Donald J. Trump will visit Mexico on Wednesday for a private meeting with President Enrique Peña Nieto... before quickly flying back for what is billed as a major immigration speech in Arizona. Mr. Peña Nieto’s office said Tuesday night that the meeting would take place at the presidential palace in Mexico City, and Mr. Trump, on Twitter, said he looked “very much forward” to the visit....Peña Nieto had invited both Clinton and Trump. Trump is just the one who jumped at the invitation, which was only issued last week.
Politicians in Mexico have largely remained silent on Mr. Trump, though there have been outbursts, including from Mr. Peña Nieto himself. In March, he compared Mr. Trump to Hitler and Mussolini for what he called Mr. Trump’s strident remarks and populism, though he later tried to soften his words without quite taking them back.I had to look up the old quote. It was:
There have been episodes in human history, unfortunately, where these expressions of this strident rhetoric have only led to very ominous situations in the history of humanity. That’s how Mussolini got in, that’s how Hitler got in — they took advantage of a situation, a problem perhaps, which humanity was going through at the time, after an economic crisis. And I think what (they) put forward ended up at what we know today from history, in global conflagration. We don’t want that happening anywhere in the world.I can see why today's reports don't quote it. It's vague and blabby. The later softening was: "Hitler, Mussolini, we all know the result. It was only a call for reflection and for recognition, so that we bear in mind what we have achieved and the great deal still to achieve." Peña Nieto is not a pithy speaker.
Back to the NYT article. It characterizes Trump as taking a "gamble" because his campaign is "struggling":
But for all the risk it poses, it offers an image Mr. Trump relishes: of a wily negotiator willing to do the unexpected — meeting with a perceived enemy — to advance his agenda.The article takes pains to remind us that a lot of people in Mexico don't like Trump. My favorite line is: "Artisans have fashioned Trump piñatas...." Artisans! Crude effigies are made for people to beat with a stick and we hear of "artisans" — humble, dedicated craftspersons — who don't merely make things, they fashion them.
We will see what Donald Trump can do in the spotlight on the last day of August, when normally no one would be paying attention to much of anything. He's popping down to Mexico, then up to Phoenix to deliver what is presented as his major immigration speech. The #1 thing people seem to be looking to hear in the speech is — I'm quoting The Hill now — "whether he will still stand by his call for a 'deportation force' to remove the 11 million undocumented immigrants":
That hard line helped him steamroll his GOP primary foes, but it is less helpful with a more moderate general election audience.... The Trump campaign has recently focused on his call to immediately deport “criminal illegal immigrants.” But that doesn’t settle what happens to those who haven’t committed other crimes besides violating immigration laws.... [H]e could stand by behind his primary rhetoric and call for the immediate removal of all 11 million undocumented immigrants.This should be interesting. I wonder if Trump can honestly say that he never did call for the immediate removal of all 11 million undocumented immigrants. When I research the question now, I only see articles that say that is his plan, but I don't see anything straight from him saying that. Did he allow people to think that's what he meant, while always maintaining the ground to say that he never said it?
Here's the text of his immigration plan, released last August. Under the heading "Defend The Laws And Constitution Of The United States," he speaks of 2 categories of persons that he would immediately return to "their home countries": "criminal aliens" (referring to crimes beyond simply being here illegally) and "Illegal aliens apprehended crossing the border."
Posts
161 comments:
I haven't followed him too closely on this issue, but it would be rather ironic if the media blowing his immigration plans out of proportion helped him win the primary and then he manages to pivot tonight to a place that sounds reasonable to most people watching it (not the media, who probably already have their stories about crimes against humanity written and ready to go).
Maybe Hillary can have a conference call with the Mexican President...
This photo op is the all powerful leadership cooperation image. What they talk about is irrelevant. The travel is a risk.
But a real leader takes the risks necessary to lead.
What's risky about the trip? It seems like an obvious no-lose move. If the Mexicans protest loudly when he visits, it makes them look rude to a guy willing to come meet with their president. If not, it still makes him look like a negotiator. And regardless of what they actually discuss, both Trump and Neto will come out of it saying it was a productive meeting (neither would get anything out of saying it was a crap meeting).
I predict his speech will emphasize deportation, stating all illegals are subject to deportation and only exceptional circumstances will be reviewed (he'll never use the word "amnesty" but then no one favoring any sort of limited amnesty ever calls it "amnesty". But no matter what, we're either getting some form of amnesty or the status quo). It'll be vague enough that his supporters will be mollified (Coulter and Rush's bleatings last week notwithstanding) and will have no effect on his detractors who wouldn't support him at this late stage even if he pivoted.
Hillary seems upset at this turn of events: "Clinton camp blasts Trump's Mexico visit".
I guess she wanted him to go on Kimmel and open a jar of Mexicans.
"Maybe Hillary can have a conference call with the Mexican President..."
Depends on whether she can work a fundraising trip out of it. Maybe some "Clinton Foundation" business.
Hillary hope is now down to a female sympathy vote plus a few bitter GOP Trumper haters.
Maybe Hillary can have a conference call with the Mexican President...
There's definitely something to this. She insulates herself from the media except for highly scripted and controlled simulations of questioning, doesn't work weekends, hides from the public. She's coated in the slime of lies and corruption. She's risking becoming another Martha Coakley. Even lefties can't tolerate Martha Coakley.
That’s how Mussolini got in, that’s how Hitler got in — they took advantage of a situation, a problem perhaps, which humanity was going through at the time...
This sounds more like how Hillary would get in, standing by her man Bill through his peccadilloes. You all owe me!
Good thing Trump has his own plane and pilots. Otherwise the 8 hour flight Max and 8 hour rest in 24 hours would apply.But will The Donald get any rest today?
We can only hope he doesn't drink the water or a drink with ice cubes while visiting Montezuma's Capital City.
Big ol' honkey-tonk down in Mexico.
Last nights primary results reinforce the notion that term limits are necessary.
In fact, if the Donald would push for term limits he could count on my vote.
The rest is all just rearranging of chairs.
At least the worthless nyt finally attempted to draw a line for the grifters wrt their crime syndicate. Gives me hope. Not really.
Republicans have never learned the art of the deal. They always started with the "reasonable" position, opposed by Democrats opening with the most outrageous demands of their coalition. The resulting legislation always curved left as a result. Trump probably knows what the average person wants is to have the border secured and to get rid of the criminals. So in his deal making he started with a bolder stance by moving toward the more reasonable plan he still has the weight of base desire behind him.
What I would really love to hear, from his discussions with Nieto and the speech tonight, is the devastation that our open border is bringing to the Mexican side of the border. We're very close here in San Antonio, so it's routine news here but I think most of the country just doesn't know how bad it is. Our collective desire for cheap labor (by the elites) and drugs has made the Mexican side of the border a living hell.
The Mexican owned NYT seems to be seeking a detente with the Straight Talking Gringo, President Trump. They see the secret real polling results, and they know Hillary has lost it.
It would be nice if any of it mattered.
Some of us anti-Trumpites called BS on the deportation business long ago. The Donald favored amnesty all along. Of course, the Turmpites preferred to focus on the wall, and progs just wanted to label him a racist. But Trump is Marco-lite
"Some of us anti-Trumpites called BS on the deportation business long ago. The Donald favored amnesty all along. Of course, the Turmpites preferred to focus on the wall, and progs just wanted to label him a racist. But Trump is Marco-lite"
I wonder if the Trump fans ever believed anything about his policies, and rather just went with the attitude he conveys. How else to explain it? We're getting in essence the same thing Jeb! called for, which is the "comprehensive" immigration approach. ("Border security first" is perfectly ambiguous, as anyone can define a secure border any way they want). As Rush seemed to acknowledge, this isn't about substance but style.
If he actually gets elected, we may discover that a "wall" is also ambiguous. We could end up with a "virtual wall" or a "figurative wall" of "better border enforcement".
For Trump Fans' sake, I hope they didn't actually support him because of his policies. Otherwise they're just setting themselves up for disappointment.
It would be nice if Trump got the principle right on amnesty and immigration.
It's our country. We get to say who comes and who doesn't come. In particular, people who come are the ones who benefit Americans.
If in addition those who come benefit themselves, it's a win/win. That's the basis of all voluntary transactions. Those who don't benefit themselves don't come.
So, start with a good border and restrictive immigration policy, so that those who come are ones who benefit us. That's our rule. They want their own rule but that's not our concern.
As for ones here, it's case by case on the same principle. Does this guy benefit Americans or not? Welfare cases go, criminals go, etc.
It's not about empathy but what's good for Americans.
Pretty broad appeal if you argue it out right.
I'm sure the 10K Syrians, already here( where is anyones guess), are already contributing to OUR nation by paying taxes, bolstering SSI and medicare. Hillary wants a flood of refugees. She knows better than you and I.
MSM cannot write a single headline that isn't pro-Corrupt Clinton.
Meanwhile, Empress Hillary! holds court with her vast array of sycophants in the media and entertainment industries.
It would be great if he came back and said he was so impressed with Mexico that he was going to adopt their immigration laws. And then lay them out.
Why would he have to pivot to the political class position? You can't tell me the vast majority of the American public is on the side of the political class/sellouts.
Visa program needs complete overhaul. Let someone competent run it. It's failings have caused so much havoc and damage.
TRUMP: We have at least 11 million people that came in illegally. They will go out. Some will come back, the best, through a process. They have to come back legally. It may not be a quick process, but I think that's fair. They're going to get in line with other people.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Immigration.htm
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/28/karen-bass/mass-deportation-latino-families/
___
In an interview that aired in September 2015 on CBS’ 60 Minutes, Scott Pelley pressed Trump about what he would do with the population.
Pelley: "Eleven, 12 million illegal immigrants --"
Trump: "Or whatever the number is."
Pelley: "Still in the country, what do you do?"
Trump: "If they've done well, they're going out and they're coming back in legally. Because you said it--"
Pelley: "You're rounding them all up?"
Trump: "We're rounding 'em up in a very humane way, in a very nice way. And they're going to be happy because they want to be legalized. And, by the way, I know it doesn't sound nice. But not everything is nice."
Speaking of Mexicans, Vladimir Putin has been arrested for trespassing. "A judge has ordered Putin to undergo a mental health assessment, according to court records."
"For Trump Fans' sake, I hope they didn't actually support him because of his policies. Otherwise they're just setting themselves up for disappointment."
At this point we will take whatever we can get. We at least know Trump is coming from a point of view that includes us.
The disappointment has been the people who pretend to be conservative and pretend to care about the country who refuse to understand what we are up against. All of you douchebags whining and bitching because Trump isn't the perfect polished politician and hanging on every word the media puts out misrepresenting our point of view and whatever trump says. It is clear trump will be better than Clinton or any of the republicans he beat in the primary. It is also clear that the Republican Party has a bunch of jerks in it who will sell out at the first opportunity.
Peña Nieto is not a pithy speaker.
Perhaps something was lost in the translation?
Trump is going to Mexico for the video it generates: Wildly violent protests and Trump shaking hands with el Presidente.
And Mexico paid to protect him.
The main point is that he is doing this and Clinton is not.
Is there some way he can lever this into more hispanic votes? Maybe not, but if he did it would be a big deal.
The meeting is "private" so presumably no photo op with the Mexican president. But what if he Prez says something nice about Trump?
There is downside but he upside predominates. Good Move by The Donald.
Rush always says " words mean things" when attacking his foes for lying! Yet, he claims he didn't believe Trump meant what he clearly said! He also claimed that because Trump is not a politician, he doesn't speak like a politician, therefore something. Althouse asks, "Did he say it."
Althouse calls it supposed softening. Geez!
When the wall turns out to be digital or virtual, what will they say?
Don't the Trumpets love him because he speaks his mind?
Suckers!
"What I would really love to hear, from his discussions with Nieto and the speech tonight, is the devastation that our open border is bringing to the Mexican side of the border."
An excellent point.
I've been to South of the Border on I-95 so I have a fair idea of what's in store for Mr. Trump.
It's hard for me to see how an illegal alien can get a job without uttering forged ID documents, unless the employers are just not doing the form W-9, I - 9 thing. That makes them criminals under state laws, and, in the case of federal IDs probably under federal law too. So "criminal illegal alien" would cover pretty much all of them who have jobs.
"I've been to South of the Border on I-95 so I have a fair idea of what's in store for Mr. Trump."
Frankly if it actually turned out his trip was to that tourist trap, and not actually Mexico, I think it would completely break the media and make this whole farce worth it.
My kids came in last night from playing with the neighbor kids and told me that so and so said Donald Trump is an evil man because he wants to build a giant wall between us and Mexico and Canada. Spouse and I said, "why is it evil to want a wall? Should we get rid of our fence?" Kids were dumbfounded. "That's different," they said. So we asked them to tell us why. No reasons.
I'm NeverTrump, but I don't want my kids parroting ridiculous talking points. And I don't think Trump is evil. Good lessons last night.
"Is there some way he can lever this into more hispanic votes? Maybe not, but if he did it would be a big deal."
It won't move Hispanic votes--I can't imagine an Hispanic voter who is anti-Trump thinking "well, he went to Mexico, maybe I'm wrong about him". This is more about shoring up pro-Trump voters, signaling that he is not pivoting on border security. He can say he discussed that with Nieto and is confident they can work something out.
"The meeting is "private" so presumably no photo op with the Mexican president. But what if he Prez says something nice about Trump?"
Why no photo op? I think he'd be crazy not to get a photo shaking Nieto's hand. I'm not seeing a downside for him with this trip.
"I'm NeverTrump, but I don't want my kids parroting ridiculous talking points. And I don't think Trump is evil. Good lessons last night."
A lot of bad arguments can be made for the right point. The wall idea is dumb, but not evil. Of course a lot of this has become shorthand in the campaign season, and left to their own devices some Trump critics will go so overboard you wonder if you'd misjudged him.
There's enough to dislike and mock about Trump and Trumpism without resorting to hyperbole. Same goes for Clinton and Clintonism. We're in for a lousy four to eight years, but this isn't Germany 1933.
When it turns out that Trump advocates doing exactly the same thing Obama is doing when it comes to deportations, then will his sychophant's at last shut up?
When my kids came in from playing a few days ago they asked why Trump wants to build a great big wall between Mexico and the US. I told them to not believe anything they hear about what that man Trump supposedly said because that man never tells the truth, or he changes his mind every day. They shook their sweet little heads and promised never to believe people who lie constantly and always change their mind.
Lots of ways to get around employment document checks.
Easiest is to use subcontractors, the doc requirement is on them. They can change names as often as required.
Another is to do a doc check for A but employ B.
And there is very little field enforcement anyway. So those guys in front of Home Depot are very unlikely to be asked for their papers, and neither are the contractors picking them up. And most of those people deal direct with small contractors (see subcontractors, above), the transactions are behind the scenes, the public labor market (Home Depot, etc.) is a small subset of the whole.
It isnt Germany 1933.
Its more like Argentina 1946.
Plus my sweet little children asked if Mexicans are bad people, because the kids next door told them Trumps said so. I asked them if they thought their teacher was a bad person, they looked shocked and hurt and tears sprung into their little eyes. I told them that in this country we pride ourselves as being welcoming to all, but there are some people who hate others unlike themselves and we don't want to act like them, because that is unAmerican and doesn't represent our country well.
Lucien said...
"It's hard for me to see how an illegal alien can get a job without uttering forged ID documents, unless the employers are just not doing the form W-9, I - 9 thing. That makes them criminals under state laws, and, in the case of federal IDs probably under federal law too. So "criminal illegal alien" would cover pretty much all of them who have jobs."
The harder you squeeze your fist the more sand slips through your fingers.
My kids also asked why we had a fence in our backyard, I told them that we had a fence to keep our dog from getting out and peeing on the neighbors rose bushes. They nodded their sweet little heads in agreement, they knew how mad the neighbors were when their rose bushes shriveled up and died last year before the fence was installed.
We border hawks hear this from most politicians, "We are going to give lip service to border security, but really, our focus is legalizing the illegals" when Trump talks we hear, "I'm going to give lip service to illegal immigrants, but really my focus is border security."
I don't think Trump has a sophisticated view of immigration. His gut is in the same place as my gut. Enforce the law.
The media and #Nevertrump want to pretend like he is a flip flopper on the issue. I don't hear that. I hear a guy who wants to be kind, but tough, and isn't sophisticated enough to navigate the slings and arrows of the media trying to trip him up on the issue.
Unknown said...
"I told them that in this country we pride ourselves as being welcoming to all, but there are some people who hate others unlike themselves and we don't want to act like them, because that is unAmerican and doesn't represent our country well."
You forgot your sarcasm tag. The stupid progressives will think you are serious as they post idiocy like this pretending it is an argument often.
My kids asked me why Inga the retired overweight nurse was commenting as Unknown and pretending to have young kids. I told them she is a weirdo and she always made up shit.
I told my kids that Mr.A next door isn't as mean as he appears, even if he sometimes comes out of his house yelling and pointing his gun at our dog. I told them to be nice to Mr.A and because there is something not quite right with him and we want to be kind to people like him, despite their demeanor.
Brando: If he actually gets elected, we may discover that a "wall" is also ambiguous. We could end up with a "virtual wall" or a "figurative wall" of "better border enforcement".
Well, that is pretty much what I understood from his speeches. A wall can take a lot of forms. Literal in some areas. Impossible geographically in other areas. Strong enforcement. Patrolling. And ENFORCE our freaking laws!!!
rhhardin: the principle right on amnesty and immigration.
It's our country. We get to say who comes and who doesn't come. In particular, people who come are the ones who benefit Americans.
Yup. Immigration is OURS to control and the reason for immigration is to benefit the country and the citizenry who already live here. I would like to see us model our criteria on who can come and live...not just visit but live here.. on the model of New Zealand. Prove you have the skills we need. Show that you are not a menace and that you will not be a burden on society or cost us more than you are worth when you get here.
I told my kids that there are strange people online and to be very careful not to ever get into a conversation with men who post cartoons of themselves smoking and accusing them of being someone else. They asked with incredulity, "Mommy are there really people who do that?" I said yes dear children, the Internet is a strange place with strange people.
Artisans have fashioned Trump piñatas....
Language like that is how you know someone is a journalist, not something as pedestrian as a reporter.
Most people simply want the current laws enforced. Secure the border to keep more illegals from getting in. Prosecute employers for hiring illegals (this is the hard part as the employers tend to be Chamber of Commerce types. This is where the 1986 Immigration Reform failed, purposefully.) Cut any government benefits going to illegals. And when illegals cannot gain employment, or government benefits, they will mostly self-deport. Once that happens, there won't be that many for the government to deport. At least that's the thinking.
All President Trump has to do is enforce existing immigration law to accomplish his stated policies.
A wall can also be thousands of hunter-killer drones. Potato/potaato/la papa.
My kids also asked why we had a fence in our backyard
Did you explain that the reason you have locks on your doors and on your car door is to that not just anyone can come into your house or drive your car? Locks protect you from invasion? Keeps your kids safe from bums on the street deciding to bunk for the night in your kid's rooms?
If you truly believe in open borders and free access, you should open your house and let those poor unfortunates move into your living room, raid your refrigerator, watch your television, wear your clothes.
Since they are wanting to have a better life, you and your kids should get second jobs and buy the poor unfortunates all the things that they don't have now that you are hoarding for yourself.
What kind of mean awful people are you? You could probably house at least 10 to 15 Mexicans or Syrians in your home. Come on. Show your principles and put action to your words!
"Well, that is pretty much what I understood from his speeches. A wall can take a lot of forms. Literal in some areas. Impossible geographically in other areas. Strong enforcement. Patrolling. And ENFORCE our freaking laws!!!"
The thing is a lot of politicians (or most) say that same thing--of course we want to secure the border and prevent illegal entry (and illegal overstaying, which is almost half the problem). But as a lot of comments here show, it's a question of trust. Some simply trust that Trump has their interests in mind; others don't trust anything about Trump. And that trust or lack of it will color how you interpret what Trump says.
He was invited and accepted.
The media freaking out today tells me Trump and Bannon made the right call. Especially Joe Scarborough and his desperate re-tweets:
"US Embassy said it would be difficult and told him not to come" So what? He's trying to win and election.
"Insider says Trump down 8 in Pennsylvania; why is he going to Mexico?"
Insider misses the big picture. The is the 3rd act the Adams has been predicting. Should be fun.
By tomorrow, this day will have belonged to Trump.
Hillary promises to bring one million Syrian refugees her in her first term. Stupid like that isn't God-given.
I'm waiting to see Messrs Trump and Peña Nieto dance, and wondering which dance? and who will lead?
Maybe Trump will have a hardening for Pena Nieto.
Professor Althouse;
You've been so critical of the New York Times' nearly-routine sloppiness and bias in covering Trump... And I think your criticsims have been mostly spot-on. In the case of The New Yorker, evidencing a similar sloppiness and bias, you plainly forced them into a significant correction. You deserve real accolades for that blogging.
But what about the Drudge Report, which you clearly view on a regular basis? (Your blog tracks links from Drudge on an almost-daily basis.) Drudge is just an aggregator, but you've observed closely how the page is edited and set up. Drudge, as much as anybody, has an angle.
And as a long-time Drudge reader myself, I've found it to be increasingly unreadable. All of the Trump worship and Trump promotion has fundamentally detracted from the site's newsworthiness and utility. It's like trying to glean real information from watching Hannity.
This election has ruined the Drudge Report for me, even more than it has damaged the Times or the New Yorker.
The thing is a lot of politicians (or most) say that same thing--of course we want to secure the border and prevent illegal entry (and illegal overstaying, which is almost half the problem). But as a lot of comments here show, it's a question of trust. Some simply trust that Trump has their interests in mind; others don't trust anything about Trump. And that trust or lack of it will color how you interpret what Trump says.
The worst we will get with Trump is status quo. So, I'm willing to take the chance.
It will be interesting if the Mexican National Police can protect Trump from the cartels.
More often than not I have liked the Mexicans I've known. That said, I think Mexico would be a far better place if they made piñatas out of someone like El Chappo rather than Donald Trump. From what I understand, El Chappo is something of a folk hero south of the border......From a cursory glance, this guy Nieto operates at a level of slickness approaching that of our own beloved Bill Clinton.....I make this comments on the internet but not out loud. Why can Mexicans voice their dissatisfaction with white Americans and their political leaders while any pushback they get for such comments is considered bigotry.
This election has ruined the Drudge Report for me, even more than it has damaged the Times or the New Yorker.
Interesting.
It's ruined NRO for me. And George Will. And Bill Kristol. And Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, Michael Medved, ugh.... The list is just too long.
The fundamental weakness of the analogy to locking your house up or your car, is that you own those things in the realest sense, you actually own them and have title to them. They are your property.
The country isn't your property. You don't own it in any real sense, whatsoever. You don't have title to it. You didn't buy it from anyone and you can't sell it to anyone.
jacksonjay said...
Rush always says " words mean things" when attacking his foes for lying! Yet, he claims he didn't believe Trump meant what he clearly said! He also claimed that because Trump is not a politician, he doesn't speak like a politician, therefore something. Althouse asks, "Did he say it."
Althouse calls it supposed softening. Geez!
When the wall turns out to be digital or virtual, what will they say?
Don't the Trumpets love him because he speaks his mind?
Suckers!
8/31/16, 8:56 AM
So apparently you are going to vote for the champaign fascist, grifter, criminal and traitor and the Trumpets are the suckers?
"Unknown said...
I told my kids that there are strange people online and to be very careful not to ever get into a conversation with men who post cartoons of themselves smoking and accusing them of being someone else. They asked with incredulity, "Mommy are there really people who do that?" I said yes dear children, the Internet is a strange place with strange people.
8/31/16, 10:29 AM"
Smart move. That way your kids won't what you are posting.
"you can't sell it to anyone."
Well the Clinton's disagree with you.
"This election has ruined the Drudge Report for me, even more than it has damaged the Times or the New Yorker."
It would be nice if this election resulted in the destruction of all the lickspittle organs (pro-Trump and pro-Clinton) but if anything I think they'll just have their partisans doubling down. Leftists will see the Times as the last stand for truth against Trumpism, and rightists will see Drudge and Breitbart as all that's left to stick it to the Clintons and the GOP establishment.
You'd be better off getting your news from the sports section of your local paper, as there's at least a chance some useful political analysis makes it in there.
Unknown, you are ridiculous. And you have no idea about just how wrong you are about my family.
Mostly, I'm just annoyed with the neighbor kid talking politics. They're ten years old.
eric said...
...
The worst we will get with Trump is status quo. So, I'm willing to take the chance.
I'm not clear on your meaning, eric.
I think that the "worst we will get with Trump" is a President Hillary Clinton for four years. Trump is of course an ignoramus; but a Clinton presidency would be worse than a mere ignoramus.
That's not the issue. At least it isn't the real problem. The real problem is that the worst part of Trump is that he is going to be a loser in what should have been a winning year for Republicans, because of the nomination of Trump in the first instance. All the Hillary-haters handed the election to her with the anti-"GOPe" fetishist choice of Trump in the primaries.
I'm not clear on your meaning, eric.
I'm shocked.
If he is elected, the worse we will get on immigration is status quo.
How's that?
Cubanbob,
How did your family come into America? Were they given political asylum? Just curious.
"The country isn't your property. You don't own it in any real sense, whatsoever. You don't have title to it. "
America does not belong to Americans? This is absurd.
"You didn't buy it from anyone and you can't sell it to anyone."
US bought or rented territories - like Alaska or Louisiana. And surely American people may decide to sell part of their territory.
Birches, I didn't say a word about your children, or you for that matter. It is annoying when kids have to hear all the negative political talk, we can agree on that.
trumpetdaddy The country isn't your property. You don't own it in any real sense, whatsoever. You don't have title to it. You didn't buy it from anyone and you can't sell it to anyone.
Our public lands belong to all of us and are only managed by the government. I spend quite a lot of time at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in AZ and Big Bend National Park in TX and have seen illegals crossing our border there. I will say that, in the past few years, Border Patrol operations have expanded. Partly, I assume, because the drug cartels are more active and partly because of the increasing number of Middle Eastern refugees attempting to cross there, some of whom are terror-affiliated.
Oh my gosh, mockturtle, isn't it terribly awfully dangerous spending time in those national parks with all those illegals wandering about?!
Cubanbob,
I had the great wisdom to be born in Texas. Being a Texan, I own a very fine high-horse which I will mount on election day and ride away from the polling place! If forced by reality to vote for The Grifter or The Con Man, I would certainly be a Trumpet, knowing that he is a moderate to liberal former Democrat! I might add, a former softy on immigration!
"TRUMP: We have at least 11 million people that came in illegally. They will go out. Some will come back, the best, through a process. They have to come back legally. It may not be a quick process, but I think that's fair. They're going to get in line with other people."
But that doesn't say the govt will do the physical act of deporting them he's cagey: "They will go out." There will be some icentive.
Blogger trumpetdaddy said...
The fundamental weakness of the analogy to locking your house up or your car, is that you own those things in the realest sense, you actually own them and have title to them. They are your property.
The country isn't your property. You don't own it in any real sense, whatsoever. You don't have title to it. You didn't buy it from anyone and you can't sell it to anyone.
Ummmm, what?
How can one own property, in a real sense, in a country that isn't their property in a real sense?
That's called nonsense.
Remember, Hillary is the "serious" candidate.
The disappointment has been the people who pretend to be conservative and pretend to care about the country who refuse to understand what we are up against. All of you douchebags whining and bitching because Trump isn't the perfect polished politician and hanging on every word the media puts out misrepresenting our point of view and whatever trump says. It is clear trump will be better than Clinton or any of the republicans he beat in the primary. It is also clear that the Republican Party has a bunch of jerks in it who will sell out at the first opportunity.
Not to be crude, but this is the same mentality that has people blaming Republicans for the failings of Obamacare.
Because they didn't more to help something they opposed early on and throughout the process and at the end of the process.
It's hard for me to see how an illegal alien can get a job without uttering forged ID documents, unless the employers are just not doing the form W-9, I - 9 thing. That makes them criminals under state laws, and, in the case of federal IDs probably under federal law too. So "criminal illegal alien" would cover pretty much all of them who have jobs.
The IRS is aware that about a million SSNs have been stolen by illegals.
No, they didn't tell others about it, of course.
They shook their sweet little heads and promised never to believe people who lie constantly and always change their mind.
..."So, mom, why are voting for Hillary Clinton?"
You'd be better off getting your news from the sports section of your local paper, as there's at least a chance some useful political analysis makes it in there.
*reads sports columnists opinions on Kapernick*
Nah, you have no chance there. They are to the Left of MSNBC.
trumpetdaddy,
Two things. You've made a distinction claiming it to be "the fundamental weakness" without offering any reason why that distinction invalidates the analogy.
Second, it seems to me that you need to brush up on the concept of popular sovereignty.
"Oh my gosh, mockturtle, isn't it terribly awfully dangerous spending time in those national parks with all those illegals wandering about?!"
I was just wondering the same thing.
It is understandable that people feel they have "ownership" of the country at large. I feel that I have "ownership" of Manchester United, as a fan of that team.
But in both cases, that of being an American citizen and of being a fan of a particular sports team, people don't actually "own" anything. You may own a very tiny piece of the country in the form of your home and business, but you don't own the country and nobody is trying to "take it away" from you, or "steal it" from you.
Politicians try very hard to try to convince you of things that are not true in order that you give them power. Clinton tries to convince people that "corporations" are trying to "steal the country" from you and Trump says the same about foreigners. In neither case is it true because you don't own the country or your job (if you work for someone else) in the first place.
Both of these major party candidates are lying haters who thrive when people cede to them something they actually own, which is their personal integrity and thoughtfulness. They both want you to believe that some evil "other" is "stealing" something from you and if you only give up some of your self-determination and freedom to them, they will "get it back" for you.
Don't buy their bullshit.
"The country isn't your property. You don't own it in any real sense, whatsoever. You don't have title to it. "
Hyphenated American said: America does not belong to Americans? This is absurd.
No kidding. The taxes that are taken from us are supposed to be for the use of the government for American purposes. Not to support millions upon millions of illegal aliens who are, did I mention ILLEGALLY in the country. Every single dollar and dime that is diverted to the illegals is money that has been taken from the use that it was intended.
The US is not a piggy bank for the world. The workers who pay more taxes than they want or can afford are not slaves to be worked for the benefit of foreigners and illegals who most often don't pay any taxes.
We have a right to determine who can come into this country. Legal immigration within limits and with people who are a benefit to the country should be the target. Not illegals who don't speak the language, who drain the social system, who live outside of the law and who are criminals by the very fact of their being here.
Trump, whether he can build a literal wall or enforce a virtual wall, has a message that resonates with the people. America first. Enforce our laws. Make treaties and deals that benefit American Citizens. Foreign policy that reflects our own safety and concerns.
America IS my property in the sense that some of my ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War, the Civil war and others came LEGALLY to this country to become American Citizens, homesteaded and fought to grow their families in the wilderness of the West.
Through them, I own a stake in America. If people from other parts of the world want a stake.....earn it.
Unknown said...
"Oh my gosh, mockturtle, isn't it terribly awfully dangerous spending time in those national parks with all those illegals wandering about?!"
Tell that to the family of Organ Pipe Park Ranger Kris Eggle shot and killed by illegals.
So if the USA does not own the USA, who owns it?
The North American Provence of the UN World Government? That seems to be what the Rockefellers and the Ford Foundation are determined to bring to pass.
That is why Obama and his friend Soros feel so confident in ignoring Congress's laws and the Courts's decisions. They are of no effect at all down at the World Government headquarters, which is temporarily at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave in DC.
"Oh my gosh, mockturtle, isn't it terribly awfully dangerous spending time in those national parks with all those illegals wandering about?!"
There are National Parks and there are National Parks, and there are of course all sorts of publicly owned bits of the great outdoors. Not all are safe from various bandidos.
The people in each vary, depending.
There are places where its too easy to get into trouble, with marijuana growers or meth gangs or smugglers or just general predators.
I especially love it when people cite their ancestors going back to a period prior to the current immigration laws to defend their support of the current laws. The irony of defending a racial- and national-origin quota-based restrictive immigration system by citing ancestors who did not have to endure such a restrictive regime to enter this country seems to always go over the heads of these people.
Since Dust Bunny Queen seems to think that people should have to "earn it," which in principle I have no problem with, let's make the immigration system as easy to navigate as that which her ancestors, and mine on my dad's side (yes, all the woman in my family are DAR-eligible, too), were able to access. Get on a boat and show up. Walk across an open border and show up. You know, how things had always been prior to Congress deciding to get in the racial quota business at the behest of the KKK and similar groups in the 1920s and 1930s.
But, it's always easiest to pull up the ladder once your family has ascended it, isn't it?
"Trump: "If they've done well, they're going out and they're coming back in legally. Because you said it--"
Pelley "You're rounding them all up?"
Trump: "We're rounding 'em up in a very humane way, in a very nice way. And they're going to be happy because they want to be legalized. And, by the way, I know it doesn't sound nice. But not everything is nice.""
That's interesting. He puts it terms of their going out, not him forcibly removing them. Pelley introduces the idea of rounding them up, which actually isn't saying sending them out, only collecting them. Tromp repeats the phrase, adding "very humane" and "very nice." What exactly does that mean? Where is the deportation?
"It's ruined NRO for me. And George Will. And Bill Kristol. And Mark Levin, Ben Shapiro, Michael Medved, ugh.... The list is just too long."
You're not alone. They are all dead to me too and plenty of other people I know. I can imagine that Levin's numbers have plummeted substantially.
I like the suggestion that Trump returns impressed by Mexico's immigration laws and seeks to replicate them here. Try moving on down to Old Mexico and setting up house. Just try.
But in lieu of reinstating immigration policy circa 1850, how about we actually do something rational and actually eliminate country and racial entry quotas, issue work visa and collect taxes on foreigners who can pass a reasonable background check, cooperate with our neighboring countries, and reserve our law enforcement resources to rooting out actually-dangerous individuals.
But that would make too much sense and be labelled "amnesty" by the alt-right internet comment types.
No one has given me a cite to Trump saying he would depot the 11 million.
It s now my working theory that he never said it.
There are a lot of illegals in front of Home Depot, but I don't think anyone could fit 11 million there..
"But in lieu of reinstating immigration policy circa 1850"
Because they worked, till the Dems lied about the outcomes of the 1986 law.
"No one has given me a cite to Trump saying he would depot the 11 million.
It s now my working theory that he never said it."
He probably didn't. He's been very light on specifics on that issue, just enough that you can decide he's not going soft on illegals or you can decide he's not unrealistic enough to think he'll actually deport that many people.
I see where Vicente Fox is in the news saying " Mexico doesn't want Trump". He fells to remember he invited Trump to visit in May.
Should be "fails"
Another cagey answer.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-60-minutes-scott-pelley/
Scott Pelley: Are you serious about deporting 12 million illegal immigrants?
Donald Trump: Well, nobody knows the number. But the answer is-- you just said it, they're illegal immigrants. They're here illegally.
"It s now my working theory that he never said it."
He didn't, unless you can hear the dog whistles the media are capable of hearing. If you had the media capability, you would know there are vast right wing conspiracies and Trump is a racist Nazi.
All Trump really needs to do with regard to immigration is repudiate amnesty, pledge to strengthen the border controls, pledge to immediately deport all new arrivals that get caught crossing, and enforce the existing laws against employing illegal immigrants. That position would have a very strong majority of the electorate behind it.
Even if one could find "deport all 11 million (or whatever number)" in a Trump statement, very few of his supporters would have believed it anyway. Most people with IQs over 90 understand the purposes behind hyperbole, even if people in the media, both right and left, don't seem to understand it.
I am guessing that Nieto didn't expect to be taken up on the offer. Nothing substantive, of course, will come of it, but it makes for a powerful news day for Trump, especially if his policy speech tonight lands on those issues I mentioned above.
I am guessing that Nieto didn't expect to be taken up on the offer. Nothing substantive, of course, will come of it, but it makes for a powerful news day for Trump, especially if his policy speech tonight lands on those issues I mentioned above.
You are probably right. Nieto never expected a visit and it shows how much he underestimates Trump. They will be feeling each other out and determining who would blink first in a stare-down. I think it will help Trump more than it will Nieto [grandson--odd name].
Trump will follow his successful MO in building New York Skyscrapers.
Create the deal, get the cash, get the top minds at work. Manage it so it is underbudget and in time. He'll encounter political opposition real and false. He'll adjust his plans to met the concerns of the important stakeholders. The wall will get built, it just won't be exactly as it was proposed. But people will be happy with it on both sides of the border.
The deportation will be a financial incentive and a legal incentive. Not a law enforcement mandate for most. He will add value to Mexico. Less border crossers will die in the aqueduct of death in California featured on 60 minutes. The Mexican middle class will have less corruption to deal with and will prosper. A stronger trading partner.
Why would it be different than that? Too many people projecting illusions onto Trump when it is easy to see exactly what he does. Not true with secret Hillary.
And Hillary at this point just seems to be a figurehead. Her health is bad. Other people will rule instead for her.
God damn it, Professor Althouse. You are being deliberately obtuse. Fine with me, if you don't think that Trump ever said that he'd deport 11 million, with a "deportation force" that he explicitly acknowledged.
The Trumpkins FREAKING PROCLAIMED that Trump was the One True Voice on immigration. That anything short of mass deportation was "amnesty." Your Trumpkin commenters berated me on that point. "GOPe amnesty," they scolded me.
Face it, if Trump now favors permanent status of some kind for a majority of those already here, then that Trump immigration plan is substantially the same as the majority of Republican congressional leadership. Barely more conservative than the Gang of Fourteen. Ann Coulter would back me up on that.
And no matter what, Trump's being "humane" and allowing the majority of law-abiding illegals (see what I did there?) back in to go back to the American jobs they were holding down previously DOES NOTHING for those lower-class American workers who are griping about lost jobs and depressed wages.
Interestingly a lot of the news analysis is saying this trip is "risky" for Trump and that it's surprising. I really don't see how, unless they're thinking Trump is trying to expand his voter base to include Hispanics or moderate whites--and there's no sign he's trying to do that.
This is for the benefit of those already disposed towards Trump, to help tighten the margin going into Labor Day (which is bound to happen). The trip will either increase Trump's "gravitas" or fire up his supporters with indignation (if the Mexicans are rude) but he can't really lose any voters with this trip.
I'm guessing by the time of the debates next month, Hillary's margin will be down to a few points, and will likely hover around that through the rest of the campaign. Trump can't seem to pass 45% but she can't seem to get over 50%. As the third party voters begin gravitating to either side, look for about a 3-point margin.
Chuck,
Rubio, had he never fallen into the Schumer's trap, would likely have won the nomination. That Rubio was forced to try to repudiate his own legislation basically tells one that Trump, even if retreating from full on deportation, would still be the outsider position on immigration in the Republican field- that is what won him the nomination. Let's pick this up tomorrow after tonight's speech.
Chuck: "God damn it, Professor Althouse. You are being deliberately obtuse. Fine with me, if you don't think that Trump ever said that he'd deport 11 million...."
Althouse went back to his policy papers from August, 2015, for her information.
It may be a lot to ask, but please tell us when Trump said he would deport 11 million.
"Lots of times" won't cut it. One specific example will do.
"The Trumpkins FREAKING PROCLAIMED that Trump was the One True Voice on immigration. That anything short of mass deportation was "amnesty." Your Trumpkin commenters berated me on that point. "GOPe amnesty," they scolded me."
Chuck, while Althouse is being obtuse (or Masterly Persuaded) I think she has a point here--Trump was vague about deportation, and his fans (who saw any give on the deportation issue by anyone besides Trump as "unforgivable amnesty" and "you either have a border or you have no country") simply took Trump's "style" and interpreted it to fit what they wanted. Notice even now, with Trump quite clearly offering limited amnesty, Trump fans still figure he's got their best interests at heart--not because of anything he specifically promised but because he shows the "right attitude".
It's the trust issue. For reasons I don't get, they trust him. And even if he did get elected, and deported only a fraction of the people Obama deported, and amnestied more than Obama ever attempted, they'd still believe they got the best deal out of him because they trust that he's on their side.
This is the election about feelings.
Please, let's not pretend he didn't want to deport every last illegal immigrant.
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-deportation-plan-2015-11
"Donald Trump's plan to deport nearly 11 million people living in the US without permission would put a massive strain on the immigration courts, creating an enormous backlog of cases that would take years to clear.
"They say you have to go through a huge legal process. You don't. They're illegal. If somebody walks in, they don't bring them to court, they send them back," Trump said.
In an interview with Business Insider at Trump Tower in New York last week, Trump repeatedly brushed off concerns about the practicality of his immigration plan, saying that he would have perfect legal authority to circumvent the courts.
"Well these people came in, and they came in a year ago. No different. If somebody walks from Mexico or wherever they come from, and they come into the country, security guards bring 'em back. You don't go through 10 years of courts and stuff. Well, this is no different.""
Brando, I really don't care. I actually like Ann Coulter's hard line on immigration, because she is such a smart advocate. Trump is just vague and stupid. "Obtuse."
But no matter what, some particular policy specification is no big deal to me. Either way.
I just think it is fucking hilarious that Trump's enablers are now claiming that Trump is actually much more of an immigration moderate. In the end, I sort of expect that a Trump Immigration Plan will be no different from a Jeb Bush Immigration Plan. Fluent in Spanish, Jeb would be making real headway with Hispanic voters. Trump is just losing votes left and right. Actually, by softening (and that WAS his word) on immigration, I think Trump is going to piss off the extremist anti-immigration crowd, and confuse mainstream Republicans. Trump will be losing votes "right and far right."
No, Brando, they would feel betrayed if Trump did that. At best, Trump is an unknown on immigration reform, but for enough Republican voters, that is good enough by comparison.
I don't find it odd that Ms. Althouse can't find a direct quote on the deportation. Trump was smart enough to know he didn't need to say it in the first place. His enemies were his asset- they just didn't seem to realize it in time to nominate someone else.
You want to know what I regret- I regret Marco Rubio ever signing on with Schumer's amnesty bill. He was the one candidate I think could have saved the Republican Party by broadening the demographic base it was drawing on. If Rubio hadn't been listening to pundits in the beltway in 2011, he would be the nominee today with at least as good a shot at winning as Trump has, or better.
@ Trumpet daddy
I don't think many hear would mind going back to the 1850s immigration policy as long as went back to the 1850s Welfare State. heck, I'd even want to go back to 1970s immigration policy where people didn't consider deportation a civil rights violation.
Here, not hear. Dumb mistake.
"I just think it is fucking hilarious that Trump's enablers are now claiming that Trump is actually much more of an immigration moderate. In the end, I sort of expect that a Trump Immigration Plan will be no different from a Jeb Bush Immigration Plan. Fluent in Spanish, Jeb would be making real headway with Hispanic voters. Trump is just losing votes left and right. Actually, by softening (and that WAS his word) on immigration, I think Trump is going to piss off the extremist anti-immigration crowd, and confuse mainstream Republicans. Trump will be losing votes "right and far right.""
Trump's a fraud, no question about that, and he's proving a lot of Republicans to be cheap dates. I'd always figured even Jeb! would be stricter on immigration than Trump simply because he'd know he couldn't get away with amnesty while Trump has a free hand--look at how much his supporters are sticking by him. If he passed his own DREAM act, they'd just say "this is ok, it's a smart deal, it's all part of the negotiation process" but if Jeb! passed the same thing it'd be "look what that weak sister did! He just sold us out!"
"No, Brando, they would feel betrayed if Trump did that."
I don't know about that--he's basically come out for amnesty last week and his support remains more or less intact (minus maybe Ann Coulter). Rush is saying he never took it seriously in the first place. I think if I heard more Trump fans saying "that's it, he's going soft!" I'd think differently, but at least on this comment board I haven't seen any Trump fan say that.
"You want to know what I regret- I regret Marco Rubio ever signing on with Schumer's amnesty bill. He was the one candidate I think could have saved the Republican Party by broadening the demographic base it was drawing on. If Rubio hadn't been listening to pundits in the beltway in 2011, he would be the nominee today with at least as good a shot at winning as Trump has, or better."
I'm not sure that would have happened--it seemed the GOP really wanted the Trump style more than anything. There were a lot of candidates to choose from, and most were pretty strict on immigration. Maybe it was the idea that conventional candidates (like Rubio) being too "nice" towards Hillary? After all, if Rubio's onetime support for limited amnesty was really what sunk him, Trump's current support for limited amnesty would have his supporters dropping him now.
"but you don't own the country and nobody is trying to "take it away" from you, or "steal it" from you."
This is not true, in any traditional sense. You do own it, unless you define "owning" purely as an individual condition, which is both pettifogging and disingenuous. It ignores all concept of communal rights and privileges, which is ahistorical.
The European tradition is that the land is owned by the crown, the local sovereign lord, or by the local commune (in the old sense, if it is a communal body that is the local sovereign, as in many cases of municipal and local rights). All of these are in one way or another answerable to the public in general (even if informally). Individual property rights were often if not always conditional, leases or grants in effect.
This concept of communal land ownership can pop up in the oddest cases, such as low-regulation laissez-faire Hong Kong, where (nearly) all land is never sold but leased, and is explicitly entirely owned by the Chinese government - and this was true throughout the period of British rule, as most of the colony itself was held under lease from China, and the British could not dispose of it.
This is a universal thing, communal rights, whether or not they are formally acknowledged.
An excellent example of formal treatment of communal rights is Malaysia. This country is organized and dominated by communal politics. This country was, in effect, founded on the proposition. held by the dominant political party, the United Malay National Organization (UMNO), which boils down to: "there are too many Chinese around here". Some bits of the country, in which there were a preponderance of Chinese, held the opposite opinion, hence Singapore split off.
The UMNO was the party of the Malay bumiputera ("son of the soil"). A lot of Americans have begun to feel like American bumiputera, as did the Malays when the British brought in the Chinese and Indians to work the land. Malaya/Malaysia has been dealing with it their way, which has often been fairly ugly (and extremely complicated), though it has settled down to a set of inter-communal accommodations. The American bumiputera will have to find their own sort of accommodation. This sort of thing is never clean or absolute except rhetorically. As with Malaysia its all going to be a deal of some sort.
But in order to make a deal its first necessary to make the communal politics explicit. For a negotiation with, say, La Raza, you need a party to seat at the table.
Personal disclosure - my grandpa first came out East to work on a British Malaya oil-palm plantation in 1913, as a new agronomist, where he learned his plantation-management skills (with a Chinese coolie workforce) and obtained his, and his sons, career connections to British "Hongs". So my own ancestors did their own displacing of the Malay bumiputera.
"I don't think many hear would mind going back to the 1850s immigration policy as long as went back to the 1850s Welfare State. heck, I'd even want to go back to 1970s immigration policy where people didn't consider deportation a civil rights violation. "
It's an apples and oranges comparison anyway--the country and economy were far different then. It's not like immigrants could just hop in a covered wagon and go grab land under the Homestead Act.
Within the realm of seriousness we have to figure out how much immigration (and what sort of immigrants) we can absorb. (I'm talking legal immigrants--by definition we won't want illegal immigrants). Even if you favor less restrictive immigration policies, you probably don't want literally everyone in the world who wants to come here to just flood in. And a complete moratorium on any further immigration would wreck a lot of sectors of our economy. The question is what those levels should be, and how best to enforce it.
We need a reckoning with that, and unfortunately all this talk of "racism" and "walls" is beside the point.
I'll most likely vote for libertarian as I believe the best thing I can for my country is signal a growing need to break the republican/democrat stranglehold on ideology and governing...
But Trump is approaching almost all of his policy positions the same way he (apparently) would a negotiation with a company that wants/needs to do business with him - by being bombastic and taking extreme and tenuous positions and then quietly walking back to a reasonable middle ground.
Our Southern Border is a dangerous disgrace. ANY meaningful progress in preventing mass unrestricted movement - in both directions - I support. And I do think Trump is at least setting the stage for that to happen for the first time in decades.
The only sovereignty democrats believe in is sovereign debt, the sovereign right to print money, sovereign right of administrative law and of course sovereign immunity for the Clintons.
Brando at 1:36...
Well stated.
One thing about the Rubio/Schumer Senate bill in 2013; it really did contain something that I'd acknowledge as "amnesty." It was a five-year "pathway to citizenship."
The bill had that in, because it is the one single requirement on the part of Dems. They want those voters. Any Republican -- if he was desperate enough to want any immigration reform -- had to accede to that Dem demand. Most Republicans won't go there. Some desperate Republicans did.
But by backing down now on mass deportation (or if you wish, having never promised it at all, but having simply fooled people into believing it), Trump is just like a lot of other Republicans. No difference. Trump is no "stronger" on immigration than any other Republican save for Rubio's one vote on one bill. A single vote, that Rubio said he had lately reconsidered. (Just imagine such a stink over any one of the dozens of Donald Trump reversals.)
I especially love it when people cite their ancestors going back to a period prior to the current immigration laws to defend their support of the current laws. The irony of defending a racial- and national-origin quota-based restrictive immigration system by citing ancestors who did not have to endure such a restrictive regime to enter this country seems to always go over the heads of these people.
They abided by the law of the time. They didn't choose to ignore it.
There's a difference.
TreeJoe;
Make it a point to watch Libertarian pothead Gary Johnson's interview with Chris Wallace from the last Fox News Sunday. Johnson believes, essentially, in a completely open border, and thinks that immigrants are really, truly great.
@traditionalguy said: The Mexican owned NYT seems to be seeking a detente with the Straight Talking Gringo, President Trump. They see the secret real polling results, and they know Hillary has lost it.
Now, THAT'S an interesting assertion. Heh.
So now we have "dreams," "Mick," and "traditionalguy" all guaranteeing a Trump win.
Who else wants to be on that list?
I am not forgetting John Henry, who bet me five bucks that Trump would win in November.
Its perfectly reasonable to choose your immigrants.
Another Asian example, which gets at the rhetorical point of equating Syrian refugees with Jewish refugees of the 1930's.
Unlike the US, the Philippines invited Jewish refugees (against US opposition) 1939-1941. President Quezon wanted Jews as a productive people with which he hoped to, for instance, settle parts of Mindanao.
At the same time, the Philippine government was dead-set against permitting the immigration of Chinese, even of Chinese war-refugees from the ongoing Sino-Japanese war. Cruel hypocrisy? Or reasonable, though cold-blooded policy?
Chinese were anathema to the Filipino public, they were seen as tough competition in the labor market, and if uncontrolled, so numerous that they were likely to swamp the local population and change the ethnic/tribal nature of the country. The telling example used in those days in the Philippine immigration argument, the great worst case scenario, was Hawaii, where White, Japanese, Filipino (and many others) labor migration had displaced the native Hawaiians and reduced them to folkloric characters in their own country. The Filipinos did not want to end up like the Hawaiians.
Jews, not a problem. There was no historical bad blood. There was no prospect of the population getting swamped with Jews.
So all this is not new, lots of countries have dealt with it in various ways, and it is reasonable to adopt reasonable preferences depending on threats and needs.
Good heavens, Chuck is suffering vapors.
"So now we have "dreams," "Mick," and "traditionalguy" all guaranteeing a Trump win."
I'm hoping we can convince Prof. Althouse middle of next week to put up a thread where we can all put our election predictions in one place, and check back after the election to see how close we came.
"So all this is not new, lots of countries have dealt with it in various ways, and it is reasonable to adopt reasonable preferences depending on threats and needs."
This is the debate we should have been having. A certain clown turned it into a circus instead with his attention-getting stunts. It's both fed the leftist narrative and blotted out the natural response, which is "do you not want any policy on who we let in? Is there no limit you'd favor?" But if that question has been asked, it's been buried this year.
Maybe someday down the road we'll get to it. This is a year of missed opportunity on many levels.
"So now we have "dreams," "Mick," and "traditionalguy" all guaranteeing a Trump win."
This reminds of of Karl Rove's face on FOX when he found out Obama won again, he simply could not believe it.
Only Nixon could go to China (an old Vulcan proverb).
I like it when politicians do something that surprises me. This surprised me.
"This is the debate we should have been having. "
You will never have it, because the other side will never participate, because you haven't got an ethnic block to force them to negotiate with, because all the "reasonable" Republicans rejected the idea of an ethnic block in the first place. This argument circles right back to the Republican party no longer properly representing the bulk of its constituents.
It wasn't "some clown". It was at least a dozen clowns, who saw the way the wind was blowing and set all their sails directly into it.
Damn those millions upon millions!
Brando; don't get me wrong about predictions.
I'm not Nate Silver. I get nothing -- not even any pleasure -- out of prognosticating.
A Clinton win in November will leave me basically depressed. And I'm not claiming any wisdom if Trump loses in a landslide. At least not any predictive wisdom. Only the wisdom of having observed last year -- with a vast number of others -- that Trump winning a general election was inconceivable.
I singled out the names just above because they are among the worst trash-talkers of the genre.
"A Clinton win in November will leave me basically depressed."
I agree with Chuck. I predict Clinton also, and I will be pleasantly surprised if it doesn't happen. Not that a Trump Presidency is likely to do more than slow down the rate of decline, if that.
My only quibble with Chuck is that no other Republican is likely to be doing better this year either. This isn't normal US politics, even without Trump.
Chuck,
"So now we have "dreams," "Mick," and "traditionalguy" all guaranteeing a Trump win.
Who else wants to be on that list?
I am not forgetting John Henry, who bet me five bucks that Trump would win in November."
I'm not going to "guarantee" anything, I'm voting for Johnson, and I honestly think Hillary is going to walk away with this election (Nate Silver has Trump's chances of winning at 24.5% right now -- which I think is way too high, but does account for the chance of an October Surprise taking down Hillary).
But I'm willing to bet Trump if you give me the right odds. Like, nothing less than 9-to-1 odds.
"You will never have it, because the other side will never participate, because you haven't got an ethnic block to force them to negotiate with, because all the "reasonable" Republicans rejected the idea of an ethnic block in the first place. This argument circles right back to the Republican party no longer properly representing the bulk of its constituents."
The GOP had (and still has) serious problems--I think we all agree on that. But Trump is sort of the equivalent of dumping sand in the gas tank of a car that already wasn't running well.
"I'm not Nate Silver. I get nothing -- not even any pleasure -- out of prognosticating."
None of this is pleasure--this year is lose-lose for the Right. And I could be wrong in my predictions as well--but I'd like to have a chance for us all to weigh our analysis of the various things that will affect the polls this year.
"My only quibble with Chuck is that no other Republican is likely to be doing better this year either. This isn't normal US politics, even without Trump."
I don't know about that--not that the other candidates were great politicians, but keep in mind the opposition is Hillary--a remarkably weak, damaged politician with sky-high negatives. Running against even a 'nonentity' sort of Republican, the election would be about her--and the GOP would be coasting to a victory maybe with coattails. It'd be an opportunity for conservatives to demand that their party put up or shut up after years of saying "we can't do this because Obama's in the White House" or "we can't do this because Harry Reid runs the Senate". Sure, they'd likely disappoint (they did ten years ago) but now with Hillary winning they can keep saying "if only we had the chance!"
"But I'm willing to bet Trump if you give me the right odds. Like, nothing less than 9-to-1 odds."
I'd bet Trump with those odds too, if only because the unpopularity of Hillary will keep this thing close. But I can guarantee nothing gained for conservatives for the next presidential term.
"The GOP had (and still has) serious problems--I think we all agree on that"
We don't agree on HOW serious. That's the point. Me, I say fatal-serious. The people with the money, who fund the infrastructure of the party, hate the people, full stop.
"--and the GOP would be coasting to a victory maybe with coattails"
I don't agree. There is a fundamental divergence of interests.
Also, there would be no effective Republican messaging.
The MSM would completely, effectively, silence the Republicans like they did with Romney, no matter how much they spend. And, note, the political system (consulting, media,"ground operations") is so corrupt that even lavishly funded campaigns are so inefficient that they are useless. At any other time you could have expected Jeb Bush, simply on the basis of funding and high profile support. Jeb Bush now would be spending money by the truckload, which he would have, but still be failing.
Romney got scammed by this system. He poured in money, and they just took it.
Trump bypasses much of this.
What a shame for Trump that most Hispanics don't see the nuanced cageyness of The Master Persuader! Prolly need some high priced legal learnin!
"I don't agree. There is a fundamental divergence of interests. "
That wouldn't prevent a victory by default, though. Which is what the Dems are counting on--Hillary can only win by default. The GOP would still have its problems--but they'd be hashing them out as a dominant party, rather than backbenching and having a chance to say "if only!" as they're now likely to do.
"Romney got scammed by this system. He poured in money, and they just took it."
Romney made mistakes, but the 2016 landscape is a lot different than 2012--namely, the opposition and the economic direction, both of which help the generic Republican a lot more this year. All the media help couldn't make Hillary palatable, and her campaign isn't nearly as adept as Obama's.
Almost every immigration law ever passed in this country has been racially and/or quota based. Every couple of decades, poor uneducated people get all freaked out about the latest band of "invaders" and put pressure on Congress to keep the foreigners out. First it was the Chinese, then the eastern and southern European "swarthy" types (my mother's family), then the Indians and south Asians, then the Chinese again plus the Japanese, and now it's the Latin Americans.
And every time, the nativists scream about how the latest band of "invaders" are going to ruin the country, rape "our" women, take "our" jobs, and generally bring about demographic demise of the "white race."
This pathetic pattern of fear and racism would be funny if it weren't so sad and so predictable. Somehow, the country has always managed to grow and prosper despite all the direst predictions from the nativists over history. It's always "different this time," they say. And it never is.
"Romney made mistakes"
He was massively betrayed. The Republican system took in @$2 Billion, bought a fraction of the advertising Obama did, spent piles on GOTV which completely failed, and did not burn through the MSM wall.
The difference between what you or I am saying is the core of the matter. You say hangnail, I say apocalypse.
"and generally bring about demographic demise of the "white race."
Well, this sort of concern is SOP among lots of peoples who aren't the "white race".
Most of them really.
This is human nature.
Complaining about this is like hating your own because they are human.
"Somehow, the country has always managed to grow and prosper"
But it isn't growing and prospering now, in a historically significant turn of fortune. This underlies much of the modern problem. The significance of this is hard to get across. The data is all out there, but it hasn't penetrated some brains yet. It really is different this time.
"He was massively betrayed. The Republican system took in @$2 Billion, bought a fraction of the advertising Obama did, spent piles on GOTV which completely failed, and did not burn through the MSM wall. "
I agree with that--it was a very inefficient operation and victim of a lot of groupthink and self-congratulatory assumptions. One downside of Trump losing would be that it would make a lot of the GOP political professionals say that he would have won if he'd done their usual schtick, when that schtick certainly needed to be challenged.
Listening to Trump in Mexico and he said 'physical barrier or wall'.
"-it was a very inefficient operation"
Again, we differ in the matter of degree - it was not merely "very inefficient".
It was apocalyptically inefficient. It was, I believe, deliberate.
BTW, the joint interview with Pena Nieto came off rather well I think.
All sweet reason.
Anyone here watch the Trump Mexico press conference? Can you hear the homerun ball bouncing off cars in the stadium parking lot.
Just saw the Trump conference. He did a better job than any of our great politicians, especially Obama and Hillary. If people can't see his potential as a leader in this, then they are blind.
Trump.
Now under new management!
"This pathetic pattern of fear and racism would be funny if it weren't so sad and so predictable. Somehow, the country has always managed to grow and prosper despite all the direst predictions from the nativists over history. It's always "different this time," they say. And it never is"
Somehow, US economy is barely growing now. That's a fact.
Blogger trumpetdaddy said...
Every couple of decades, poor uneducated people get all freaked out about the latest band of "invaders" and put pressure on Congress to keep the foreigners out.
--
The usual re-framing as "anti foreigner"..or now puplar "nativist" as opposed to pro-legal immigration.
Popular among the educated..because they have an agenda and love to hijack language to serve it.
We may not have to worry about immigration in the future because we'll be just another shit-hole, third-world country.
mockturtle,
I hate to tell you this, but the future is now. I recently went to Korea and on coming back found just how much the US has fallen, especially in the last 8 years under our really great supreme leader. The Koreans are far ahead of us in almost every measure. With 50% of people willing to elect a bum like Hillary, who puts South American tyrants to shame, then we have arrived at third world status.
walter,
I might shed some light on concern. The latest band of invaders is fairly large and is not assimilating. With several degrees, I guess I am poor and uneducated, I certainly take pride in it. But, in my area, which is close to the border, almost all jobs have gone to illegal bums (not immigrants). This has displaced others, notably uneducated blacks who used these jobs to get ahead and hopefully get educated. As a result, our unemployment in native Americans is about 30% or higher. It shows up in our local economy as the Latinas send there money back home. Add to this the fact that the Democrat/Communist party is trying to sign these people up to vote for them, and you have trouble. This is not a normal or desired immigration of people who want US values.
The ignorance of this entire issue is why Trump can pussy foot.
The majority of "illegals" Are actually overstays, the perceived threat of border jumpers notwithstanding. Undocumented workers contribute taxes estimated 11.5 Billion. With falling fertility rates, we need immigrants. Freer borders means greater prosperity, sound research by Economists like Clemens have looked into this ad nauseum. The literature is there and continue to be ignored because who has time to understand the circumstances we find ourselves in?
"With falling fertility rates, we need immigrants"
The other option is to improve fertility rates. This is not impossible, or rather it is not an insurmountable structural problem, merely a matter of cultural choice.
"Freer borders means greater prosperity, sound research by Economists like Clemens"
All studies respecting prosperity vs trade liberalization have a serious problem of collinear data. They all use data 1945-ish-2008 or so. We have the problem of dealing with a general expansion of prosperity since 1945, which makes it easy to prove anything, or rather too easy. Post 2007 we have a different situation, not necessarily well modelled.
Althouse wonders:
This should be interesting. I wonder if Trump can honestly say that he never did call for the immediate removal of all 11 million undocumented immigrants. When I research the question now, I only see articles that say that is his plan, but I don't see anything straight from him saying that. Did he allow people to think that's what he meant, while always maintaining the ground to say that he never said it?
In front of millions of viewers of the CNN-Telemundo debate in February:
"But, we either have a country, or we don't have a country. We have at least 11 million people in this country that came in illegally. They will go out. They will come back -- some will come back, the best, through a process. They have to come back legally. They have to come back through a process, and it may not be a very quick process, but I think that's very fair, and very fine."
"The ignorance of this entire issue is why Trump can pussy foot."
Let's see....
"The majority of "illegals" Are actually overstays, the perceived threat of border jumpers notwithstanding."
According to left-wing politifact:
"A final note: The rationale for building a wall between the United States and Mexico is strongly linked to the idea that illegal immigration is fundamentally a problem of a porous southern border. Ramos, Rubio and Bush use the 40 percent figure to highlight that a large portion of the problem lies elsewhere. However, Rosenblum noted that does not make the two groups equivalent.
"One difference between overstayers and those who enter unlawfully is that overstayers have been screened and found admissible at least once, while those who enter another way -- mostly by crossing the border, or passing illegally through a port of entry -- could include people who would be inadmissible, because they have committed serious crimes or are on a security watchlist," Rosenblum said. "This is a legitimate reason to be more focused on illegal entries than overstayers."
Of course, liberals are bad at math, and think that 40% is "majority".
"Undocumented workers contribute taxes estimated 11.5 Billion. "
Not sure what you mean by "undocumented" - after all, the discussion was about illegal aliens, not workers who lost their documents. It's beyond debate, that illegal aliens earn less money than average Americans, and use American paid facilities - from roads and bridges to schools and emergency rooms. They surely do NOT carry their weight as far as the cost of the US governments.
"With falling fertility rates, we need immigrants. "
Sure, but what kind of immigrants? Why do we need illiterate peasants from Mexico?
" Freer borders means greater prosperity, sound research by Economists like Clemens have looked into this ad nauseous."
So, the argument goes, if we allow int the US a billion illiterate peasants from China, another billion from Africa, another billion from India, and 1/2 million from the south of the border, US economy would flourish? That's what Clemens said? He is certifiable.
"The literature is there and continue to be ignored because who has time to understand the circumstances we find ourselves in?"
The literature is surely there, but can people who think that 40% is "majority" comprehend what they are reading? I don't think so.
Post a Comment