Posted on 08/17/2015 5:59:35 AM PDT by xzins
Donald Trump set off yet another wave of anguish and frustration among Republican political elites Sunday with more provocative statements about immigration, along with the release of a Trump immigration plan influenced by the Senate's leading immigration hawk. But there are indications Trump's positions on immigration are more in line with the views of the public — not just GOP voters, but the public at large — than those of his critics.
"Donald Trump: Undocumented Immigrants 'Have to Go,'" read the headline at NBC News, where Trump appeared on "Meet the Press." "They have to go," Trump told moderator Chuck Todd, referring to immigrants in the U.S. illegally. "We either have a country or we don't have a country." At the same time, Trump unveiled a brief immigration position paper, created in consultation with Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions, calling for, among other things, an end to the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship.
Some of Trump's presidential rivals, and no doubt many in the GOP establishment, were appalled. "Our leading Republican is embracing self-deportation, that all of the 11 million have to walk back where they came from, and maybe we'll let some of them come back," Sen. Lindsey Graham said on CBS. "I just hope we don't go down that road as a party. So our leading contender, Mr. Trump, is going backward on immigration. And I think he's going to take all of us with him if we don't watch it."
But are Trump's views on immigration as far out of the mainstream as Graham suggests? Are they out of the mainstream at all? A recent academic paper, by Stanford professor David Broockman and Berkeley Ph.D candidate Douglas Ahler, suggests a majority of the public's views on immigration are closer to Trump's than to the advocates of comprehensive immigration reform.
The Broockman/Ahler paper, published in July, is about more than just immigration; it examines the range of public opinion on several issues. On each, the authors gave a scientifically-selected group of respondents a broad range of policy options. On immigration, they listed seven possibilities, ranging from open borders to shutting down all immigration. These are the options Broockman and Ahler presented to respondents:
1. The United States should have open borders and allow further immigration on an unlimited basis.
2. Legal immigration to the United States should greatly increase among all immigrant groups, regardless of their skills. Immigrants already in the United States should be put on the path to citizenship.
3. Immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase. Immigration by those without such skills should continue at its current pace, although this immigration should be legalized.
4. Immigration of highly skilled individuals should greatly increase, and immigration among those without such skills should be limited in time and/or magnitude, e.g., through a guest worker program.
5. The United States should admit more highly skilled immigrants and secure the border with increased physical barriers to stem the flow of other immigrants.
6. Only a small number of highly skilled immigrants should be allowed into the United States until the border is fully secured, and all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. should be deported.
7. Further immigration to the United States should be banned until the border is fully secured, and all illegal immigrants currently in the U.S. should be deported immediately.
Here are the results Broockman and Ahler got: 4.7 percent supported Option One; 17.4 percent supported Option Two; 10.8 percent supported Option Three; 12.0 percent supported Option Four; 17.0 percent supported Option Five; 13.8 percent supported Option Six; and 24.4 percent supported Option Seven.
The largest single group, 24.4 percent, supported the most draconian option — closed borders and mass deportation — that is dismissed by every candidate in the race, including Trump. Add in the next group that supported Option Six, which would allow only a "small number" of highly skilled immigrants to enter the U.S. and also involve mass deportations, and the number increased to 38.2 percent. Then add Option Five, which would allow only highly skilled immigrants while physically blocking the border, and the number increased to 55.2 percent.
"Many citizens support policies that seem to fall outside of the range of policy options considered in elite discourse," Broockman and Ahler conclude.
Trump's immigration stance appears to fall somewhere between Option Five and Option Six, perhaps a little closer to the latter. It's probably fair to say that, if Broockman and Ahler are correct, a majority of Americans — not just Republican voters, but all Americans — hold views that are consistent with Trump's position, or are even more restrictive. Opponents like Graham portray Trump's immigration position as far out of the mainstream, but that doesn't appear to be the case.
Ah. I. C.
Excellent cabinet choices all.
I would add some experienced managers with business experience to peel away the thousands of pages of regulations and billion-dollar expenditures (entitlements)in the departments to be eliminated. This action alone would make the need for the bureaucracy of the “Department” to fall in upon itself.
Since fantasy draft season is near... Choices for Chief of Staff, Boner, and McTurtle? All needed to align Executive Branch with impotent Legislative Branch...
When is a Pub candidate going to point out that the politicians who support amnesty and “a pathway to citizenship” are offering to purchase the votes of ILLEGAL immigrants through the use of legal citizens’ money!!
So what?
Most Americans believe that they are entitled to get their promised benefits or at least get some of what they paid into those programs back. After all you never hear about the politicians wanting to cut their own pensions or those of their staff or the people who work for the state, federal and local governments.
You want to change SS? Eliminate every public sector pension plan and include and include the proceeds in the confiscatory SS program and make government workers live under the same plan as the rest of us.
SS has already been changed since I started paying in it. It has risen to paying 15% of my income to cover it and medicare & I started paying into it over thirty five years ago and in order to get my full benefits I have been pushed back to 67 years of age. Now they want to add more years onto the retirement age. Why not just raise it to 100 and stop the lying bull crap.
I started working when I was ten, my wife started when she was 15. I got my first SS withholding when I was fourteen. We have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars into the system and our employers contributions double that figure.
We have also saved six figures worth of private 401 k and IRA savings that cost us a great deal of delayed gratification & struggle in order to give us a comfortable retirement or at least a chance to retire at all. None of that includes the huge expense of parochial school tuition that responsible parents pay in order to keep their children out of the crappy public school indoctrination pits we are forced to pay thousands of dollars into through our property and income taxes.
Now we have people saying that those who planned and struggled to save will be means tested out of the system. That is utter bull crap!
The system damn well better pay something back or I might decide to take a pot shot at a random leader.
There are tens of millions other Americans who feel the exact same way. There is nothing more dangerous than a huge group of fat old white men who are well armed and enraged after being screwed over.
That is the things revolutions are made of.
Ha.....if all the illegals "they have to go" ...go...then this frees up money for social security.
We don’t need a third party candidate. Trump is running as a Republican and he is running away from the pack with his immigration policy. I predict his numbers will be over thirty percent after this plan is publicized widely.
Bush and every other pro-amnesty jackass are falling into single digits. They have exposed themselves as more interested in law breaking illegals than the well being of native born American citizens white, black AND Latino.
In order to beet Trump all we need is a candidate who takes his policy of immigration and also has a legitimate Conservative history. There are TWO in the race now: Santorum has an even tougher plan and Cruz has one that is close, but adds millions more H1B holders. I like Trumps’ and Santorums’ better. However, Santorum isn’t poling over 5%. He should meet with Trump, get an OK for a nice job in the Trump administration and start stumping for Trump right now. He is still young and after eight years in a Trump administration he would have a good chance of running for President in 2024 when he is 64.
I am still for Cruz, but I am getting the feeling that the next President is going to be Donald J. Trump.
I agree. They owe me my money back with interest.
I don’t care about means testing, budget, etc. They took my money. I want it back.
Here in Cleveland black and white kids are baby sitters, counter workers, stock shelves and run cash registers. We have a huge population of Middle Easterners, many ‘refugees’ who drive high end vehicles and clog up the registers paying for their food with WIC and EBT cards.
That doesn't mean we don't have our white, black and Latino, mostly Puerto Rican, EBT and Welfare people here, but I see no need to increase the total with foreign born parasites.
Trump doesn’t need to run third party. He is destroying the field NOW in the a Republican party. Based on this policy paper, he is only going to get more backing. He will probably get hoards of Democrat cross overs in the open primary states.
Blue Collar Democrats are as sick of the Leftist politicians giving all the jobs and benefits to foreigners as well. They want a strong America too.
i think a Cruz VP pick would be the way to go. keep Donald constitutionally in line “by the book”. he could be the most influential VP we’ve ever had and build his reputation for the following pres run. could be a great time.
Pre-xactly. Adopted in 1868 for the benefit of the freed slaves.
You are exactly right!
Not all children born in the US now are citizens.
Children born in the U.S> to foreign Diplomats are BY STATUTE NOT CITIZENS. They are not awarded birthright citizenship and their parents are actually her legally and at OUR request.
The Legislature can change birthright citizenship by statute and the POTUS can do so by Executive Order. The Legislature would have to over ride the XO with a 2/3 majority. The Courts would be unable to change the order as they have no Army to enforce their ill informed phony rulings.
Obama has shown what power the POTUS actually has.
Damn right...I live frugally to put as much as i can in my 401K...I am going to need SS and medicare...I have payed into and i will need it when i am a feeble old coot(almost there)....just an added thought...I drive through a public housing sector to get home from a 12 hour of shift at work...I see BMW’s parked outside...my work car is a 1994 Acura Legend... think about that.
You could tell us what part of Trumps policy plan on immigration that you do not agree with.
There are lots of things I do not like about Trump. His immigration stance is not one of them.
Considering I voted TWICE for Bush, once for McCain and once for Romney, all of whom I have a great deal of policy issues I do not agree with, I will find it quite easy to vote for a single issue candidate in the general when that single issue is 99% in line with my belief on that issue. Especially when it is an issue that is something a President can actually do something about.
Abortion and gay marriage are not issues a President can do much if anything about.
Nationwide E-verify is how he words it in his proposal.
My father, who has been a registered Democrat voting Republican since Ford in ‘76, said the exact same thing last night. He said at least Sanders is a truthful Socialist.
Things are coming to a head. This election is seeing decades of frauds being turned out as a groundswell is forming against career politicians of both parties.
Question for you.
If Trump wins the nomination, will you be supporting him?
Simply put. If we detain and deport immigrants here illegally, those involved in grounds keeping, roofing, etc will be swept up or motivated out of these positions. As they leave wages and incentives will increase for American workers. Those Americans, primarily young kids 16-25 will find it profitable to get out of their mom’s basement and behind a lawn mower or on a ladder painting and laboring.
Once the cost of a roof or painting job increases 10%-25% in order to cover the additional costs of hiring an American work force. Mom may decide her special snowflake can mow the lawn instead of Pablo.
The reason employers don’t want to hire American kids is that they are spoiled lazy and are more expensive than illegals. Ed illegal workers and American kids will start to get jobs, learn some responsibilities and finds out that working in labor positions makes them strive to get better grades and degrees in fields that allow for working in air conditioned offices instead of the hot sun.
Right now we give them the choice of working in air conditioned offices or playing video games in mom’s basement.
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.