November 22, 2016

Trump speaks directly to the people with a no-frills YouTube video.



Stylistically, this is startlingly primitive. YouTube may be up-to-date technology, but it's always had a DIY feel to it. You can propagate very polished video with it if you want and as Trump did in his final campaign ad. But this new message has the stilted, unrefined look and sound of a middle-of-the-night infomercial on cable TV. That doesn't mean this is not a slick move. The decision to go rough can be slick.

The new message is the second video posted on a new YouTube channel called "Transition 2017." (Those of you who love to say Trump is a narcissist who can't resist slapping his name on everything should observe that the word "Trump" does not appear in the channel name.) The first video was the cheesy "My Dad," which is good if you like photos of long-haired blond boys and sentimental, tinkly piano noodling.

Oh, do you want to talk about the substance of the message? Below is a transcript to help you with that. What's most important is what's left out, which can be hard to notice. So, I'll just say: immigration.

Today, I would like to provide the American people with an update on the White House transition and our policy plans for the first 100 days.

Our transition team is working very smoothly, efficiently, and effectively. Truly great and talented men and women, patriots indeed are being brought in and many will soon be a part of our government, helping us to Make America Great Again.

My agenda will be based on a simple core principle: putting America First.

Whether it’s producing steel, building cars, or curing disease, I want the next generation of production and innovation to happen right here, in our great homeland: America – creating wealth and jobs for American workers.

As part of this plan, I’ve asked my transition team to develop a list of executive actions we can take on day one to restore our laws and bring back our jobs. It’s about time.

These include the following:

On trade, I am going to issue our notification of intent to withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a potential disaster for our country. Instead, we will negotiate fair, bilateral trade deals that bring jobs and industry back onto American shores.

On energy, I will cancel job-killing restrictions on the production of American energy – including shale energy and clean coal – creating many millions of high-paying jobs. That’s what we want, that’s what we’ve been waiting for.

On regulation, I will formulate a rule which says that for every one new regulation, two old regulations must be eliminated, it’s so important.

On national security, I will ask the Department of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to develop a comprehensive plan to protect America’s vital infrastructure from cyber-attacks, and all other form of attacks.

On immigration, I will direct the Department of Labor to investigate all abuses of visa programs that undercut the American worker.

On ethics reform, as part of our plan to Drain the Swamp, we will impose a five-year ban on executive officials becoming lobbyists after they leave the Administration – and a lifetime ban on executive officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.

These are just a few of the steps we will take to reform Washington and rebuild our middle class.

I will provide more updates in the coming days, as we work together to Make America Great Again for everyone.

84 comments:

zipity said...

The brilliant part is, this completely cuts the LameStream Media© out of the loop...

Brillian.

Achilles said...

Immigration is left out because nothing needs to be changed. All he has to do is enforce the law.

So far Sessions is going to be AG. If Kobach ends up as homeland security chief immigration will take care of itself.

Paul Snively said...

It's about time a Republican figured out the truth of A. J. Liebling's old line "Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one."

Kristian Holvoet said...

In one sense, I like the directness. Bypassing a lot of polish can really hammer home the message. It can also be a lot more timely-- No begging the media for air time carve outs.

Also, he isn't actually in the government yet (technically, not even the president elect, just the, what, president designate?). So doing this on his own is also an interesting message to send.

I like that it is him speaking, not a media relations person (press secretary), not a press release, just him saying what his team is doing. It shows a lot of ownership of what is going on.

Bypassing the media gate keepers with this message, as well as the leaked content of the meeting with those gatekeepers, implies a deeper message to them: "I don't need you get my message out." At least until the Orwellian 'Trust and Safety Councils' at Twitter, Yahoo, and Alphabet ban him.

Kevin said...

"What's most important is what's left out, which can be hard to notice. So, I'll just say: immigration."

The wall will not be built in the first 100 days.

Hardened criminals may not be deported in the first 100 days, because it makes little sense to do so when there is no wall.

People here illegally but otherwise in good standing won't be deported in the first 100 days, because there is not yet a consensus on who may get to stay and on what conditions.

Businesses who hire illegals can be targeted in the first 100 days, which makes self-deportation for some segment of illegals much more likely, and opens jobs for people here legally.

I'm not seeing the issue. I guess if the issue was some people were hoping for a mass deportation on day one, they're going to be surprised. But these people have been consistently surprised for the last month or so anyway. I don't think that's going to change for them for quite some time.

MikeR said...

"As part of this plan, I’ve asked my transition team to develop a list of executive actions we can take on day one to restore our laws and bring back our jobs. It’s about time.
These include the following:"
Note that this isn't his plan. His claim is that everything here can be done on day 1. Is that true?
For instance, can he make rules about making new regulations? I would have thought that was Congress's job.

Can the Wall be started on day 1, or doesn't he need instruction from Congress since they already voted for a partial wall?

exhelodrvr1 said...

This is Fireside Chat-like.

MadisonMan said...

A great communicator.

eric said...

On immigration, I will direct the Department of Labor to investigate all abuses of visa programs that undercut the American worker.

That sounds like immigration.

rhhardin said...

First Trump was vulgar and rude, and now he's rough.

MikeR said...

Paris Accords? Iran deal? As they are based on Executive Agreements, he could theoretically just drop out on day 1.
Hiring freeze in executive branch?

Unknown said...

I will build a wall. It'll be a beautiful wall, maybe they'll call it the Trump wall...

Oh yes there will be a deportation force...

Achilles said...

He is going to finish the media off. Watching this it is clear that he and Bannon have been watching the news and know the media will do everything they can do to undermine him and the country.

When his actions and YouTube channel are obviously more authentic and honest than the media people will see behind the curtain and know who owns CNN, NYT, NBC et al.

Bob Boyd said...

No kitten? What a gyp.

CJinPA said...

That's a fine message. Perfectly reasonable.

But I want bulldozers moving earth on the border real soon.

Nigel Tufnel said...

"On immigration, I will direct the Department of Labor to investigate all abuses of visa programs that undercut the American worker.

That sounds like immigration."

Si senor. I thought that too. All in all its just another brick in the wall.

Of course, he may be thinking "We don't need no stinking badges!" to fix immigration. As the above posters say, the current law just needs enforcin'

BDNYC said...

I disagree with him on so many issues, and I expect I will oppose most of what he does, but I must admit it's exciting to have an independent voice in the White House. I also loathed Hillary and considered her a criminal, so there's that.

It really does seem like Trump is going to be relying on ad hoc, cross-party coalitions for some of his policies. The meeting with Tulsi Gabbard pretty obviously indicated his openness and desire to working across the aisle when appropriate. This is what happens when you have a flexible, non-ideological guy in charge. Many of the old alliances are gonna be scrambled.

I just hope he and his ad hoc coalitions don't pass too much legislation because I sense he's all about growing the size of government and increasing trade protectionism.

Achilles said...

I liked the format and the directness. Trump actually seemed like he came down to our level. This is going to endear him to most people more than a "polished" expensive production. People seem to have forgotten what the fireside chats were about and why they worked.

Lucien said...

Before a promise to repeal two old regulations for every new one can be anything but fluff, you'd have to be able to say what counts as a single unit of regulation. If you've ever read any federal regulations (which is not recommended unless you can bill for it)you'll know that some have many complicated sub-parts and some do not; and some cross-refer to or incorporate rules from,other regulations or statutes. Some have passed through a formal notice and comment process (usually earning them Chevron deference)and some are merely interpretive guidelines (Skidmore deference). Some regulations have broad reach, and some are very narrow.

And that's before you even start talking about Bulletins, Private Letter Rulings, etc.

Paul said...

The right man at the right time. We've pulled back from the abyss. Remarkable!

Sebastian said...

"the current law just needs enforcin'" The current law also needs changin' -- replace family preferences with a points system.

Hagar said...

Trump cannot change regulations mandated by Congress, but those are not what the fuss is about. The vast mass of regulations have been issued by bureaucratic fiat, and the President certainly can order those to be repealed.

Yancey Ward said...

The message is, "I don't need the media- not even FoxNews, so fuck off."

The style is entirely appropriate- it shouldn't be overproduced, and messages like this shouldn't be more than 4 minutes in length.

The counterattack will be a doubling down on the "Fake News" narrative, but this is a battle the media can't win- their time has passed.

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

If this means they're going to change the way they've been doing those Viagra commercials on TV, then I'm all for it.

Brando said...

YouTube's a good medium for this. And if the news wants to discuss it, steer everyone back to the original video so they can see for themselves.

And cable news is a bunch of crap anyway--too much focus on the juicy crap du jour and very little on world affairs. I get the need for ratings, but let's not pretend they're doing some public service in going on for a week about this Hamilton nonsense.

Rick said...

Yancey Ward said... [hush]​[hide comment]
The message is, "I don't need the media- not even FoxNews, so fuck off."


Yes. The next step will be for the media to step in and tell us what it means, but since they're hysterical and can't help themselves their overreactions will further undermine their credibility. It couldn't happen to a better set of people.

mikee said...

I, for one, look forward to a future Bad Lip Sync video wherein Trump's direct messaging to the American people is slanted just a bit, to include some fun things, say, forcing all newspaper editorial staffs into internment camps for reeducation, immediate arrest on sight orders for all of of the Clinton Foundation staff, and just for confusion's sake an invasion of Lithuania to prevent the Russians from doing so.

Nigel Tufnel said...

Trump's Rick-roll of the media to promote his new hotel -- in the middle of a presidential campaign, you, a presidential candidate!-- was one of the most memorable parts of the campaign. Trump showed he didn't need the old media but knew how to use them. That has to suck for them.

Harnessing new media to provide the direct message is smart. Don't most people get their news via internet and social media now?

Big Mike said...

He's still trying to figure out how to explain to limousine liberals that he's going to enforce immigration laws and therefore they are going to have to mow their own d**ned lawns themselves.

Nigel Tufnel said...

"I, for one, look forward to a future Bad Lip Sync video wherein Trump's direct messaging to the American people is slanted just a bit, to include some fun things,"

The zany North Koreans will take Bad Lip Sync literally.

OH! Orange Leader insult Dear Leader? There goes Japan.

Mick said...

The anti American media state propaganda whores, who protected the Usurper and Wall Street for the last 8 years, are being played like the little children they are. They are playing checkers with a Chess Master, and don't even realize that the public Hates and does not Trust them, which of course the Chess Master Trump takes advantage of.

sunsong said...

This is little boy Trump preaching to the choir. His supporters love him already.

Paul Zrimsek said...

As I understand it, any regulation which had to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking to be enacted also has to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking to be repealed. The real genius of the 2-for-1 idea may be that it keeps agencies so busy with that part of the process that they don't have time for much new regulation.

R.J. Chatt said...

He doesn't want to spend more than he has to, that's how he ran his campaign. No need for a high production expensive video to keep the American people informed. He'll run the government with the same philosophy, I hope.

Mattman26 said...

Hey Eric the Fruitbat, that's a great idea. I bet Trump could be a hero to many TV-watchers if he got rid of the requirement for drug ads to carry those absurd and disturbing arrays of side effects, and replaced it with something like, "All medications carry risks of side effects. Discuss them with your doctor."

Not that I don't like hearing about erections lasting 4 hours.

Bay Area Guy said...

Overthinking it, Althouse.

The only important point -- as noted by several commentators above - is that Trump is speaking directly to the people, bypassing the media. It's an effective media strategy to side-step the biased media filters.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Most people don't realize what a negative impact adding regulations have on productivity and on the ultimate products that consumers see. For instance, dealing with regulatory changes takes up a very large chunk of development/testing/documentation time in software-related industries, with (almost always) no enhanced functionalities.

AllenS said...

Who can blame Trump for by-passing the media. The media was pretty up front that they wanted him to lose. Pay back is a bitch, or so they say, and it looks like that is correct statement.

Scott said...

I didn't vote for him this time, but if he does nothing else, I'll vote for him next based on this alone. Screw the "media"!

Steve Uhr said...

Are we ever going to get any more Althouse posts on Trump that are unfavorable?

mockturtle said...

Yep, I also like the 'eliminate two regs for every one imposed' philosophy. Overall, a good way to start. Certainly, the 'wall' and the issue of illegals is going to take some time. He has a PLAN. A plan he fully intends to execute.

Those of us on him email list got a survey of prioritization of actions. He has sent several of these and he actually seems to be interested in what 'we the people' think.

Paul said...

"Are we ever going to get any more Althouse posts on Trump that are unfavorable?"

There are plenty of websites you can visit with all the Trump hate you need to give you a constant tiny chubby. Shouldn't be too hard to find one.

Christopher B said...

Nice contrast from this

Gk1 said...

If it wasn't for airports I would never even see or hear from CNN at all. Every once in a while I will see CNBC here and there. I go to the internet for news and would prefer to watch the actual event than take the word of some quaffed, hair sprayed liberal with an agenda. The MSM is going to have to step up its game to remain relevant. Bless their hearts!

Gabriel said...

@Kevin:Businesses who hire illegals can be targeted in the first 100 days

Lots of people think this, but businesses in America can legally hire illegals; and in fact it is illegal for them to do anything that would meaningfully prevent illegals from being hired.

To do so is national origin discrimination under Title VII. An applicant may not be asked to prove employment eligibility. If the the applicant is hired, the documents they produce may not be questioned. In exchange, businesses that accept documents at face value are absolved from liability for having hired an illegal.

The only way a business can be "targeted" is if evidence exists that they hired an illegal knowing them to be illegal. Businesses that actually employ illegals have really no reason to do this: if they comply with the law and accept documents unquestioningly then they have done nothing illegal.

E-Verify changes none of this: there is no outcome of the E-Verify process that mandates the firing of an illegal, and it cannot be used to screen applicants.

eric said...


You aren't laughing. You and your ilk are trying to tear this country apart at the fabric. We were a country based off of shared desire for liberty, common experiences, and equal justice. You are trying to force everyone else to live in a worse place by taking that away.


Why do you pay attention to this troll? He knows less than nothing about anything. The internet gives him an opportunity to feel good about himself. But he has demonstrated throughout this election that he will brazenly make predictions and never pay a penalty for being fabulously wrong.

Seriously, there is no reason to respond to him or even acknowledge he, or she, even exists. They are just trolling this site and trying to get a rise out of you. They should be pitied. Not humored.

eric said...

Blogger Gabriel said...
@Kevin:Businesses who hire illegals can be targeted in the first 100 days

Lots of people think this, but businesses in America can legally hire illegals; and in fact it is illegal for them to do anything that would meaningfully prevent illegals from being hired.

To do so is national origin discrimination under Title VII. An applicant may not be asked to prove employment eligibility. If the the applicant is hired, the documents they produce may not be questioned. In exchange, businesses that accept documents at face value are absolved from liability for having hired an illegal.


The thing is, worksite enforcement has spent the last 6 years doing administrative audits and notifying businesses of illegals working for them.

Many of these businesses have failed to remove the illegals after notification.

It's like sending a cease and desist order to someone violating intellectual property rights. You need to demonstrate they had knowledge. And we can demonstrate through the audits that they've got knowledge.

eric said...

Blogger mockturtle said...
Yep, I also like the 'eliminate two regs for every one imposed' philosophy. Overall, a good way to start. Certainly, the 'wall' and the issue of illegals is going to take some time. He has a PLAN. A plan he fully intends to execute.

Those of us on him email list got a survey of prioritization of actions. He has sent several of these and he actually seems to be interested in what 'we the people' think.


This is the first administration I've sent my opinion to. I'm cautiously excited about the possibilities.

vicari valdez said...

with the emergence of the internet we've seen the complete disintegration of the concept of mass media. this is a good thing. let the politicians like trump lie directly to the people without a complicit middle man.

Fabi said...

I liked the part at the end where he said "Mention this speech and receive 10% off your next stay at a fabulous Trump hotel. They're magnificent, I promise. Yuge!"

robother said...

I wonder if Americans shouldn't emulate Trump's bypass operation, and cut the cable. Even if you are watching mostly Fox News, if your pipe is Comcast, you are paying Maddow and Donnell's salaries. Same goes for TimeWarner, and CNN.

Tank said...

My agenda will be based on a simple core principle: putting America First.

It was this theme that first drew me strongly to be a (yes enthusiastic) supporter of Trump.

Meade said...

"COMMENTS ARE MODERATED some but not all of the time. This is for the purpose of excluding/removing a small handful of commenters who, I believe, intend to ruin this forum. They already know who they are. For everyone else, try to be responsive to the post, don't make personal attacks on other commenters, bring some substance or humor to the conversation, and don't do that thing of putting in a lot of extra line breaks."

Achilles said...

eric said...

Seriously, there is no reason to respond to him or even acknowledge he, or she, even exists. They are just trolling this site and trying to get a rise out of you. They should be pitied. Not humored.

These trolls are ripping this country apart. They are injecting themselves into every conversation and burning things down. They are proud of booing people and lecturing at curtain calls. They have evil intentions.

I understand wanting to ignore them. Most people should. But I am one of the guardians. I respond to threats to civility and decency because someone has to. We can't all ignore it. I always point out my critique of Nietzsche. He divided the world into eagles and sheep. This is what the rest of the world is like. In the US it is more like Sheep, Wolves, and Wolfhounds. The sheep are generally repelled by the wolfhounds that keep them safe from the wolves because the wolfhound is more like a wolf than a sheep.

But if you would rather live with the wolves in charge move to Afghanistan.

SukieTawdry said...

He doesn't ignore immigration, but it would appear he's intending to tackle H-1 visas first. That's fine with me. I don't like what the H-1 visa program has become. It displaces American high tech workers and virtually treats the foreign imports as indentured servants.

I like the new regulations rule. But I would stipulate that the two eliminated regulations be at least as impactful as the proposed new one.

No, the video isn't slick (but we don't need slick). I wouldn't, however, characterize it as stilted and unrefined.

vicari valdez said...

Kevin said...
Businesses who hire illegals can be targeted in the first 100 days, which makes self-deportation for some segment of illegals much more likely, and opens jobs for people here legally.

I'm not seeing the issue.
11/22/16, 10:28 AM


i don't think the issue will ever come up until we have true outsider candidate who actually stands for the working people in this country. unfortunately businesses need cheap labor. they also need to treat that cheap labor as second class people so that those most negatively affected by our current labor market feel as though something is being done on their behalf, even though nothing clearly is.

wildswan said...

The video answers the question: what will Trump do first? which is what I get asked. The video is short so it can be kept around for reference and the program is all doable. We can now compare what Trump intends with what the mainslime channels say he intends and see his wider program.

On immigration he fakes out the media by first going after the people Disney brings in to replace well-trained Americans instead of first going after Central American women trying to reunite with their husbands as the media hoped. Meanwhile criminals, knowing Trump will go after them since he appointed Sessions as AG, have time to leave on their own. If criminal illegals (released by Obama into our communities) begin to leave over the next 6 months then Trump achieves part of his goal immediately without any effort or any money spent. That gives him time to get a budget passed with the wall in it.

Steve Uhr said...

One thing we now know about Trump for certain. His campaign was full of lies and empty promises.

A second thing we now know for certain -- he is a typical politician.

SukieTawdry said...

I liked the part at the end where he said "Mention this speech and receive 10% off your next stay at a fabulous Trump hotel. They're magnificent, I promise. Yuge!"

Damn, I missed that part--guess I didn't listen long enough. It's a nice gesture, but I'm guessing that even with a 10 percent discount, Trump hotels are too rich for my blood.

Fabi said...

@SukieTawdry -- just in case, he said to use the promo code: Bigly. ;-)

Jim Gust said...

I like the direct presentation, I like that he packed a lot of info into about 3 minutes, I like that the usual political boilerplate was omitted. I also like that I could watch it, and rewatch it, on my schedule, not anyone else's. I used to resent those presidential speeches from the oval office just because of the imposition on my schedule.

johns said...

I just checked Youtube at 12:00pm Pacific. The Trump video has been up for 21 hours and has 1.3 million views. That's a lot less than if he had done an interview on the MSM. Maybe these videos will become popular. I hope so. But as long as my wife and many others are watching "Good Morning America" instead of Youtube, the MSM still has power.

khesanh0802 said...

Some change from the self-promoting blather of Obama! I told my wife today that is a shock to my system that Trump plans to implement the ideas/policies that he campaigned on. I don't remember anything like it in my over 50 years of paying pretty close attention to politics.

Achilles said...

Steve Uhr said...
One thing we now know about Trump for certain. His campaign was full of lies and empty promises.

You hope.

But your assertion without support is going against reality. I look forward to your disappointment as Attorney General Sessions reigns in immigration by merely enforcing the law.

vanderleun said...

"The first video was the cheesy "My Dad," which is good if you like photos of long-haired blond boys and sentimental, tinkly piano noodling."

Might be appealing to the same sort that likes photos of medium-length middle-aged blond girls hanging out in cafes and noodling around on their pads.

eric said...

Blogger Achilles said...
Steve Uhr said...
One thing we now know about Trump for certain. His campaign was full of lies and empty promises.

You hope.

But your assertion without support is going against reality. I look forward to your disappointment as Attorney General Sessions reigns in immigration by merely enforcing the law.


There was a time, over a decade ago, when my immigration work was under the attorney general. Even today, when you read immigration law, it says the attorney general or his appointees.

However, after the Department of Homeland Security was established, the Secretary of DHS became the person referred to in all immigration law.

So, even though it may still read attorney general, the Secretary of DHS has the power.

Drago said...

Steve Uhr: "One thing we now know about Trump for certain. His campaign was full of lies and empty promises. A second thing we now know for certain -- he is a typical politician"

This is what desperation to somehow turn out right after always being wrong looks like.

Not. Pretty.

traditionalguy said...

Dow hits 19,000 closing. Trump realty therapy is healing the world faster than we dreamed. And that is just by using a winner's attitude.

The Enemymedia is going down fast too. Nobody believes their fake news anymore. So Trump has to use these you tubes to communicate.

David said...

"Stylistically, this is startlingly primitive."

Direct declarative sentences. No wasted effort. No distracting embellishments.

Brilliant.

Unknown said...

You people voted for this doofus.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-conflict-of-interest_us_58349547e4b09b6055ff367d

"Donald Trump Basically Says Conflicts Of Interest Aren’t Illegal If The President Has Them

The comments come just hours after Trump tweeted Monday night that people knew about his glaring conflicts of interest when they voted for him. It is therefore supposedly the media’s fault for reporting on them.

Trump’s global real estate empire presents the potential for massive conflicts of interest or their appearance as every U.S. government policy action could be directed or seen to be directed to benefit the president’s pocketbook. The United States government is supposed to act in the public interest of the people and not in support of one individual’s private benefit.

The list of the president-elect’s conflict of interest problems has grown over the two weeks since he won election."

exhelodrvr1 said...

Yeah - Huffington Post. All the news that's fit to paint.

Drago said...

Unknown: "The list of the president-elect’s conflict of interest problems has grown over the two weeks since he won election."

At this rate of growth, Trumps conflicts of interest would equal Hillary's in a mere 2,476 years.

Drago said...

Its amusing to read/listen to lefties who learned that "alt right" term 15 minutes ago behave as trained seals in altering their language from racist Trump to Alt-right Trump.

Again, the philosophical question is as follows: is it really a political advantage for the left to have robotic followers who shift on a dime after being signaled or, despite the inevitable splits and difficulties, would the left be much more "dangerously" effective if more of their members were like Rhythm and Balls here with an independent bent and the willingness to buck authority?

Given relatively recent global events you would have to conclude the messier, more independent thinking scenario would yield improved electoral results.

But, in the end, lefties are lefties for a reason.

Paddy O said...

Is alt-right the same as neo-conservative?

"You people voted for this doofus."

The people's alternative was the other doofus and the Clinton Foundation, which clearly tried to subvert all conflict of interest laws blatantly for years.

OldManRick said...

I'd like to take this back to the fundamental question. "What is the real case for immigration in 2016?"

In the late 1800's when immigration was at its height, we had just finished a bloody civil war where 2% of the population was killed, probably another 4% badly maimed. We had a frontier that was unsettled, plenty of land available for the asking. Of my own great grandfathers two were farmers in the Dakotas, one a blacksmith in Wyoming, and the last a Irish dockworker in New York - all were immigrants. We were essentially an agrarian society. WSJ has an article titled "Until the Late 1800's, U.S. Had Never Known Unemployment Woes". Google it.

Industrialization in the early 1900's gave jobs to new immigrants without taking too many jobs from the existing population (but did put downward pressure on wages for the unskilled). WW1 and WW2 kept the workforce employed with about a 5% unemployment rate but during the great depression the rate rose to 20%. Still we were a labor intensive society. After WW2, there was a boom that kept people employed for 30+ years but slowly but surely we have reduced the market for labor in the US with automation, free trade, and out sourcing.

Now we have over 12% underemployment of our potential labor force. Many of the employed are only part time, increasing the under-utilization. The argument that "immigration is what were are" is specious but we are no longer what we were in the 1800's or the early 1900's when immigration was accepted and encouraged. Supply and demand curves are uncaring, like gravity there is no kinder, gentiler version. If I jump out a six story window I will not float to the ground. If I add unskilled immigrant labor to the supply curve, it will only increase the competition for jobs and allow employers to reduce what they have to offer to get employees. Minimum wage laws will only create an artificially higher cut off for the skill level at which an employer is willing to hire. In fact even in the 1900's, immigration had the effect of allowing employers to minimize the wages they had to pay.

So what is the case for immigration in 2017? I could be cynical and say it's an attempt to change the voting demographics - it's certainly done that in California (where I live). Is it really do the jobs that American's don't want to do? Why are they too proud to do them? When I was young, I would do any work available to make a buck. Can anyone tell me what is the value of unfettered immigration in 2017?

Unknown said...

Conflict of interest laws, Trump says because he will be president, they won't apply to him.

"If the president does it, it's not illegal". Right?

n.n said...

The issue is not immigration per se, but emigration. Whether it is the refugee crises caused by social justice adventurism, or mass emigration from second and third-world nations to compensate for abortion rites and economic misalignment, the causes of emigration reform are known and need to be addressed. A Pro-Choice policy of avoidance or shifting responsibility has only served to exacerbate the harm to people and development, foreign and domestic.

Unknown said...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/politics/donald-trump-conflict-of-interest.html

"WASHINGTON — Not long after he took office, President Obama sought advice from the Justice Department about a potential conflict of interest involving a foreign government. He wanted to know whether he could accept the Nobel Peace Prize.

The answer turned on the Emoluments Clause, an obscure provision of the Constitution that now poses risks for President-elect Donald J. Trump should he continue to reap benefits from transactions with companies controlled by foreign governments.

"Emolument” means compensation for labor or services. And the clause says that “no person holding any office of profit or trust” shall “accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state” unless Congress consents.

Mr. Trump’s companies do business with entities controlled by foreign governments and people with ties to them. The ventures include multimillion-dollar real estate arrangements — with Mr. Trump’s companies either as a full owner or a “branding” partner — in Ireland and Uruguay. The Bank of China is a tenant in Trump Tower and a lender for another building in Midtown Manhattan where Mr. Trump has a significant partnership interest.

Experts in legal ethics say those kinds of arrangements could easily run afoul of the Emoluments Clause if they continue after Mr. Trump takes office. “The founders very clearly intended that officers of the United States, including the president, not accept presents from foreign sovereigns,” said Norman Eisen, who was the chief White House ethics lawyer for Mr. Obama from 2009 to 2011."

Paddy O said...

Which was me saying I agree it's an issue. But it was also an issue with Clinton and everyone on her side now up in arms against Trump was told it wasn't a problem. It was a problem with Clinton, a clear and dangerous issue. Why wasn't it a problem with Clinton getting "donations" from so many people? We were told to shut up? Democrats could have nominated no end of other people if they really saw a conflict.

It is a problem and the problem is that we didn't have other options.

JamesB.BKK said...

I just hope he sets up a good GoogleAds contract and distributes to all of us a share of the income. To divert the revenue of the media gained by artificial access to state actors to the Executive and then onward to us would be most excellent.

JamesB.BKK said...

"Trump’s global real estate empire presents the potential for massive conflicts of interest or their appearance as every U.S. government policy action could be directed or seen to be directed to benefit the president’s pocketbook."

In other words, he might not be too interested in bombing places hosting his properties. Seems kinda like a feature. It is not a conflict of interest to those not interested in more wars, but instead an alignment of interests. At last.

JamesB.BKK said...

Great to see so much newfound interest in the Constitution. No longer just really, really old it seems. Too bad lefties and Republican enablers ruined the better parts of it.

Bob Ellison said...

This is good marketing.

Bruce Hayden said...

Experts in legal ethics say those kinds of arrangements could easily run afoul of the Emoluments Clause if they continue after Mr. Trump takes office. “The founders very clearly intended that officers of the United States, including the president, not accept presents from foreign sovereigns,” said Norman Eisen, who was the chief White House ethics lawyer for Mr. Obama from 2009 to 2011."

Wait. Obama had a White House ethics lawyer? During the time when Crooked Hillary was at the helm in Foggy Bottom? When her foundation was taking in hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it from foreign sources, including foreign governments, and companies controlled by foreign governments? When those same foreign contributors were getting special deals through her State Department? Who would have guessed.