015), he makes it clear that he thinks we should allow in immigrants who will be an overall benefit to our country. In his 2011 book Time to Get Tough, he wrote that he thinks immigrants need to "bring skills, prosperity, and intellectual capital." He wants to give preference to people with college degrees and skilled work experience (specifically in desired fields that need workers). In that book, he wrote more about the welfare issue: "America doesn't need freeloaders who come here to live off our welfare system."
In his 2000 book, The America We Deserve, he wrote: "Legal immigrants do not and should not enter easily...It comes down to this: We must take care of our own people first. Our policy to people born elsewhere should be clear: Enter by the law, or leave." He then discusses the deportations that were happening each year and adds: "But it's still not good enough. It's irresponsible to give a helping hand to outsiders so long as there is one American deprived of a livelihood or basic services."
In his newest book, Crippled America, he talks of using the immigration system to "reward achievement and excellence." He says, "Our current immigration laws are upside down--they make it tough on the people we need to have here, and easy for the people we don't want here." He then talks about how we should be bringing in "the smartest, hardest-working people born in other countries."
First of all, it is NOT a small minority. But even worse, our elected criminals manipulate statistics and have in the past simply arbitrarily and capriciously determined that certain misdemeanors or even felonies are no longer crimes. And they consider that an achievement.
That "small minority" of criminals is upwards of 25% for violent crimes and drugs, and 75% for what would otherwise be called "white collar" crimes.
It is no coincidence that those same elected criminals and bureaucrats prohibited the necessary statistics to be gathered by law enforcement, enabling them to continue claiming, unchallenged, their claim that it is only a "tiny" problem. It is huge.
Trump doesn’t even want them to “go to the back of the line” in his amnesty—he wants them to return, legalized, “on an expedited basis”.
Cruz now says he wouldn’t, but he has supported legalization in the past and until very recently he wouldn’t say what he’d do with the illegals here presently.
I don’t really trust either of them on this issue—but for now Cruz has the advantage because of his current official position.
No, Trump “clearly” and repeatedly has said he’d let them come back, magically legalized, on an “expedited” basis.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but from which university did you get your Doctorate in "Conservative Economic Theory?"
I can find no evidence of such a degree anywhere.
No, they would not be eligible to come back “through legal channels” at all under our current law. Trump not only would make their return legal—he would expedite their return.
That is the straightforward “touchback amnesty” that the GOPe tried to use to get amnesty by the base almost a decade ago.
Trump conveniently didn’t put what he has been saying since last summer—about “expediting” illegals’ return as legals once they go home to visit their families—into his stated position paper.
Trump has repeatedly said he’d “expedite” their return. By current law they are not eligible to return at all.
Trump is actually for amnesty, which is what his son is pointing out.
Well, waiters and dishwashers, yes. But supers and porters work for building management companies, as do doormen.
Fingerprinting them upon departure should be one good way to make sure they don’t return.
Trump has repeatedly said it in his stump speeches. I’ve repeatedly heard him say that he would “expedite” their return as legals.
GREAT!
Operation Wetback.
1954.
Deported a total of 2 million illegals in less than 2 years, including self-deportations.
Glad that you seem to approve of Eisenhower's higher totally unopposed efficiency.
Building management
A building manager supervises the hard and soft services of a built structure. There are essentially two types of building manager positions: residential and commercial.
Hard services usually relate to physical, structural services such as fire alarm systems, lifts and so on whereas soft services allude to cleaning, landscaping, security and suchlike human-sourced services.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Building_management
Anyone remember in the ‘50s and ‘60s where newspapers referred to government representatives as ‘solons’? There is a dead word.
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.