Posted on 08/23/2015 12:07:09 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Ever since Donald Trump, the mercurial businessman, media personality, and presidential candidate, proposed his immigration policy, centering on the mass deportation of up to 11 million human beings, reaction among conservatives has been decidedly mixed. Ann Coulter, for whom illegal immigration is the alpha and the omega of public policy, exalted that Trump could perform abortions in the White House, and she would not care. But Charles Krauthammer, writing in the National Review on Thursday, and George Will, in his latest column published Saturday, provided reality checks.
Krauthammer wondered what the practical political effects would be of reenacting the Trail of Tears on a mass scale would be on the Republican Party, poised as it is on the edge of its greatest victory since 1980. His answer is not very hopeful.
[SNIP]
Will, on the other hand, concentrates on how big government would have to grow to implement Trump’s plan.
[SNIP]
............. Even Ted Cruz, no slouch where it comes to illegal immigration, realizes that this would require a constitutional amendment, a dubious prospect at best.
The upshot is that there exist practical ways of dealing with illegal immigration that most people would not find abhorrent. These include securing the borders with a wall, cracking down on people who overstay their visas, eliminating the abuse of H1-B work visas where some companies are replacing American workers with cheaper foreign workers, and dealing with the illegals that are already here in some way that is not as obnoxious as mass deportation and not as craven as amnesty. Trump’s proposal, at least according to Krauthammer and Will, would likely lead to a liberal president who would enact mass amnesty, creating millions of Democratic voters that would reduce the Republican Party to permenant minority status.
(Excerpt) Read more at examiner.com ...
That's your job.
Evading the facts, won’t change them.
Show me more than his sales pitch.
“I will submit that knowing the gig is up, they will start to self deport in very large numbers rather quickly and those who hire them will start issuing under the table pink slips as well, knowing the enforcement of e-verify is coming at them like a speeding train. “
Well spoken.
the libs and RINOs are making Trump’s words sound like deportation instead of what it truly is, enforcement.
Once the border is sealed and heavy fines enacted on those who hire people illegally here, there will be an exodus.
That is not unlike the position of the other candidates.
George Will has no credibility unless he adds a disclaimer to anything politcal he writes stating that his wife is a consultant for Walker’s campaign.
It’s the first line of his piece.
Well, I think all of the hysterical imagery being thrown up by the Cheap Labor Express is overdone - describing simple enforcement of our democratically enacted laws as "re-enacting the trail of tears" or "creating images that most people would find abhorrent" - I mean, it's not enforcing our laws that is abhorrent.
But say the amnesty pimps are right and the visuals are bad - Andrew Jackson was elected twice (trail of tears, defy Supreme Court), Dwight David Eisenhower was elected twice (Operation Wetback) - I say, enforce the law and let the chips fall where they may.
What this is really about is the extreme aversion the GOPe has to working class whites - so much so that they fantasize about REPLACING them with "Hispanics" and "conservative blacks", even though that will never happen.
> “Even Ted Cruz, no slouch where it comes to illegal immigration, realizes that this ***would require*** a constitutional amendment, a dubious prospect at best.”
Completely false. Ted Cruz said a Constitutional amendment would be difficult (which it always is) but he did not say it was required. It can be done by legislation instead. If SCOTUS rules against it, the Article V COS movement will gain much more support.
Disclaimers are just worthless words and he should recuse himself, period. He has proven to not be an honest player in the past and I will always view him as just another part of the problem. His credibility is forever stained.
“We will deport them no matter what that sissy Scott Walker or George Will and the other freaks have to say about it.”
While deportation is a worthy goal, you do know there are some legislative and legal hurdles to cross first, do you not?
I don't get it. I always paid attention to what George Will wrote. But when he's choosing favorites in a campaign his wife is working on, we can't trust his judgement. It's not just him, it's the whole inbred political world.
It gives credence to Trump's characterizations about the whole out-of-control DC political and decision making process.
FWIW, it does seem that Cruz is getting pulled in too, in spite of thinking of himself as independent.
I'm wondering if Jindal isn't the only Governor in the race who has maintained his independence.
Jeb Bush still being in the race is an insult to Constitutional Conservatives. The elite don't even care that for many of us, Jeb's letting Terri Schiavo die a horrific death means we'll never vote for him.
(Sunday AM thought meanderings from someone who nerdishly follows politics)
Walker can not be trusted. As I have pointed out to you before Walker is owned lock stock and barrel by the GOPe big money donors. He might actually be a good guy, but that does not matter because he is NOT his own man. The above is a perfect example of what I was talking about.
He saw Trump getting traction on the anchor baby thing and wanted to be a "me too" candidate. Then he got a call from K St and had to walk it back. Sorry CW, no sale.
Good grief.
Argue their positions, it helps the debate.
You’re a useful tool for circulating “headline news.” And Newsmachete is an anti-Walker activist.
It appears that the “media” interpreted Walker’s answer to a question and made it a headline.
Then they said he had to clarify (the media’s mistake).
So now the story becomes that Walker changed his mind.
Interesting how that works.
KASIE HUNT: Do you think that birthright citizenship should be ended?
SCOTT WALKER: Well, like I said, Harry Reid said it’s not right for this country — I think that’s something we should, yeah, absolutely, going forward —
HUNT: We should end birthright citizenship?
WALKER: Yeah, to me it’s about enforcing the laws in this country. And I’ve been very clear, I think you enforce the laws, and I think it’s important to send a message that we’re going to enforce the laws, no matter how people come here we’re going to enforce the laws in this country.
HUNT: And you should deport the children of people who are illegal immigrants?
WALKER: I didn’t say that — I said you have to enforce the law, which to me is focusing on E-Verify.
A Walker spokeswoman followed up to clarify Walker’s position on immigration, saying his position is as follows:
“We have to enforce the laws, keep people from coming here, enforce E-Verify to stop the jobs magnet, and by addressing the root problems we will end the birthright citizenship problem.”
Dishonest or biased members of the debate is what we are ailing from now. Why anyone would accept disclaimers is beyond me when it comes to disseminating the truth, all of it, hairy warts and all. I am of the opinion that if a disclaimer is needed, the debate is flawed.
I wonder with the naysayers how they think America ever accomplished anything?
I dare say, everyone of the candidates has someone in their employ that someone who supports another candidate would find objectionable.
“That is not unlike the position of the other candidates.”
So why do those attack Trump by distorting his words?
“...we’re all in big trouble.”
You are not wrong there. However, I think we have already gone beyond the Rubicon and there is no turning back for the millennials outnumber us older more responsible people 4 to 1 or better.
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.