The entire speech, in fact, imagines that government at all levels will be used to hunt down and remove immigrants from their homes, families and jobs. Mr. Trump was describing a world of lockups and surveillance and fugitive-hunting squads, a vast system of indiscriminate catch-and-punish that works as hard to catch hotel maids and landscapers as it does gang members and terrorists.What does that mean? How does the speech "imagine" something that he never said? Now, as I've been saying lately, I find it very hard to see where he ever said specifically that he wanted to deport anyone other than those who were convicted of crimes (or who were caught crossing the border). And clearly — the NYT admits it — his speech this week never said anything about rounding up the millions and deporting them. He did say he'd take back the "amnesty" Obama gave "to approximately five million illegal immigrants." And he didn't specifically refute the image some people have of what he will do.
Many people, myself included, do not believe he every envisioned deporting peaceful, well-settled, productive immigrants. But he obviously knows many people — his supporters and opponents — think or want to encourage others to think that he will do that — hunt down and remove immigrants from their homes, families and jobs. He is choosing not to state very clearly that's absolutely not his plan. But in leaving that subject unexplored, is he "imagining" and "describing" an America of "lockups and surveillance and fugitive-hunting squads" hunting down "hotel maids and landscapers"?
The NYT is imagining and describing that. Trump didn't do it. I don't like the NYT engaging in that kind of distortion and exaggeration and scaring readers. But Trump — knowing the media hate him and will distort and exaggerate — has responsibility for declining to disavow that plan. He must be charged with actively choosing to leave this empty place in his plan that people will fill with their hopes and fears.
He had 10 points in his plan. 10! 10 says: I'm covering this very comprehensively. And yet there is this very well known subject and somehow it didn't get a point.
Oh, but 10! 10 sounds so complete.
Yeah, well, this one goes to 11. The 11th point is unstated, and that's what's so beautiful/horrible about it. It's whatever you want it to be.
Posts
109 comments:
Point #11 was there, but it spontaneously combusted along the way.
The beat goes on.
For every possible interpretation he closes off with a specific denial, the media will suggest two more. The only winning move is not to play. Every iteration of suggestion - denial plants the original more firmly.
Has no one here dealt with trolls?
The entire speech, in fact, imagines that government at all levels will be used to hunt down and remove immigrants from their homes, families and jobs.
This is astonishingly dishonest. No, no, a thousand times NO! When has he talked about deporting legal immigrants (like his wife)? When has he ever done that? Conflating legal immigrants with illegal aliens is like conflating squatters with invited guests. They are not the same at all.
And the lie the NYT is peddling here is actually pretty vicious. I wouldn't call it a "blood libel," but you know it's designed to conjure up in the reader's mind images of the expulsion of the Jews from Spain and France, or the ethnic cleansing campaigns after WW2.
Now, he has talked about controlling the level of legal immigration and the types of skills/qualifications we should look for in legal immigrants, but that's all prospective. I don't think I can remember a single instance where he has talked about expelling current legal immigrants. Taking away their green cards and suchlike. At most, maybe some people on extended work visas might not be able to renew them, something that, of course never happens today (please note my heavy sarcasm).
"It was a mass-deportation speech, even if he avoided that phrase. Its intent was hard to miss,"
A complete reach. Does the NYT understand the English language?
And speaking of intent, it was hard to miss the intent of Hillary in setting up her private email server. Her intent to keep secret her bribery scheme with the Foundation.
I guess the editorial page is where you get to make up a speech and attribute it to your opponent, and the news page is where you selectively quote it and put a misleading headline on it and talk about how "some say" its equivalent to the speech invented on the editorial page.
Just remember, kids, members of the news media are DemCong operatives with by-lines.
Balfegor is correct. Huge difference between legal and illegal immigrants ignored by the English language experts and Ivy League alums at the NYT.
"I guess the editorial page is where you get to make up a speech and attribute it to your opponent, and the news page is where you selectively quote it and put a misleading headline on it and talk about how "some say" its equivalent to the speech invented on the editorial page."
How the New York Times (and others) works in one simple (but long) sentence.
I'll go further, and say I can understand why people have the impression he would be pushing for deportation of all illegal immigrants, not just the criminals (well, who are criminal for reasons other than their criminal illegal entry into the US). But it's nonsense on stilts to think he's talking about immigrants generally when he is married to one -- it's a crude lie, designed to stir up nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror.
I don't know why enforcing the law is a bad thing. Our legal immigration quotas are far greater than any other country in the world and our immigration laws are consistent with (but more lenient) than other countries. People who advocate not upholding the law are borderline criminals themselves.
Democrats fall all over themselves to justify the Obama record when the bulk of his "deportations" are merely turning away those who sneak over the board are are quickly caught. A sly change in how they measure "deportations".
Yesterday we built a wall around the New York Times. Today we deport them.
This post needs a Spinal Tap tag.
It is the democrat NYTimes. What exactly else would be expected but gross smearing to try and get their candidate elected. Amazing, the first absent campaigning president. Elected from her bed.
Balfegor: This is astonishingly dishonest.
The dishonesty of the NYT on this subject astonishes you?
Disgustingly dishonest? Maddeningly dishonest? Nauseatingly dishonest? Trowelled with shit and smeared with reeking demon-exuded slime dishonest? Yes, but "astonishingly dishonest"? That would suggest you expected honesty, which would be astonishing. (Both the honesty on their part and your expectation thereof.)
I'm entirely on board with hunting down all illegal immigrants and taking them from their jobs, homes, and families. No issue.
@Unknown:Amazing, the first absent campaigning president.
Not the first. FDR in 1944.
I have noticed a lot of news sites referencing Donald Trump's proposed "Deportation Force." He said in point 3 of his speech and previously that he would appoint a Deportation Task Force to identify and deport criminals. Most of the time, offering to appoint a government task force is simply a candidate's way of punting on a problem to study it. I guess for the NYT, English is hard.
Funny how the NYT has exactly zero interest in imagining intent when it comes to any of the (seemingly daily) scandals involving Canklepants.
Somewhat interestingly, an internet search for "the Mexican Anne Frank" turned up nothing.
There's an opportunity there, kids.
Now, get writing!
Shorter Althouse:
Trump's skirt was too short.
Illegal immigrants working as hotel maids and landscapers are subject to deportation down in Obama's America. The companies that employee them are breaking employment law.
250K deportations in 2015, 70% near the border.
I'm very unimpressed by anti-Trump polemics that boil down to the claim that he will do what Obama does now, only moreso.
Clearly, what we need are more Journalism Schools and 'ethics' referees at top-schools.
@Henry: The companies that employee them are breaking employment law.
This is false. If employees present documents, then employers who refuse to hire them are guilt of national origin discrimination. If employers accept the documents they are obeying immigration law.
Even E-Verify does nothing: if the employee fails E-Verify, no matter the reason, the employer has the legal right to continue their employment.
The government produces helpful guides to employers to explain this which are all available online.
Immigration law is a deliberate sham. Hence the Trumpening.
@Gabriel - My statement presumes a company hires illegals knowingly.
If Donald Trump was a US Senator from New York, we would know where he stood. He'd have to vote. He couldn't get away with these word games.
Marco Rubio has thought more about all of this, and worked harder on it, than Trump ever will. So has John McCain. I'm not suggesting that Rubio and McCain are right, and Trump is wrong. And I am not disputing Professor Althouse's characterization of the issue and Trump's so-called plan. I think the Althouse analysis is admirable.
I am saying, however, that Trump is bullshitting with his vagaries. And he has been bullshitting all along. I hope that is the sort of plain language that Trump fans appreciate. That is what you are saying, right, Professor? You are carefully and intelligently analyzing Trump's bullshit on this issue. Including the Times' own bullshit, right?
Trump got the nomination in large part by promising crap that was never going to happen, and that Trump had never fully considered, over other candidates who had thought more, knew more, and worked harder in Congress.
@Henry:My statement presumes a company hires illegals knowingly.
They are not allowed to know, and they have no need to hire illegals knowingly when illegals can so easily produce any document at all which employers are effectively forbidden to question.
The IRS has evidence that millions of illegals are using other people's SSNs. Many illegals are working on the books, and the employers who have hired them are in full compliance with our fake laws.
The NYT is just fulfilling the fantasies of its readers. I see no reason for Trump to go any further than he did. Why talk about a subject that will be open to debate if and when he becomes president. He stated clearly what he planned to do and it was enough of an agenda to keep anyone busy and have a large beneficial impact on the illegal immigrant situation.
Focusing on the criminal is appealing to the so-called working white male and, I would think, to the legal immigrants that live in areas inhabited by criminal elements. DBQ had some strong, accurate words to say about that condition yesterday.
We already have lockups, surveillance and fugitive-hunting squads for all manner of petty criminals, including, for example, shop-lifters. What the fuck makes illegal aliens so special? I have no doubt shop-lifters and other criminals are doing it for their families as well.
What liberals imagine of Donald Trump is clearly infinitely worse than reality. The problem with what people "imagine" about Trump is that it's very hard to convince people otherwise. People are going to believe what they're going to believe about a character like Trump. They project things onto him, sort of like what happened with Obama in 2008.
Back in '08 Obama was this blank slate that people projected an idealized image onto. For many people that image was of a calm, sober intellectual; a technocratic wizard who could solve complex problems and bring racial harmony.
Now in the case of Trump, many people have projected this image of a firebrand strongman, a brutal demagogue who would round up poor unfortunates whose only crime was wanting a better life. In short, they see him as evil. Whether or not that image squares with reality is irrelevant, it's what people believe is the truth. And so it's not hard to see why a NYT writer would imagine all sorts of things that were unsaid. It's extremely difficult to fight a belief.
And yet these distortions are quite effective. They distort the language by redefining the terms, and then distort the contest by putting one side, and only one side, constantly playing defence. Even Althouse repeats "immigrants" unmodified, and suggests Trump needs to disavow the distortions in order to be blameless for them.
I was pleased to see that Gabriel and Balfegor made both these points as quickly as comments 2 and 3.
@Gabriel -- Whatever the Kabuki theatrics of the laws, companies are investigated and fined for hiring illegal immigrants. That's just a factual matter. The fact that investigations and deportations happen now is the important point.
Why are you still reading that disreputable rag?
I'll pay attention when NYT starts calling out Canada on human rights violations due to their reprehensible immigration polices.
Eric the Fruit Bat said...
Somewhat interestingly, an internet search for "the Mexican Anne Frank" turned up nothing.
"By far the Mexican, Anne frank, and coat hangar jokes are by far my favorite"
You get more results, by far, without the "the".
Mr. Trump says his administration will make an effort to enforce the laws of the United States now on the books, and this is an extremist call to re-make the country?
I think it is worthwhile to relink to the Roger Simon piece that Ann linked to yesterday. It helps keep Trump's 10 points in perspective and certainly wasn't read by the folks at NYT.
It is extremely difficult to stay calm in the face of the distortions of the MSM. I do think that Trump and his people are well aware of how he will be covered and control their content for that factor. Note that Trump is preparing answers to prepared questions for his no media/no public meeting at the Detroit black church. Here.
@Henry:that investigations and deportations happen now is the important point
Wrong. The important point is that the investigations and deportations that happen now are pursued so diffidently that 11 million illegals live and work here.
Canada has real work authorizations laws instead of fake ones, and there are proportionally far fewer illegals living in working in Canada as a result. It is not hard to sneak into Canada, but it is very very hard to find work there, so very very few do.
And that's the important point.
Hmmm...
My golf game needs some work. I think I'll focus on that for the next four years. It worked for Barry.
There is a lot of brain damage going on here. Trump is weaseling away to a degree, and the New York Times is making things up. But illegal immigration is an amost unsolvable issue because immigration control is at war with one of our foundational myths: we are all immigrants or the children of immigrants who came here to make a new beginning. (The Native Americans are an afterthought, and the black Americans who suffered durance vile were offered a new birth of freedom.) Good luck to Trump, but there is no satisfying anyone on this issue.
We are in serious "wolf whistle" territory. Wolf whistles are what the left wanted their opponents to have said, and because they believe their opponents to be evil, believe, or pretend to believe, that their opponents actually said them anyway, just in a way that only the initiated can hear. Except that the only ones who actually hear those alleged wolf whistles are the leftists listening for what isn't there.
@Henry: Give you some perspective. Credit cards. Every gas pump has the technology to verify a credit card.
Are there people making a living from fake and stolen cards. Sure. Eleven million people? No. Maybe 1100 people, or 11,000, but not 11 million.
If work authorization documents operated at that level of security, there might be 1100 illegals working illegal in the US, or 11,000, or 110,000, but not 11 million.
The entire speech, in fact, imagines that government at all levels will be used to hunt down and remove immigrants from their homes, families and jobs.
The correct expression is illegal aliens.
Whenever the NYT writes about politics, you learn more about the politics of the writers, than about whatever subject they are writing about. They are incapable of imagining that they see America through the lens formed by their own neuroses and prejudices.
[Pres. Obama] was describing a world of lockups and surveillance and fugitive-hunting squads, a vast system of indiscriminate catch-and-punish that works as hard to catch Christian bakers & florists as it does gang members and terrorists.
There. Fixed that for ya.
Gabriel, we do I9 audits all the time. We determine the business has someone working for them that is illegal. We inform the business. A year later, we do another I9 audit and the same people are still working for them. We inform the business.
Round and round it goes. Don't ask me why we don't do more than the audit.
self deportation is the goal
@Eric: Don't ask me why we don't do more than the audit.
Because a business that fired someone that you identified as illegal would have to prove that they did not commit national origin discrimination.
And it is not illegal to employ illegals, so why should they fire anyone? It is only illegal to hire them knowing them to be illegal.
@Eric: Check out the E-Verify employer's manual. For every negative result there is the option: "The employer exercises its legal right to continue employment."
rehajm said...
"I'll pay attention when NYT starts calling out Canada on human rights violations due to their reprehensible immigration polices."
Not to mention their truly appalling suppression of freedom of speech. But that won;t happen unless Carlos Slim takes a liking to cold weather.
Note the date...
Thursday, September 1, 2016
Justice Department Partners with Mexico to Combat Employment Discrimination
"The Justice Department and the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of the United Mexican States established a formal partnership today to protect workers from discrimination based on citizenship, immigration status and national origin.
...
The MOU ['memorandum of understanding'] also seeks to promote training for employers on their obligations under the anti-discrimination provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on citizenship, immigration status and national origin."
But only in one direction: Mexicans in the US are "protected", but not USians in Mexico.
How do the editors of the NYT sleep with all the monsters they imagine living under their beds?
"What does that mean? How does the speech "imagine" something that he never said?"
-- Because Democrats/journalists are very good at hearing the hidden racist dog whistles of Republicans/people the left doesn't like that even the supposed audience can't hear.
@Amadeus- I somewhat disagree about the immigration problem being unsolvable. Some of what you are looking at is leftist spin to promote internationalism and increasing our welfare class in order to increase the Dem party voting base. The problem isn't with immigrants who truly contribute more than they cost, but rather the functional illiterates whose only real choice here is welfare, and criminals, who, unsurprisingly, are often closely related. A century ago, peasants with little formal education could come here and thrive. They could farm, or engage in the morning ride they had in the old country. Or, maybe provide the labor we needed that n our factories, mines, railroads, etc. But that was partially because most didn't have that much in the way of formal education, and formal education wasn't required for most jobs. Big difference today, where a high school Ed cation is the bare minimum for many, if not most jobs. And, where do all those recent immigrants with often less than a grade schools education, not speaking English, and sometimes not even speaking Spanish, fit in? As I said - welfare and crime.
The dirty little secret about the immigration debate is that Comprehensive Immigration Reform involves bundling immigration amnesty on the low end of the skill level, but tightening up the restrictions on, and increasing the numbers, on the high end (H1B visas for highly educated high tech workers). The lobbying money that was so pervasive in Congress, so pervasive that Rubio somewhat flip flopped, was coming from the high tech companies that wanted more H1B visas, but also more restrictions on them, so that the best and the brightest couldn't jump from one sponsoring company to another one without going home first. The absurdity was that a path to citizenship was being opened up for the peasants with third grade educations who had entered illegally, while citizenship for PhDs here under H1B visas was made harder. All to keep labor costs down in high tech company. We are talking hundreds of millions of dollars of lobbying money from those high tech companies - which more and more control the national debate. And, yes, the person at the center, holding it all together, was Dingy Harry Reid, as Senate Majority, then Minority, Leader, who killed any attempt to split the two issues apart.
We should be more concerned with facts showing Pam Bondi, FL AG solicited a donation from the Donald, received 25K, and then decided not to join the lawsuit involving Trump University.
Trumps own foundation paid the IRS fine for contributing to a political entity. Trump is open about his payments for favors, but this is just another example of the rot emanating from the core of our democracy. Lets build a wall folks!
Remove aliens by force, you mean like what happened to Elian Gonzalez?
Dr. Althouse: The NYT is imagining and describing that. Trump didn't do it. I don't like the NYT engaging in that kind of distortion and exaggeration and scaring readers. But Trump — knowing the media hate him and will distort and exaggerate — has responsibility for declining to disavow that plan. He must be charged with actively choosing to leave this empty place in his plan that people will fill with their hopes and fears.
And I charge you with actively choosing to act as if you don't understand perfectly well why Trump must do that.
Increasingly, it looks like Trump is the only person involved in national politics who understands how the game is played.
From 'The Community of Color Gazette':
"Woman of Color Says That Asians Have Moved In Next Door"
Delores Thompson, a Black Woman of our Community of Color, says an Asian family has moved in next door at her duplex.
"This Asian family, they moved in right next to me," Ms. Thompson said, when asked about her story.
"I'm not sure what kind of Asian they are. Chinese, maybe, I can't tell."
Asked if she has formally met her new neighbors, Ms. Thompson had this to say.
"I see them sometimes, but they don't speak English. Mostly I smell their food; it smells funky, I tell you that."
When asked to elaborate on this "funky" smell, Ms. Thompson said "I don't know. It's just… funky. It's probably fish heads, maybe. I just know that I wouldn't eat it."
Asked about what she would do now that she had new neighbors, Ms. Thompson replied "They're here now, not much I can do about it. Live and let live, I guess."
Then, after a moment of reflection, Ms. Thompson added: "At least they're not Mexicans."
When approached to comment on this story, the new neighbors were wary to speak.
"None of you f**king business," one man said, while others nodded in agreement.
So there it is: a Story of Change in our Community of Color. For more stories like this please read 'The Community of Color Gazette'.
I am Laslo.
I'd say you're being too harsh...but looking at the linguistic gymnastics they perform to defend Hillary, you're probably not being harsh enough.
Now, he has talked about controlling the level of legal immigration and the types of skills/qualifications we should look for in legal immigrants, but that's all prospective.
I'd say target journalists and lawyers primarily. Hit the Progs where it hurts.
If Donald Trump was a US Senator from New York, we would know where he stood. He'd have to vote. He couldn't get away with these word games.
Say, wasn;t Hillary a Senator from NY?
Do you have any clue where she actually stands on any issues?
damikesc:
Yeah, I think I know where Hillary Clinton stands on immigration, and it is pretty much where Obama stands. Has she repudiated one single Executive Order in the last seven years? She says she doesn't like TPP, and I have trouble believing her; she said something very different when she was Secretary of State.
Her history speaks volumes; and I certainly don't like it. Of course she wasn't in the Senate in 2013 (which is what I was talking about mostly) but I think you've just helped me prove my point.
When it comes to immigration, Donald Trump is bullshitting. And Obama/Hillary are just shitty.
The interesting thing to me here is that Trump has so forcibly blown apart those two issues. We really don't want a lot of uneducated peasants and/or criminals coming here to leech off of our society. Dem part insiders, of course, do, in order to build their voting base of welfare erecipients. But most do not. Republicans all along have been willing to go along with H1B visa changes. Their base though wouldn't go along with enfranchising a bunch of uneducated peasants in order to give their political opponents long term political advantage. And a lot of Democrats feel the same way, but for economic reasons. His ten points are fairly obvious, common sense, solutions to this problem. Few can really honestly disagree with his actual proposals. Rather, you get what the NYT did here, which was to hear non-existent dog/wolf whistles, and then argue against them.
Bruce Hayden at 10:16 AM
The dirty little secret about the immigration debate is that Comprehensive Immigration Reform involves bundling immigration amnesty on the low end of the skill level, but tightening up the restrictions on, and increasing the numbers, on the high end (H1B visas for highly educated high tech workers). ....
... the person at the center, holding it all together, was Dingy Harry Reid, as Senate Majority, then Minority, Leader, who killed any attempt to split the two issues apart.
Reid sees the low-skill illegal aliens as future Democrat voters.
Amadeus 48: But illegal immigration is an amost unsolvable issue because immigration control is at war with one of our foundational myths: we are all immigrants or the children of immigrants who came here to make a new beginning.
First, it's a widespread national myth, but it's not a "foundational" myth. You'll search the founding documents of this country in vain to find anybody advancing "nation of immigrants from all over the place" as the defining feature of their new nation. It doesn't really get rolling as a national myth until the early twentieth century, when it started being pushed by later-comers who (understandably) were eager to bring themselves into the national mythos. In fact you could say that it's a widespread myth that it's a foundational myth. (And one that just about every nation in the New World could claim with equal justice, since they're all "nations of immigrants" of pretty much the same historical vintage.)
Even so, when the country was dealing with massive influxes comparable to today's, Americans in the 1920s didn't find shutting down even legal immigration to be an "unsolveable problem", and did just that. So I'm at a loss to see how being a "nation of immigrants" makes controlling immigration, illegal or legal "almost unsolveable". It can and has been controlled under the condition of the very mythos that you claim makes this impossible.
the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which prohibits employment discrimination based on citizenship, immigration status and national origin.
I find this amazing. If it is illegal for a someone to refuse to hire someone because they are in the country illegally then why should anyone worry about getting a work visa?
Bruce Hayden: The dirty little secret about the immigration debate is that Comprehensive Immigration Reform involves bundling immigration amnesty on the low end of the skill level, but tightening up the restrictions on, and increasing the numbers, on the high end (H1B visas for highly educated high tech workers).
It's disturbing that there are still people around these days buying the b.s. that H1B visas are used only for the people for which the visa category was created: "highly educated tech workers" with "specialized skills" that could not be found in the native work force. It's long since been corrupted and is shamelessly abused by universities, tech companies, and foreign "body shops" to the detriment of American citizens.
Was I a chump for coming over with all my papers in order, doing my military service, never applying for any welfare program (other than now social security in my old age), paying all my taxes and fees, etc., and basically being like any other responsible citizen except for my funny accent?
Hillary has vowed to bring over a million more Syrian refugees by the end of her first term. That's where she stands. Where do you stand?
Benjamin Franklin complained about the "swarthy" German immigrants who were ruining PA. He claimed that they were noisy drinks. Cotten Mather complained about the Scotch Irish immigrants who, he also claimed, were noisy drunks. Thomas Nast, himself a German immigrant, drew some rather cruel caricatures of the Irish immigrants. They were often depicted as being drunk. Apparently there's something about America that attracts heavy drinkers......... Complaining about immigrants is one of our most hallowed traditions. If our ancestors were so hazed, why shouldn't the current crop........I think the left currently has the opinion that the whites stole the land and its wealth from the red man and that it is, therefore, just that non-whites be encouraged, by any means necessary, to enter this country and appropriate its wealth from the white man. "Loot the looters" as Lenin said to his supporters during the revolution. Perhaps such a happy resolution can be arranged for the inequitable distribution of wealth and privilege in this country.
I do not like the H1B, or whatever, program. It is wrong unselfishly on our part, since these people are the people who could do their country of origin the most good - and their education has been at least partly been paid for by the taxpayers of that country with the idea that that is what they would do - and selfishly, because those are the jobs we would like our own citizens to have and indeed have subsidized our colleges to provide the skills for.
I actually listened to Trump's speech. I thought it was pretty good. He delivered his points forcefully, and the points he made were reasonable and fair. Makes no difference though. More people will hear about the speech rather than hear the speech, and you can bet that what they hear about the speech will not be fairly reported or critiqued.
self deportation is the goal
To begin to accomplish that goal we must eliminate giving welfare, housing subsidies, food stamps etc to ILLEGAL aliens and actually to anyone who is not a citizen of the United States. The freebies, the gravy train are the lure. Come from a god forsaken hell hole of a country and immediately get all the stuff that the citizens of this country who work do not get. Stuff that the working American is paying for.
I'm good with free medical care, mainly because I don't want to see communicable diseases like TB and others become rampant in the country, infecting the American citizens. If they are sick. They should get treatment, and then SEND THEM HOME.
Stop the lure of free stuff and many will self deport or not come at all.
Yeah, I think I know where Hillary Clinton stands on immigration, and it is pretty much where Obama stands. Has she repudiated one single Executive Order in the last seven years? She says she doesn't like TPP, and I have trouble believing her; she said something very different when she was Secretary of State.
But this is one single issue.
What is her position on, say, economic policy? She was in the Senate, she's been in the public eye for years --- do you have a clue what she will do?
How about sunshine laws? She's proclaimed support, but she seems quite hesitant to follow them?
You have no more idea what she will do then you have of what Trump will do.
Hillary has vowed to bring over a million more Syrian refugees by the end of her first term. That's where she stands. Where do you stand?
She isn't providing one key piece of info.
WHERE will she put them?
Rest assured, it will not be in a Democrat state.
The immigration problems which is multi layered is not insolvable.
Think if it like that old joke: How do you eat an elephant? .....One bite at a time.
The problem is multi layered and cannot be solved all at once.
The first logical step is deal with the criminal elements. Round up all the criminal aliens, those who have committed crimes repeatedly and many of whom are already in custody. Deport them.
The next or simultaneous to the first is to secure the border and stop all illegals from coming in. Deport them.
OR...incarcerate them until deportation can be accomplished. Wow. That would cost a lot you say? Well, not as much as the BILLIONS of dollars spent on welfare etc.
Then. What to do with the people who have been here illegally for some time, but who are not criminals? This is sticky and complicated. My preference would be to 1. cut off the gravy train (you guys see a trend here :-) Then sort them down. Working and have a job? Got some good references from citizens? Visa's can be issued. Not working, a drain on society. Go home and try again legally. Yes....the whole famdamily. Or if your kids are adults and qualify under the (stupid) drop a baby on the ground and it is a citizen rule, they can stay if they have an American Citizen willing to sponsor, raise, pay for and take care of the kid.
No automatic pathway to citizenship. EARN it. Just like the millions of legal immigrants.
Our immigration system is broken and we should look to a country like New Zealand for a model. Admittance upon proving you are needed, have the skills the country needs, are healthy, can support yourself, have some means. Not just anyone can waltz into New Zealand. Restrict immigration from certain areas of the world. Yes. Quotas.
It can be fixed. Just not all at once.
DBQ, you've got it! I found Trumps plans unambiguous.
NYT editors are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo pro-Hillary.
@Hagar Was I a chump for coming over with all my papers in order, doing my military service, never applying for any welfare program (other than now social security in my old age), paying all my taxes and fees, etc., and basically being like any other responsible citizen except for my funny accent?
Maybe so, like my Russian immigrant friend and co-worker, a physicist, who, along with his wife, waited ten years to emigrate and learned English perfectly while waiting.
DBQ,
I suspect that if you look, allowing any non-citizens - legal or not - access to U.S. welfare programs is illegal, and those allowing such to take place could be prosecuted for misfeasance, or whatever the lawyers call it, in office.
The way things are today, I think even local welfare programs have U.S. Federal funds tied to them somehow, somewhere and Federal law would rule.
The editors of the NYT are having another outbreak of hysteria. Get a grip. But they won't.
DBQ: Stop the lure of free stuff and many will self deport or not come at all.
First we have to figure out how to return the courts to sanity. They have ruled that free stuff must continue flowing to illegals, regardless of how the citizens having their wallets drained thereby vote or legislate about it.
And also that, while ordinary citizens must bow before the majesty of the law in all matters -- whether sensible rules or coercive inanities pulled out of the butts of jurists yesterday afternoon -- illegal aliens and those who benefit from their presence may generally ignore whatever laws they consider to be an inconvenience to themselves.
Dust Bunny Queen said...
The immigration problems which is multi layered is not insolvable(sic).
Think if it like that old joke: How do you eat an elephant? .....One bite at a time.
But if those elephants turn out to be indissoluble, we are faced with a "whole 'nother problem altogether".
damikesc:
Man, I am tired of having a non-fight with you. You seem to be wanting me to endorse, or defend Hillary for President.
And I am not interested.
All that I am saying is that the Republican primary voters who thought they knew where Trump stood, were played. I am moving on. Moving on, to the defense of the Senate majority and the reconstruction of the Republican Party, post-Trump.
And by the way -- THIS IS IMPORTANT -- to all of the Althouse readers in Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Arizona and New Hampshire (among others); I don't care whether you are pro-Trump or anti-Trump. You need to vote for your Republican incumbents for the U.S. Senate. You need to turn out, and you need to get every Republican and every independent who doesn't like Hillary, to turn out. If Trump is going to get anything done at all, he'll need a Republican Senate. If Trump loses, we'll need a Republican Senate to block Hillary.
Your Senate vote, in those states, will be your most important vote, by far.
When I came over, I first had to sign a form that I clearly understood that if I committed a crime, or in any way whatever became a burden to the American taxpayer, I would be promptly deported and I, or my sponsor, would be charged for any expenses incurred by the U.S Government in this regard.
My sponsor, in my case my uncle, also had to sign that he fully understood and agreed to these conditions.
I am pretty sure that this legislation is still in force and is just being ignored by the powers that be.
Blaming Trump for the lies of the NYTimes. How very left of you.
Hagar said When I came over, I first had to sign a form that I clearly understood that if I committed a crime, or in any way whatever became a burden to the American taxpayer, I would be promptly deported and I, or my sponsor, would be charged for any expenses incurred by the U.S Government in this regard.
My sponsor, in my case my uncle, also had to sign that he fully understood and agreed to these conditions.
I am pretty sure that this legislation is still in force and is just being ignored by the powers that be.
But you are here LEGALLY! Illegals face no such constraints. Even the IRS encourages stealing Social Security numbers: http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/04/13/irs-admits-it-encourages-illegals-to-steal-social-security-numbers-for-taxes/#6f2c9e73237a
With a SSN one can get just about anything. And we are all aware that neither health services nor education can be denied illegals.
Re: Chuck:
All that I am saying is that the Republican primary voters who thought they knew where Trump stood, were played. I am moving on. Moving on, to the defense of the Senate majority and the reconstruction of the Republican Party, post-Trump.
Honestly, I think the Republican Party at the national level ought to be dissolved at this point. The fact that the base -- the primary voters -- rejected every actual Republican in favour of Trump is as close as one can ever come to a no-confidence vote in the party as it is constituted today. That confidence -- that trust that one's representatives will look out for ones interests -- is really the most important thing of all. Trust trumps policy every time. Republican politicians thought their voters would trust them to look out for their interests when forging a deal on immigration, but they were wrong. As wrong as they could possibly be.
The leadership of the party show no signs whatsoever of being inclined to work to regain the confidence of their voters. Instead, they are either making half-hearted alliances of convenience with Trump, with a sort of dazed expression of incomprehension, like an old man trying to express appreciation of young peoples' music. Or they are descending into a maelstrom of blind hatred and invective about their own base for rejecting them. They were given many warnings over the past 16 years, and rejected them, every one. There's no point in the party limping on.
I like some of them individually. Paul Ryan, I think, still cuts an impressive figure, and if he had run for President, I would have voted for him. Honestly, Mitt Romney remains the only presidential candidate I have ever voted for who I honestly thought would do a good job. 2016 isn't going to change that. But the policies they have advocated no longer speak to the concerns their base has. And most importantly, the party they lead has completely lost the trust of its voters. You don't come back from that, and strategic voting simply won't be enough to put them over the top, not unless the Democrats melt down too (which they might well do). You need to start again, from scratch.
But in the 50/50 country half of us don't want to solve the problem.
And, at the time, I thought it meant forever, but I now understand it was only for until I got my citizenship.
Anyway, if those are the rules established by Congress for the aliens who are here legally, why on earth is there all this yammering about the treatment of those who have no right to be here at all?
What Trump is saying is quite small beer compared to what is required by the laws actually on the books.
Without Trump Straw Men the Hillary Mediaswine would have to talk about the Queen of the Grifters. They certainly wouldn't want to do that.
Interesting stand that wishing to enforce the law is now a vice while non-enforcement is a virtue. How else can the NYT, etc. Avoid the cognitive dissonance of pretending to be on the moral high road while supporting a criminal for President.
She's not even President yet and she has already corrupted the DOJ, FBI and State. This is just the beginning. We are a banana republic and the Democrats are the United Fruit Co.
What Trump is saying is quite small beer compared to what is required by the laws actually on the books.
This exactly. Trump has said that he would enforce the laws that exist. That, in and of itself, would do wonders. Putting new laws in requires, if you do it correctly instead of by fiat and executive orders, the cooperation of Congress and takes a lot of time.
Enforce the laws, add to the border security personnel, give them more tools and equipment, beef up the Sheriff depts in the border counties with federal support, strengthen the physical border by build a wall or barrier where ever possible, eliminate sanctuary cities which are flaunting the laws.
NO more catch and release.
Balfegor:
Yes, there will be something of a start-over. Starting with a purge of all of the Trumpists. We are seeing how thin the Trump phenomenon is already, with Trumpist primary candidates getting pounded in Florida and Arizona.
I'll be sorry to see it, if Jeff Sessions' career is degraded. But it's war, after all.
Chuck,
1) are you going to betray Trump at the polls? Like I've asked you a dozen times already?
2) When you say "purge of all of the Trumpists," do you mean, they're not allowed to vote for Republicans anymore?
The Times is distorting the plain meaning of Trump’s new policy. You are distorting the plain meaning of Trump’s old policy.
Hager
That's the problem with the lawlessness endemic in today's Dem party. Law abiding people like you feel like chumps.
"But Trump — knowing the media hate him and will distort and exaggerate — has responsibility for declining to disavow that plan. "
Disagree. First and foremost there is no reason for Trump to reassure illegal immigrants that they are just undocumented immigrants waiting for documentation. The notion that people will have to be rounded up and deported actually is unrealistic and not necessary.
The reality is that about two thirds of the illegal immigrants come from Mexico (the estimate I found by searching google). The vast majority of immigrants from Mexico have family and homes to return to in Mexico (and this applies to illegal immigrants from other Central American countries) if they choose to do so. If they believe that they have to go back to their home countries and apply for an expedited visa/citizenship if they have a good record, they will do so. It's the intelligent and fair thing to do. They won't have to be dragged out and deported.
Bad Lieutenant:
Every time you have annoyed me with this garbage, I have asked you to explain what you mean with your trashtalky allegation about "betraying" Trump at the polls.
When I say "purge all the Trumpists," I mean primary the people who supported Trump. Exclude the commentators and pundits like Jeff Lord from any more party access. Take all the people at local levels who worked to help Trump win the primary (forgiving all those who merely gave loyalist support to the eventual nominee) and limit them from any future advancement. Deny party resources to Trumpist candidates in the future. That sort of thing. Get it?
Man, I am tired of having a non-fight with you. You seem to be wanting me to endorse, or defend Hillary for President.
And I am not interested.
You're confusing me for a Trump guy. I was, am, and remain a Cruz guy. I'm pointing out that your criticism of Trump, in particular since you mention if he was a Senator from NY (which, mind you, his opponent was) seems odd.
Don't get huffy because you made a weak argument.
And by the way -- THIS IS IMPORTANT -- to all of the Althouse readers in Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, Illinois, Arizona and New Hampshire (among others); I don't care whether you are pro-Trump or anti-Trump. You need to vote for your Republican incumbents for the U.S. Senate.
How can we SURVIVE without Kirk in the Senate?
I'll be sorry to see it, if Jeff Sessions' career is degraded. But it's war, after all.
But it's VITAL to support Republican incumbents? Even the people you are "at war" with HAS to do what you want?
THAT is why Trump happened. People like you expected others to ignore that you're pissing on them and calling it rain. The GOP, as a party, has no credibility with conservatives. And given that they are, allegedly, the "conservative party", that is a bit of an issue.
Again, people like you expected people like me to vote for shits like McCain and Dole. But voting for somebody you don't like? Oh, perish the thought!
I wouldn't piss on Mark Kirk if he was on fire.
When I say "purge all the Trumpists," I mean primary the people who supported Trump. Exclude the commentators and pundits like Jeff Lord from any more party access. Take all the people at local levels who worked to help Trump win the primary (forgiving all those who merely gave loyalist support to the eventual nominee) and limit them from any future advancement. Deny party resources to Trumpist candidates in the future. That sort of thing. Get it?
So, turf Kasich --- who did more than anybody else to get Trump nominated. I can get on board with that.
If Republicans do not get behind Trump and he loses the election, the Republican party is gone anyway, it will be completely irrelevant. The country will have left the Republicans in the past.
If Trump does win, the Republican party has a chance to reestablish core principles with the addition of a large new constituency of the forgotten middle class and minorities who were previously left out.
The issue is excessive immigration. The issue is creating perverse incentives including selective-child policy of the Pro-Choice Church, class diversity schemes, refugee crises, immigration replacement (i.e. insourcing), and mass exodus from second and third-world nations. The issue is also illegal immigration that sponsors corruption of the political, social, and businesses classes.
Re: Chuck:
When I say "purge all the Trumpists," I mean primary the people who supported Trump. Exclude the commentators and pundits like Jeff Lord from any more party access. Take all the people at local levels who worked to help Trump win the primary (forgiving all those who merely gave loyalist support to the eventual nominee) and limit them from any future advancement. Deny party resources to Trumpist candidates in the future. That sort of thing. Get it?
Be realistic. This is not actually a fight the party can win. Sure the party can purge its ranks. But in the end, the party is a tool for winning elections. Republicans aren't like the Greens or the Libertarians, where the main point is expressing a kind of ideological purity without regard for electoral viability. The Republican party is about winning power.
And the Republican party will never win another national election, unless its politicians can make peace with Trump's supporters. I'm not talking about the elected officials and commentators and all that -- they don't matter any more than any other party functionary does. I mean the voters.
Trump won 14 million votes from Republican primary voters. Suppose half of those came late in the game when he had become inevitable, and his conventional rivals were all dropping out. That still leaves what, 7 million voters? Imagine 7 million Republican voters sitting on their hands the next election and the next. If you exclude 7 million Republican voters from all the Presidential elections of the last 50 years, Reagan is the last -- and possibly the only -- Republican President (Nixon would win his reelection, but he wouldn't have been elected in the first place).
It's delusional to think the Republican party can win a national election without these voters. It's delusional to think the Republican party could win a national election after aggressively purging these voters. And let's be more specific -- the delusion is that if you could just shut these voters up and deny them any voice or representation, they'd forget all the reasons they rejected you and go back to supporting you.
That's a mistake.
Now, I'm sure the Republican party hierarchy is thirsting for vengeance just like you, Chuck. And I'm sure they will do just what you hope. But it will destroy the electoral viability of the party.
Now, all that said, the big caveat is that none of this would follow if the Democrats fall apart in similar fashion. If the Democrats split into a Clintonian fascist wing and a Sanders socialist wing, then a rump Republican party could win elections. There's certainly precedent for plurality victories in our electoral system (cf Nixon's plurality victory in 1968, against a split Democratic field). And I suppose if Clinton II goes full Nixon and gets impeached, then that could also save the Republican party from itself. And neither of these are impossible. But I think both somewhat unlikely.
I think the most likely outcome here is Trump loses, and the Chucks in the Republican party promptly drive the party off a cliff by villifying Trump's supporters.
I'll also note, I expect Clinton to do a purge of the Democratic party too once she assumes power. But because she's not a moron, I expect her to purge individuals, without making it overtly ideological. After all, she's a practical person -- she just wants to pack the party with her cronies, not revolutionise the world.
In contrast, I expect Republican office-holders to beat their breasts theatrically about how they're purging an unsavoury Trumpist ideology from the party, thus sending the clear message to millions of their voters that voting for Trump means you're a racist or somehow an undesireable whose support is unwelcome.
Balfegor. Yep!
You gotta choice. You can vote for:
Hillary - who wants to let in a million Syrian refugees, give everyone Amnesty, and let anyone from the 3rd World come here. In effect: Open borders with welfare for anyone who gets here.
Trump - Who wants to control the border and enforce the immigration laws.
I support Trump.
Or you can vote for Gary Johnson the "Libertarian" who just went bat-shit crazy because an interviewer called illegal aliens "illegal immigrants" instead of "Undocumented immigrants".
Johnson has the usual "Libertarian" plan for solving the problem:
1. Amnesty for all the illegals
2. No immigration laws - Open borders
3. ????
4. The welfare state is gone
5. Problem solved.
Indeed. How the Republican Party plans on winning elections after it explicitly "purges" a large minority of its core voters — and unmistakably signals to the rest that they are not to raise their heads to their betters ever again, or they'll be beaten back to their kennels — is beyond this simple child of the heartland.
Doubtless there is a sophisticated plan to find some new voters, once they've gotten rid of the old ones. (Who outright refused to vote for Jeb! Imagine! The nerve of those proles!)
Trump actually does not have any responsibility for what the media does with what he says, that responsibility lies solely with the media. Should they decide to be irresponsible (pretty much a given), they should bear the consequences of that, even if that means a Trump administration that might never have been without their reckless distortions.
If this standard were to get applied, Trump would spend his entire administration endlessly debunking the newest press fiction of the day.
Now it's true that he really isn't saying what he intends to do with all the other people here illegally. But I also think there is some value in splitting that discussion off from border security and addressing it later - the 10 points Trump did give are all about securing the border and removing the bad actors from the country who have done something else besides trespassing. If that can be pulled off and not be a Washington Kabuki tragicomedy of lies and deception, I think a far more favorable resolution can be obtained for that group of people than would be possible were it to be addressed in detail now.
Mike Sylwester,
That's what struck me too: That the NYT was talking "immigrants" while Trump was talking "illegal immigrants." Of course, they aren't called that at the NYT any more; I think the new term is "unauthorized workers." Which, among other things, presumes that everyone is actually working.
Balfegor, there are many democrats as well who feel that immigration right now and in the recent past is excessive and they hated NAFTA. It's not just Republicans.
You can get federal health insurance if you are not in this country legally. As long as you are at least 21, poor and uninsured. Depends where you're living.
"What the fuck makes illegal aliens so special? "
Many can read and write their own name and that is it. Many are hardworking, smart but uneducated. Having their living situation as precarious as it is in this country makes them extremely easy to exploit. Once age, chronic disease or injury sets in, toss em out and pick up the next youngish, healthy, strong, smart but illiterate immigrant to start the whole process over again.
That Trump's wife is a legal or illegal immigrant makes little difference in what he is saying. It's silly to think that he would base how he feels about her, a sexy European model, to how he feels about uncontrolled immigration of others. That plus he's probably not entirely serious about half of what he says, as others have correctly pointed out.
Post a Comment