Trump announces his immigration plan
Trump’s immigration plan is certainly guaranteed to get him even more attention than before. It’s a nice list of pipe dreams for the most anti-illegal-immigrant wing of the electorate, although it also features some workable and laudable proposals that are certainly not unique to Trump.
Reading the text of Trump’s document reminds me of nothing less than Barack Obama in campaign mode. Not the content, of course—that is very different from Obama—but the process: I will do this, I will do that, while ignoring whether what he suggests is workable, how much it would cost, and how Trump would probably have to don the mantle of dictator to accomplish some of it:
The problem with Trump’s wall is that it is infeasible; the geography of the border simply does not allow for one unbroken wall. Nor would it be effective. Even if you could erect this barrier around, say, Florida, walls can be surmounted, tunneled under, and circumvented in other ways. Policing the border requires police; human capital that comes at taxpayer expense. Mexico will not be paying their salaries, but Trump has a plan for that, too: confiscate all remittances from illegal immigrants working in America and hike the fees on all Mexican tourism and work visas. Erecting the structures necessary to identify much less confiscate illegal wages would prove daunting. Even if it was legal and could survive court challenges, a dubious prospect, this is a policy that would require a dramatic expansion of government’s ability to intrude on the lives of American citizens ”“ a principle to which conservatives were once constitutionally opposed…
The unknown tens of millions of illegal immigrants, some of whom have been here for decades and are part of the fabric of their communities, will be rounded up and sent to their countries of origin. Somehow. In order to do this, Trump would triple the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) forces. ICE presently has an approximately 20,000-strong force, offices in 48 nations, and a $6 billion annual budget. Now triple that, and give them a mandate to arrest and deport all non-citizens…They are to be rounded up, put on a bus, and sent over the border. But only until the “terrific” ones can be identified, amnetized, and reintroduced into the country legally.
The author of that article I just quoted, Noah Rothman at Commentary, thinks Trump’s proposals will hurt Republicans in the election. I don’t agree; I think the jury is out on that. Of course, many Trump supporters would also consider any harm to the GOP as a positive feature rather than a bug.
If I understand Rothman correctly, he also seems to think that Trump is suggesting that birthright citizenship be rescinded retroactively, and that children of illegal immigrants who have become citizens because they were born here should be deported, too. But I see nothing in Trump’s proposal that states that is what he is saying, although I suppose he might be. But he merely writes that he wants to “end birthright citizenship” for children born here of illegal immigrants, which I take as probably meaning he wants this to happen in the future as a disincentive to the arrival of more illegal immigrants.
That’s actually a suggestion that’s been made many times and in several bills introduced by Senator David Vitter of Lousiana (and one that I described and supported about a year ago in this post). However, I wonder whether Trump realizes the legislative and legal hurdles involved, or whether he thinks he can just do it by executive order or imperial decree.
“The problem with Trump’s wall is that it is infeasible; the geography of the border simply does not allow for one unbroken wall. Nor would it be effective. ”
Well, it could be if you coupled the wall with patrols and machined guns and killed a couple of hundred.
That would slow it down.
It’s that second part that you don’t get to until about 2 years into a Trump administration
RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.”
Also, interesting perspective on Trump’s campaign strategy:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/126589300371/clown-genius
One of the surest signs of civilisational decadence is the ‘everything is difficult’ or impossible syndrome.
Before the Huns overrun us, let us stake ourselves out on the ground under a netting of nuances. There… aren’t we the bees knees of subtlety and sophistication?
Whilst I’m in principle with Thomas More contra Roper when it comes to cutting down the forest of the law, clearly a properly guarded border is one case where reality on the ground trumps (ha!) Grotius, Blackstone, Justinian’s Twelve Tables, the NYT and anyone and anything short of the Copybook Headings.
Gossamer Netting, no less.
The Problem is Chain Migration.
It will only require a Federal statute that essentially reverses the 1965 Immigration Act (Ted Kennedy’s)
L O N G E R queues are the GLOBAL solution to immigration.
In virtually every other nation, when immigration is allowed the process is DRASTICALLY longer, more expensive, and requires a large commitment by the prospective immigrant.
NO-ONE is howling about THOSE laws. They are pervasive in Europe.
Another solution: l’ife time’ visas — ie the illegal can stay and work here — but had better save his pennies — as he will be taking retirement back home.
That’s not such a terrible deal for many. In fact, it’s so attractive that many intend to do so from the start.
Filipinos are famous for retiring back in the old Islands — living off of the fat of American wages. It’s also very common with Mexicans.
The shift is to STOP filling up the countryside with alienated citizens from all corners of the globe — at a tempo that this polity CAN’T handle.
As Milton Friedman put it: a Welfare State and Open Immigration are financially impossible. You pick one or the other.
I, for myself, don’t wish to see the modern welfare state repealed.
That means that wide open LEGAL immigration has to come to an end.
If BHO’s policy suite is maintained, he will Cloward-Piven the whole Democrat project.
As it stands, wide open immigration is imploding the Social Security Disability Fund. For many, many, LEGAL immigrants rapidly qualify — legitimately — for Lotto scale payouts.
These Lotto winnings come at the direct expense of all of the American natives.
Is it ANY wonder that most of the planet is queued up to come to America?
%%%
Thirty-years ago, polling established that MOST of White Europeans wanted to leave — and resettle in America…. Most as in over 50% of the adults polled. !!!!
The Wall hadn’t come down yet.
The ONLY thing holding them all up: finances.
Well, for the Third World, finances are no hold up at all. America will let them in “on-the-cuff.”
Hence, the flood.
Yet many legal immigrants are TOTALLY unsuitable as American citizens: Somalis being at the top of the list.
By culture, religion, you name it: Somalis can’t blend in// acculturate — probably EVER. Islam and feral culture are just too much of a hurdle.
The other question is WHY are same do-gooder Americans allowed to modify our nation’s demographics — on OUR DIME. ??
These immigrants should never be conflated with fleeing Jewry, circa 1937. They are typically not facing any persecution whatsoever.
Instead, the game is demographic warfare — the Curley effect — for partisan// factional reasons.
That is SO wrong.
Of course we could build a wall, if there was a will to do so. And Obama is pink slipping 40,000 military who would be useful in patrolling the border. We either get serious about this or not.
Pinal County Sheriff, Paul Babeu, has been outspoken and testified before congress about the Yuma (AZ) sector where illegal entries were reduced by a whopping 97% due to the double fence and enforcement.
http://www.pinalcountyaz.gov/Sheriff/Documents/FinalRevisedCongressionalTestimonyFeb2015.pdf
gracepc:
No one is saying we couldn’t build a wall if the will to do it was there.
But how does Donald Trump create that will all by himself? He doesn’t.
“However, I wonder whether Trump realizes the legislative and legal hurdles involved, or whether he thinks he can just do it by executive order or imperial decree.”
Isn’t that exactly what Obama is doing on the other side of the fence?
Obama has set the precedent. Trump can use it himself. He can do so by stating that Obama’s actions were illegal and unlawful, and those who came here under Obama’s amnesty are here illegally and will be deported. At least he would be restoring respect for the rule of law.
Point taken.
I don’t quite understand how does Trump do it all by himself? I assume it would be contingent upon his being President. And yes, he would have to do it through the process. And yes, it will be difficult. But all the candidates seem to agree a secure border is necessary, as do many in Congress. and many Americans. But I am just not understanding this overall response that “oh, it’s so hard” (not this blog necessarily).
As for paying for it either from Mexico or illegals, I can’t speak to that. But when the 2006 Fence Law (I don’t know the correct name of it) was passed funds were allocated. Yid with Lid has an interesting comment on what happened there.
I realize Trump blasted I Will Build A Wall, but I think whatever we are expecting of Trump, we should expect from other candidates who are saying we need to secure the border. Sure, they are not as aggressive as Trump about building a wall, but where do they stand and how would they fund the security of the border.
I am curious if other candidates have white papers or position papers on Immigration. And how they would secure the border. Are you aware?
I am neither pro nor anti Trump. I saw the position paper as getting the ball started. And it was pretty much what I expected. I expect it to get better if he stays in.
gracepc:
Every single one of the candidates has a website, and on that website he/she has written his/her policy plans for immigration and a host of other things. I know what Carly Fiorina has said more specifically, because I wrote a post on it. Take a look.
Many of the candidates have said that as soon as they become president they will rescind Obama’s executive orders. That’s the first step, and any president would be empowered to do that, since it was done by executive order in the first place. Obviously, other things would await Congressional bills and appropriations, such as the building of a wall (Trump says money won’t be necessary; if he is president he will pressure Mexico into paying for a wall. I think that is hogwash and braggadocio.) I’m almost certain that all the candidates are in favor of stricter enforcement of border security and deportation of illegal immigrants with records, but this would almost certainly require hiring more ICE/security people, which in turn should require Congressional appropriations—unless it could somehow be done by executive order, since Obama has paved the way on that. I suppose there might be some way to do it without Congress, but I don’t see how, because it is much easier for Obama to NOT enforce a law without Congress’ help (since he doesn’t need money to do that) than for them to enforce a law without Congress’ help (since they would need money to hire more people to do that).
Trump is the only one talking about mass deportations of illegals who have been have for many many years. This would require enormous increases in manpower and money, and would be extremely controversial and probably would not be approved by Congress, even a Republican Congress. I don’t think any of Trump’s proposals for increased tourist fees and that sort of thing would even begin to cover the expenses.
So I see the others as having proposals that are doable (particularly with a Republican Congress), and I see Trump as having proposals that are almost certainly not doable.
gracepc, 12:32 am — “I am curious if other candidates have white papers or position papers on Immigration.”
neo-neocon, 12:48 am — “Many of the candidates have said that as soon as they become president they will” [whatever].
If there’s one thing many/most of us, certainly including friend neo, have learned by now, it’s that any correlation between what a candidate says before the election and what transpires after the election, is either coincidental or even negative. Can you/we say, “read my lips, no new taxes”?
We’ve all discussed here * ad infinitum * how Republicans (especially) say whatever it takes to hoodwink enough of their base, and then go about doing what Democrats do anyway. Hey, I even heard somewhere that the good guys actually won landslide elections in 2010 and 2014.
Speaking just for me, I am singularly unimpressed by what candidates claim they will do. I’d be impressed by what they end up doing, but (duh!) I can’t know that in advance. So I end up looking at their track record and at my best take on their core beliefs, if any.
It’s far too little to go on.
Anyway, that’ll be it for my rant du jour.
Welcome to our community, gracepc. And thanks as always, neo, especially for contributing on a Sunday.
I really cannot get beyond the first problem.
1) Trump has a history abundant with indisputable facts demonstrating he is not presently trustworthy either as a president or as a conservative standard bearer.
2) Trump’s history and untrustworthiness in fact make it possible he is presently a leftist interloper.
3) Trump’s supporters on the right (and Trump himself for that matter) have given zero reason why he should be trusted. His more ardent conservative supporters bizarrely are the first to disqualify Cruz, Fiorina, Jindal or Walker if there is a hint of deviation from purity. Trump gets a free pass.
4) It is logically impossible for any reasonable person to trust what Trump says or does presently. There are many reasons to distrust what he says or does.
5) While the details of this or that policy may be interesting, they do not make Trump trustworthy or conservative. They merely give the verisimilitude of being conservative, and even then not so successfully except in the details with emotional appeal.
6) Last week (or maybe the week before) Rush subtly advised Trump to drop the personal attacks and insults, and explicitly advised Trump to start doing policy.
7) The other candidates are well advised not to become adversarial to Trump. That would be needlessly dumb. That is different from being a Trump cheer leader.
8) I am probably wrong and not seeing something. I hope I am. But Rush, Levin, Coulter etc etc are doing something very dangerous in advocating Trump.
9) Plus, they appear to be taking away opportunity to support any one of four once in a generation candidates.
10) If it is a tricky game, I do not believe tricky games are ever a good idea.
11) In any event, a lot of integrity is (weirdly) being shredded.
12) There is always a lot of time left until there isn’t.
One of the most common and serious mistakes people make is evaluating a defense in absolute terms, as in it’s either perfect or it’s worthless. The Great Wall Of Trump wouldn’t be perfect, but it might help enough to be worthwhile. It wouldn’t stop all illegal immigration, but in conjunction with other steps it might be useful. Other methods might be more efficient, so reasonable people can disagree on the issue, but a defense doesn’t have to be perfect to be worthwhile, and no defense is ever perfect anyway.
Birthright citizenship was one of the most serious mistakes in American history. It probably can’t be repealed at this point, and will probably be the doom of this country.
The unknown tens of millions of illegal immigrants, some of whom have been here for decades and are part of the fabric of their communities,
Criminals are part of the fabric of our community, too, yet we have no trouble imprisoning them for days to years to decades.
Aside from the Ivy League schools, is there a finishing school were journalists learn to write this deceptively?
What weird comments: Build a wall? “I don’t quite understand how does Trump do it all by himself?”
Israel did it; Trump is in real estate – and developers do things like building things.
It’s really that simple. Only RINOs and Enemies of American sovereignty make it impossible to do the simple.
And bye the bye, we already have a “wall” with Canada. It’s mostly either electronic or aerial and geographical barriers.
It is hard to see how Trump can politically build anything, actually govern.
Am I the only one who sees Trump as acting out (and thus anchoring in the public mind) the caricature of the angry, wacky, incoherent, not-so-bright conservative the left promotes as reality?
And many conservatives, including prominent conservatives, confirming that ugly stereotype?
1) Something smells and it has the stink of Clinton.
2) Assuming for the sake of argument the truth of the above, the casual phone call by Bill to Trump is classic Clinton misinformation and misdirection.
3) The Trump game for the Clintons would have started more likely with all his bizarre birther ranting (not the merits of the issue, the Trump ranting).
4) Is there anyone here who believed for one second Michael Bloomberg was loyal to the Republican party?
5) Is there anyone here who can give me a reason or reasons why 1-3 are not a significant possibility?
6) Is the risk really worth it? Rush? Mark? Ann? Really?
7) For conservatives who justifiably believe in the vile machinations of the GOPe, why do you feel as if you cannot be similarly manipulated by Trump and the Clintons?
8) The media and the GOPe both have an identical interest in portraying conservatives as nasty, mean, not-so-bright jerks. Think about that.
Tonowanda,
I share your distrust of Trump, and I have another reason. He screams before he thinks or studies an issue. Example immigration. Many are now saying that Trump’s reform program isn’t so bad, but he didn’t scream his program; he screamed Mexican rapists.
One thing I observed throughout the Bush presidency was how difficult it is to speak to a worldwide audience. Bush is criticized for his early message that Islam is a religion of peace. What would have happened in Jordan and Morocco if he had condemed all Muslims on 9/12? Would he have gotten even minimal cooperation from Pakistan? A president can’t always say directly what a constiuent wants to hear. Sometimes he must be milder in public so he can be tougher behind the scenes. Sometimes he must delay speaking so as not to undermine a cooperative leader who is vulnerable in an election.
I don’t think Trump is even slightly aware of this, and I don’t think he could keep his mouth shut if he were. He is unfit to be an international leader.
Trump’s plan to stem the tide of illegal immigrants is probably doable, but expensive.
Obama’s plan to stem the tide of illegal immigrants, OTOH, will work just fine: continue to kill economic opportunity here, and turn America into a banana republic with no meaningful law system, and Guatemalans will have little reason to come. When more people sneak into Venezuela than the USA, Obama’s plan will have succeeded.
Tonowanda:
Am I the only one who sees Trump as acting out (and thus anchoring in the public mind) the caricature of the angry, wacky, incoherent, not-so-bright conservative the left promotes as reality?
That is precisely it. His act is meant to tarnish all conservatives. On a post below I echoed that with a reference to Lonesome Rhodes, the Andy Griffith portrayed character in Elia Kazan’s A Face In The Crowd. If Trump isn’t consciously using Lonesome as a model, he’s nevertheless the epitome of a brainless but conniving demagogue. It was fun at first having Trump give it to the party bosses. Now it’s more like a nightmare.
Tonowanda – thank you.
neo et al. please forgive my ranting.
Read it and weep:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-17/how-trump-is-winning-over-conservatives-without-the-bona-fides
The article takes 3-5 minutes to read.
Levin used the word chumps four years ago in the article neo posted previously.
This is like watching your 87 year old grandmother pay $42,000 dollars to have her chimney re-pointed or it will fall down and kill someone and she might go to jail if she doesn’t do it and besides my five kids are starving.
One more, for those who have not read it already:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/03/us/politics/jeb-bushs-camp-counts-blessings-of-donald-trumps-surge-in-the-gop.html?_r=0
And recall, Jeb is the loser every Democrat wants as an opponent.
Trump takes out Walker:
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-08-17/scott-walker-being-trumped-by-the-donald-in-crucial-state-of-iowa
Looks like the Democrats finally are getting their revenge against one of the most successful and effective conservatives in decades.
And don’t forget, many years ago Carly said islam had a golden age. Way to get to the nub of the problem you brave dissidents!
expat Says:
August 17th, 2015 at 9:12 amI don’t think Trump is even slightly aware of this, and I don’t think he could keep his mouth shut if he were. He is unfit to be an international leader.
Trump the clown is no Bimbo.
Watch the end of the debate footage. Cruz makes a bee line for the Donald. Cruz knows …
Trump is either an egotistical blowhard who, having done various other things, has now decided that he wants to play President. Or he is a saboteur undermining and wrecking the 2016 GOP candidates on behalf of his Democrat friends – likely the Clintons. Take your pick, but he’s not a legitimate candidate who is going to be a real conservative or a real leader of nations.
This is a guy who, prior to Obama, had primarily supported and contributed to Democrats and gave lip service to Democrat causes and only when Clinton didn’t get the nod did he really start providing any sort of material support to the GOP. In the Obama years he has suddenly insinuated himself, ingratiating himself with the disgruntled, disaffected far right by bombastic shouting over a couple of cliché far-right topics. He says the sort of things that some people want to hear. He has become, in a rather sick and twisted way, the Obama of the right: his backers have projected their own hopes and beliefs onto his bluster and adulate him in terms of what they desperately want to think he will do and be for them. He isn’t, and won’t. He’s either a bored super-rich guy who wants to be the boss of the world – which he thinks being President of the US would grant him – or he’s setting up Clinton for 2016.
My hero Steyn is absolutely certain Trump is sincere, really means what he says, and is alone is telling the truth:
http://www.steynonline.com/7114/the-trumping-of-party
Steyn never says why he believes in Trump’s sincerity, but Steyn agrees with Trump, so Trump must be sincere (I guess). Trump’s lack of coherence is a good thing.
He implicitly calls Cruz, Fiorina, Walker and Jindal “alleged non-buffoons” who toe the establishment party line on immigration. They have never expressed sentiments on the subject approaching Trump’s truth-telling.
And Steyn claims that the folks who claim to be conservatives are useless because they have not accomplished anything (the way Trump has?).
Guess I’ll try to post this again……
Expats excellent comments @9:12 notwithstanding,Trump has a history of getting things done…anyone having lived in NYC for any length of time KNOWS this.
Just a thought to consider before jumping on the absurdity or impossibility of building such a wall…..China managed to build a pretty impressive one….a while back…..and the Pyramids do really exist, too…..
Why so many of us are acting as though campaign BS is at this point, anything but an attention generator is beyond me….come on we are all grown ups here and this is not our first rodeo.
Promise the galaxy and deliver the Moon….Ok, the Moon is still pretty impressive……
That being said, Trump has dealt with the governmental quicksand on many levels and on many projects…. so I’m sure he’s aware that without help of lobbyists and like minded elected officials it will exceedingly difficult to move forward with his “plans” without being elected dictator ( a job that he IS well qualified for)
But based on the support his current “base” is shoring him up with, “The Wall” would be a relatively simple endeavor… if he asked for volunteers alone….. I doubt it would be hard to find significant corporate donors if he continues to gain traction,
either…. But what if he instituted a WPA-like program with strong Nationalist overtones to “Make America Great Again”?
As previously mentioned the reality is that walls work…. they are not perfect, but a leaky faucet is better than one that is stuck open…Berlin comes to mind….
Without a tax plan to critique yet, it’s hard to say what will happen financially in this country but I’d damn sure rather have a successful Corporate leader at the helm… and the idea of a consumption tax is intriguing if only because it appears to be able to vacuum up much of that “Dark Money”
that illegals, illegal activity, and clever loopholes allows to flow freely under the radar of the current tax mess….and the elimination of the IRS frees up a lot of wasted capital and people (maybe some of them even know how to swing a hammer or lay block…)
BTW, the Steyn article was the first and only I have ever read of his where the normal free-wheeling, witty tone instead sounded pinched and defensive. But that is my take . . . .
Again on Steyn: I think it is fair to say – – if Steyn knew for a fact that Trump was doing all this for Hillary’s benefit, Trump is still better than all the other Republicans and conservatives because Trump is saying something those others have not said let alone done.
I could be wrong, but I believe what I just stated is consistent with Steyn’s article.
Listening to Rush and he sounds defensive, full of false bravado.
Rush is claiming that folks who question Trump “don’t get it” meaning exactly what we on this site (and elsewhere) “get” and discuss every day.
Rush is just plain wrong when he says that.
I think what Rush is realizing is that Rush has not gotten it, and may wind up looking like a chump.
Rush for some reason has abandoned common sense, and is deliberately “misconstruing” the opposition to Trump.
He knows he cannot defend Trump on the grounds he would normally defend a politician.
Rush has painted himself into a corner. So anyone who questions Trump is a low information tool of the media or Republican party.
Never has Rush or Steyn been so weak or lacking in logic.
Neo: “would be extremely controversial and probably would not be approved by Congress, even a Republican Congress”
This is throwing red meat to Trump supporters and their motivation to blow up the GOP.
Again, I am sorry. I promise I will quit.
Rush just said people who oppose Trump do not get how angry people in this country are, or how deep is the feeling that we are losing the country.
Wow. Wow. Amazing.
I really believe Rush is not being condescending. I don’t think he is a condescending person.
But he is telling himself a pretty story.
This is going to be a little off-topic, and it’s nothing more than a summary of what I’m thinking right now. More than anything else, I’m writing this to organize my own thoughts. Please feel free to move on to another comment that’s more to the point of Neo’s post.
I’ve read at least one thoughtful defense of Trump here. The one by OriginalFrank comes to mind. But in that comment, Frank admits that he’s not the typical Trump supporter. We’ve seen over and over that Trump isn’t held to the same standard as politicians. Yes, politicians! Americans are pretty cynical about politicians, but candidates are expected to have at least a superficial commitment to rational judgement. Trump is loved because he knows no such bounds. His campaign can’t collapse because of a gaffe, because his supporters love him even more when he’s crazy and offensive. The media loves him because he started out as a celebrity who could easily increase their ratings, sales, and profits. As his popularity grows, the media feedback loop just gets stronger. And as a bonus, the media get to portray conservatives as crude, loony, racist clowns.
I know it’s still quite a while before the first caucuses and primaries, but it won’t be very long before all the candidates except Bush and Trump will need an infusion of money. I’ve kept a pretty close eye on the polls, and Trump has comfortable leads in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada. It looks like he’ll win those in February, and have plenty of momentum going into the March primaries. At that point, both politics and money will have reduced the candidates to Bush and Trump. I’d bet on Trump beating Bush.
On the Democrat side, everything I’ve read supports the argument that it’s too late for another candidate to enter the race. There are just too many problems with arranging financing, building an organization, and meeting states’ legal requirements for getting onto the ballot. I’ve also been reading a lot of pieces that seriously support Bernie Sanders, and argue that he could defeat either Trump or Bush. As Sanders becomes a more serious candidate, I think that Obama will want to help him get elected. He’ll start making speeches for him, and also help him with his formidable personal organization that’s independent of the Party. That organization includes the media, Google, and Facebook. Together they can form an incredible propaganda campaign for Sanders. At the same time, Obama will order an intensification of the FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s various security crimes. As soon as enough evidence is accumulated, Obama will present it to Hillary. She’ll be forced to choose between prison and withdrawing from the race. She’ll then make a speech throwing her support, organization, and finances behind Bernie Sanders.
I never thought that Obama would be elected twice. Once I could understand, but twice? That taught me that the country’s demographics have changed. If not for Trump, I still think a good conservative candidate could have won. But in an election with a record low turnout, the Obama coalition will give us our first socialist President, and Trump’s supporters will rejoice, because they’ll claim to have killed the GOP.
Now I need to go shopping for tinfoil hats. Well, it could happen that way. It’s not crazy. Maybe I’m just trying to scare myself? Political speculation as a cheap thrill?
1. Don’t confiscate the remittances to Central America and Mexico. Just tax them at 40%.
Stupid mistake by Trump to think he could just confiscate the money.
And they could still write checks.
2. And I can assure everyone that the US could hire 1,000 temporary immigration judges for a five year term and hearings could be conducted from 7 AM to 9 PM. That would speed things up.
And the *great* federal appellate judge Richard Posner thinks birthright citizenship is nonsense and can be fixed by a statute. No need to amend the constitution. And make the statute prospective. Easier that way and avoids the harder legal issues.
Walls and fences work. That’s why they have been built throughout history, everywhere. To argue that they can’t be built and that they won’t work is a straw man argument.
The cost to build and maintain it is utterly irrelevant. The numbers are trivial compared to the size of the economy and federal budget.
The Great Wall of China, Hadrian’s wall, the east/west walls in Europe by the Soviet Union, Israels wall around Gaza and the West Bank, the San Diego fence etc., etc., etc.
As for deporting millions of people, attrition once the laws are enforced would handle that nicely. President Eisenhower deported large numbers of Mexicans.
So in short a wall/fence is a trivial engineering problem. It hasn’t been built because the statist Republicans and Democrats want millions of voters and workers that are cheap and manipulable.
A link to a Washington Post article on 14 current walls:
http://tinyurl.com/naq4hdk
Kyndyll G: “He has become, in a rather sick and twisted way, the Obama of the right: his backers have projected their own hopes and beliefs onto his bluster and adulate him in terms of what they desperately want to think he will do and be for them. He isn’t, and won’t.”
Besides that Trump may be false, Trump can’t be a right-side Obama because the Right is not the Left.
Obama is effective not because of Obama the man, Obama the Democrat, or even Obama the president but because of the Left’s social cultural/political/economic dominance they’ve won by right of real competition in the greater activist game that surrounds and infuses electoral politics.
In corporate analogy, the Democrats have been subsumed as a subsidiary of the Left with Obama dispatched from the parent corporation to act as CEO. For the Left, electoral politics are not the end state but merely one stick in the bundle and not even the primary stick.
The Right hasn’t the same principal leverage to utilize the GOP as a similar kind of agent because the Right has refused to compete in the greater activist game necessary to earn that leverage. The GOP is constrained by the Right’s failure and the Left’s cross-spectrum social dominance.
The only viable solution is an all-in Right-activist Gramscian (counter-)march, but from mainstream conservatives to Trump supporters, the people of the Right steadfastly refuse to undertake the only corrective strategy that can change the course of We The People.
For the GOP to be effective as desired by the Right, it’s for Right activists – not GOP politicians – to compete head-on with the Left everywhere to reform the structural environment in which the GOP does its business. Instead, mainstream conservatives self-limit to throwing “once in a generation” GOP candidates into the same overarching constraints while, worse, Trump supporters seek to blow up the GOP without threatening the constraints.
Cornflour,
Battle of Agincourt.
Yet mainstream conservatives and Republicans continue with strategy depending on mounted men at arms.
Eric (re your comment at 12:38):
What about it’s being the truth? Anything discouraging to Trump supporters, even if true, just throws them “red meat” and encourages their destructive rage, because that rage is pure emotion and logic doesn’t enter into it.
So what’s the solution? Keep telling them their fantasies are real?
Cornflour:
I absolutely agree that the most likely result of a successful Trump candidacy is the election of a Democrat, whether that Democrat be Hillary or Sanders (or Warren).
It is especially ironic given that we have a great field of other candidates this year, composed of many non-establishment Republicans, actual conservatives, and some non-politicians as well.
The only possible way to save the situation (short of Trump imploding, which I don’t see) is if a lot of them were to drop out and leave just a few remaining to share the non-Trump vote. The only reason Trump is doing well is because there are so many others. He has the biggest block, but it is still a small percentage. But the large field changes the equation.
Tonawanda,
IMO, you misjudge where Steyn is coming from and misunderstand Rush’s point regarding those who criticize Trump. I suspect Rush is referring to RINO establishment Republicans as, “people who oppose Trump do not get how angry people in this country are, or how deep is the feeling that we are losing the country.” In failing to identify those of us who oppose Trump for the reasons you cite and who are convinced that we are losing our country… Rush unintentionally creates that understandable confusion.
My reading of Steyn is that he is well aware of Trump’s flaws but thinks that highlighting the political and cultural danger of millions of illegal immigrants and the GOP’s repeated betrayal of the conservative base supersedes ALL other considerations but one, that being Islam’s fundamental incompatibility with Western civilization’s precepts.
I always thought Lonesome Rhodes was the model for Glen Beck but I see Trump in there. Huck too.
“Good fences make good neighbours.”
— — — — — — — — — — —
Mending Wall
By Robert Frost
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That sends the frozen-ground-swell under it,
And spills the upper boulders in the sun;
And makes gaps even two can pass abreast.
The work of hunters is another thing:
I have come after them and made repair
Where they have left not one stone on a stone,
But they would have the rabbit out of hiding,
To please the yelping dogs. The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbour know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet to walk the line
And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go.
To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
And some are loaves and some so nearly balls
We have to use a spell to make them balance:
“Stay where you are until our backs are turned!”
We wear our fingers rough with handling them.
Oh, just another kind of out-door game,
One on a side. It comes to little more:
There where it is we do not need the wall:
He is all pine and I am apple orchard.
My apple trees will never get across
And eat the cones under his pines, I tell him.
He only says, “Good fences make good neighbours.”
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
“Why do they make good neighbours? Isn’t it
Where there are cows? But here there are no cows.
Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That wants it down.” I could say “Elves” to him,
But it’s not elves exactly, and I’d rather
He said it for himself. I see him there
Bringing a stone grasped firmly by the top
In each hand, like an old-stone savage armed.
He moves in darkness as it seems to me,
Not of woods only and the shade of trees.
He will not go behind his father’s saying,
And he likes having thought of it so well
He says again, “Good fences make good neighbours.”
Good discussion above. Tonawanda reflects my opinion for the most part. I have said all along that I suspect Trump is a saboteur, I see no reason to change that opinion.
I am strongly in favor of massive security measures on our southern border and spending what every it takes to detain illegals prior to deportation. I do not believe these illegals deserve a hearing and our laws need to be changed to reflect that attitude. I am almost to the point of favoring Coulter’s position that there should be a moratorium on all immigration for a period of a few years.
This notion that Trump is a Trojan Horse sent by the Clintons or the Democrats is hysterical….really….maybe he’s Illuminati too…..
If you saw Meet the Press or any coverage in the last couple weeks, you no doubt have heard it said numerous times that Trumps message has been VERY consistent over time… going back to the 80’s if I’m not mistaken….that he’s supported democrats in the past tells me he’s about supporting those that he feels can fix what needs to be fixed and get it done (or of course those that he’s paid to do his bidding)….not about Party.
I find that logical, and admirable (not the payola part) needless to say but I will anyhow, we are not all one thing….
No doubt we could build Trump’s wall, if we wanted too. In all honesty, though, the money and effort spent on it would be better put toward making a 600 foot gold statue of The Donald himself.
Not even kidding, at least the statue would have tourism value, and maybe act like a scarecrow if it’s visible from the border, while a wall won’t even do that much as long as the Democrats keep our country’s economy dependent on undocumented Hispanic slave labor.
Walls are what people build when they are so weak or morally enervated that they need them.
1) I love Trump’s immigration ideas.
2) They may be ‘impossible’ to achieve 100%, but I’d rather shoot for the stars and TRY to achieve it all rather than shoot it down before it has a chance to be tried.
3) I think many inner city minorities love Trump’s immigration policies. Why is it that we never hear interviews from on-the-street blacks about their thoughts on illegal immigration? I am pretty sure most of them agree with conservatives on this issue.
4) Building a wall would certainly deter people…and even if it is a SMALL percentage, it is still worth the cost and effort. Also adding LOTS of people to guard the border using the latest technology. No brainer.
5) You could certainly deport illegal immigrants with American-born children. The children go with the parents back to the home country…then these families could apply for a visa LEGALLY and try to get back in. This is sane thinking. Child can always come back to the U.S. on his own once he is an adult.
His specifics on this are only going to get him MORE approval, MORE voters. Watch more minority voters come forward with support. Minorities in the inner cities have been hurt the most due to illegal immigration…and they know it.
Imagine Americans in the early 1960s allowing as how, or even considering, that the best way to protect themselves from Mexico was by building a wall.
Now we wring our hands in helplessness as we are berated for even thinking that self-protection is a right.
That is what our listening to two generations of insane anal receptives and suicidal nihilists masquerading as moral authorities and peers, has done to the people of this polity.
Yeah, take another eye-batting pursed lipped selfie and fuggetaboutit.
Ok no wall…what to you suggest ? ….a mine field?
They work pretty good….. at least we’ll know where the attempted breaches are…and maybe save a few bucks on 24/7 guards or fancy schmancy detection systems…..
“Ok no wall…what to you suggest ? ”
You don’t want to hear what I might have to suggest; since the problem isn’t so much on that side of the border, as on this one. I’m not sure I even want to think about it.
Hahahahaha, Roger that.
GB @ 1:54 PM:
About Rush, I will give him the benefit of the doubt based on your analysis. I see what you are saying.
About Steyn, I am not sure we disagree. As I stated, I think it is fair to say Steyn, because of Trump’s statements on immigration, would support Trump even if Steyn knew Trump was working on behalf of Hillary.
The point of Steyn’s article was that Trump’s galvanizing effect on the immigration issue “Trumped” (as he said in the article’s title) Republican party considerations and even conservatism itself. IOW, Trump’s galvanizing effect on this critical issue “superseded” (as you say) everything else (except islam, as you say, and I agree).
I simply disagree with Steyn (who is as I say, my hero). I do not believe Trump’s statement, regardless of how galvanizing, has the value Steyn gives it, certainly not to the exclusion of everything else.
To me (and obviously this is my own impression) Steyn is being (for him) uniquely illogical because he is so incredibly angry.
The give-away is calling Cruz, Fiorina, Jindal and Walker “alleged non-buffoons,” a remark which is not witty or accurate. (And it sounds like Trump is affecting Steyn’s style. Talk about the downward spiral of civilization).
And it is reflective of an intellectual dishonesty, because if he acknowledged them as in fact non-buffoons, as serious conservatives who “get” what Trump was saying and who agree with him, that would detract from his hysterical defense of Trump.
If Steyn simply wants to renounce the political process and fill his cartridge box, God bless, but be honest enough to say so. Just say, Cruz and Fiorina and Jindal and Walker are establishment phonies who deserve no respect or consideration, even if any one of them might defeat Hillary whereas Trump might very well be here to elect Hillary.
Just say, Trump’s policy paper “trumps” party, conservatism, and any possible hope to actually get Trump’s policy enacted, as well as trumping any other possible issue except islam.
Speaking of hysterical, Clayton Bigsby, and of the Illuminati, could you give one actual reason why (as I have asked) it is not a significant possibility that Trump is collaborating with the Clintons, given his history and their history.
Because if there is a significant possibility Trump is working for Hillary, I would consider that of equal importance to the machinations of the GOPe, regardless of how much I might agree with some stuff Trump says.
But you may disagree.
Folks we have to STOP talking about illegal immigration.
Because of existing statutes most of the immigration is LEGAL immigration. It utterly dominates the equation.
We can’t handle IT.
No society could.
The folks coming over the border illegally, via Mexican train, are actually a trivial fraction of the staggering numbers driving right on in — visas in hand — LEGALLY.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhEwX18u7To
The above 9 minute video illustrates LEGAL immigration.
The trend — as currently established by law — is breathtaking.
This video should be required viewing.
Tonawanda:
I am in agreement with you.
I noted that “non-buffoon” remark as well, and it was a cheap shot significantly beneath Steyn’s usual standard. Cruz, for example, has been consistent on immigration and talks about it quite a bit. The only thing Trump has done is talked about it in a more controversial manner that has aroused more attention, both pro and con. And now of course with his “deport everybody” stance he has gone further than the rest, although I don’t think there’s a chance he could actually follow through with it.
My reading of people such as Limbaugh and Levin (and I’ve been saying this since Trump’s candidacy started and I heard of their reactions) that they cannot afford to annoy so many of their listeners. They both—but most particularly and especially Levin—have been talking against the establishment for years, and especially for Levin it’s his meat and potatoes.
I noticed this years ago, when I would sometimes be in the car when Levin’s show aired, and I’d listen for a bit even though I don’t ordinarily listen to talk shows. I think he’s knowledgeable about many legal issues as well as history, but way too often (actually, nearly every time I turned on the show) he was ranting on and on about the awful Republicans. So much of his energy was spent on that and his regular listeners seemed to love it, but to me a little would have gone a long way. He made his point, but then his war on Republicans seemed to become his main point.
Now we are reaping what rage against the establishment has helped sow: a large Trump constituency, who will make it very different for a conservative candidate to be elected this year, IMHO. But Levin—who recognized what Trump was back in 2011, and excoriated him—is strangely silent on all of that this year. What changed? I think he has been so busy ramping up the ant-establishment anger that he sees that Trump is the candidate his listeners like, and he is trapped. Same for Limbaugh, although to a somewhat lesser extent.
I don’t give either the benefit of the doubt. IMHO they know exactly what they’re doing when they say what they say, and fail to say what they fail to say.
Then AFTER viewing the video, consider what’s REALLY happening because BHO, the tyrant, has dropped our skirts.
%%%
There is this well nigh universal conflation of Latinos fleeing Central America with Jewry fleeing the Pale — a century ago.
But the two populations have nothing in common.
The Jewry in Russia was being politically repressed, exploited, victimized on a systemic basis. Flight was their only out.
The Latinos in Central America are of native stock — and ethnically the same as all of the elites in those lands. Further, to a large degree, for most of the time, they are democracies.
Their problems are:
unrestrained reproduction (Catholicism)
crony capitalism run riot (caste driven political-economics)
cousin envy (like crabs in a bucket, they tear each other down)
rejection of el norte (as in: they don’t tolerate immigration at all)
talent shortage (those populations have normative IQ ~85)
This last bears emphasis: the normative IQ of a population has the dominant impact on its GDP per capita. Communism and natural mineral wealth can skew the numbers, down and up; but most of the wealth of nations can be attributed to the smarts and drive of the population.
The Ashkenazi in the Pale of Russia had — and retain — normative IQs ~ 115 — the highest significant population yet found.
It’s two-standard deviations away from the normative IQs of all Central America ~85.
DNA drives IQ. It’s the only known lifting factor. All other factors lower IQ: pre-natal nutrition, trauma, cousin marriage (DNA again) parasites, general nutrition…
After a century of effort absolutely no-one has found a way to increase IQs of those living.
Apparently, IQ — “g” — smarts are determined no later than 12 months of age… if not at birth. We can educate. We can’t create innate ‘smarts.’
It’d be a wholly different world if we could.
When populations — relocate — they stay the same. They can’t suddenly get smarter. They don’t suddenly become acculturated. The typical reaction is one of resentment and disgust: for the new home is a constant reproach against the beliefs of ones parents, grandparents – -of ones culture.
As BHO demonstrates, it’s far easier to blame ‘the other’ than to accept that the primary locus of one’ economic difficulties are due to the fellow in the mirror.
In small amounts, people can become immersed in new ways of thinking. When entire populations migrate, NOTHING CHANGES. The bad habits, bad logic, bad emotions, bad legacies are still with that population.
It’s for this reason that immigration can never permit wholesale population invasion.
Any Republican thinking of supporting Trump should watch this interview he did with Wolf Blitzer in 2007, in which he said the Iraq War was “one of the great catastrophes of all time”, but even worse was the fact that “the rest of the world hates us” , he talks about the war being built on total lies, in fact, everything in the Bush administration is “all a big lie”.
He’s a Democrat’s dream come true.
Walls, walls, and more walls.
The Antonine wall
Hadrian’s Wall
Wansdyke
Start in the north and fail your way south.
We can do the opposite. We could construct the last ditch somewhere just south of Chicago. That would make it all the more convenient for the citizens of Madison to let them in the back door.
What good is a wall, when the civil authorities open the gates anyway?
You have to build a wall to protect yourself from dispossession by foreigners, only because you cannot trust your “fellow citizens” who are aiming for the same goal.
The left knows who their real enemy is. It’s just the mainstream Americans who don’t.
tonawanda,
I had a very lengthy post as to my reasoning but a refresh lost my draft….so basically,Trump is a very wealthy narcissist and with a healthy dose of control freak thrown in….he can BUY whatever he wants….except REAL POWER….it is all that’s left and must be earned by hard work…he’s no stranger to hard work and sees it as a worthy challenge. ..he’s spent years in the political wings donating to people he basically sees as unaccomplished hacks for the most part, as a necessary evil, allowing HIM to only RENT small bits of POWER from THEM…he would NEVER hire most, (if not any) of them, to work for him……
Having been on the bench a VERY long time and having no control over his ” political employees” ….he’s done.
They are FIRED.
He’s very adept at putting himself in the other guys shoes…. a well honed skill for such a dominant negotiator, and he KNOWS when to pounce …..he’s not getting any younger and THIS is his shot….and he KNOWS it….he’s not subjugating his desire for REAL power and control to ANYONE.
I’ve met him numerous times on various photo shoots in NY and he is likable, funny as hell (as you have seen),easy to talk to, was never one bit distracted or condescending, and was a savvy, pragmatic, confident decision maker, in every area – whether aesthetic, logistic, or monetary.
For such a take no prisoners type of business guy, he had a great sense of fairness as I recall….
your mileage may vary….
Clayton Bigsby,
You forgot the sarc tag or you drank a lot of Trump Chump kool-aid. Care to ask the royal donald how many wet backs staff his hotels and casinos? Tonawanda (and others) are correct in stating the royal donald is merely portraying a stereotypical image of conservatives put forth by the legions of the true believers in the vast right wing conspiracy.
Unsolicited advice, if a guy named Jim Jones asks if he can buy you a drink run for the nearest exit. Or say yes, thank you. I believe in free will.
Clayton Bigsby:
I’m curious what you think of the Trump quotes I put in the “ADDENDUM” here.
BTW, mine fields are a great idea.
AND, meeting the royal donald at various photo-ops I have to ask did you scrub your hand with lye soap after shaking hands or lick your palm?
Parker,
Quite the pithy post…if I knew what a sarc tag was I might just use it now…Luddite that I am….
for the record I don’t drink kool ade nor take unsolicited advice from strangers…but you my friend, may have missed a calling as a kool ade maker ( or political speech writer) as your post was full of calories but no substance…err, sustenance ….
and land mines, well maybe they’ll make a comeback…..I’ll look around for some stocks to grab ahead of time…..maybe we can make a few shekels……
Neo,
I’ll have a look … gotta go right now….try to get back tomorrow…
Neo,
I’m still waiting to get outta here, so I looked at the addendum …..
I assume you want my take on a kinder gentler Trump in 2012 on immigrants ….?
are you asking me if I think he was more of a democrat , not a real conservative, or that he’s changed his opinion now…?
I don’t know(recall) what or where his aspirations or motivations were at that time ….what I do know is that the flood gates have opened since then and enough is enough…everyone has their breaking point when they just gotta put their door down (or wall up).
The rhetoric about Mexico paying and rounding people/families up and bussing them all outta here and all that other fascist BS is just that…. once again being the showman up front and cutthroat negotiater in the back room….you threaten and demand X, but know full well you’ll end up with far less….
(but far more than if you take things off the table)…. The Great John Kerry School of Negotiation is a perfect example of results to be expected with the latter technique.
Good gamesmanship on Trumps part.
Clayton Bigsley:
I can guarantee that if any other candidate but Trump had said that in 2012 you wouldn’t make a single excuse for them, they would be anathema to you. You want to excuse Trump and believe in him.
I can give you a long stream of vile things Trump has said, including that George Bush is evil. That should disqualify Trump right there. Also including his high high praise for Hillary and Bill Clinton, and his long friendship with them and his consulting them before he decided to run.
You know how it’s often said on the right that Obama could kill a puppy on the White House lawn and his supporters would excuse him for it? You’re like that with Trump. Why you would choose him, of all people, to trust is beyond me. He oozes sleazy self-serving narcissistic insincerity to me.
I read Trump’s Immigration Policy. I didn’t see any reference to mass deportations, expect in the case of felons, criminals and gang members. I found little to disagree with in his proposals.
In my last job, my employer has switched almost all IT development work over to onshore H-1Bs and offshore associates. A few senior technical roles were filled locally, including my replacement.
Here’s what he said, and he’s right:
“Increase prevailing wage for H-1Bs. We graduate two times more Americans with STEM degrees each year than find STEM jobs, yet as much as two-thirds of entry-level hiring for IT jobs is accomplished through the H-1B program. More than half of H-1B visas are issued for the program’s lowest allowable wage level, and more than eighty percent for its bottom two. Raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs will force companies to give these coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers from overseas. This will improve the number of black, Hispanic and female workers in Silicon Valley who have been passed over in favor of the H-1B program. Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities.”
“expect” = “except” 🙁
Pat D:
Take a look here.
Neo,
Was that a trick question…..; ) First of all you can’t gauruntee that because Me, myself, I, and just about every other conservative was well aware that the Repulicans were really missing the boat (no pun intended) on the Latin immigrant issue with the Latino voters.
as for Bush being evil…well ok if he said that then yeah, stupid…but it’s not blasphemy to me….an old lifelong dyed-in-the-wool Con, BTW…..not a Neo-Con….(not that theres anyting wrong with that) and as for the “high praise” for the Clinton’s…well I could bring up the little love fest between none other than Bush himself and Bill….but I won’t .
I don’t want to excuse Trump.. I’m just calling them as I see them based on personal experience….I never said I BELIEVED in him other than the REAL PERSON in the flesh seemed fine to me and I’m far from discarding him based on the weight of media BS…..he’s an IMPORTANT catalyst right now and I think it naive and just plain stupid to want to remove him until we see where this takes us….is he electable ? Doubtful…can I see him in the delicate roll of Leader of the Free World….Probably not….But as I said its so early, why in Gods name would you want to see this over at this juncture ? Everyone has a chance to see where everyone REALLY stands.
You’ve jumped to a lot of conclusions about me.
@Neo-Neocon. I saw that comment but it is unclear who he was talking about. Anchor babies? Illegal felons? His policy paper only talks about deporting criminals:
“All criminal aliens must be returned to their home countries, a process which can be aided by canceling any visas to foreign countries which will not accept their own criminals, and making it a separate and additional crime to commit an offense while here illegally.”
One could argue that they are all criminals merely by coming here illegally, but that does not appear to be the intent. The preceding sentence tells you who he is talking about.
“The Obama Administration has released 76,000 aliens from its custody with criminal convictions since 2013 alone. ”
These are are the people he wants to deport en masses and who could disagree? Thousands of of American citizens and legal immigrants are raped, murdered, molested and robbed by illegal immigrants every year. Just the number of Americans killed by illegal immigrants driving drunk is staggering. 9/11 pales by comparison. You can find a sample here.
You did not comment on his H-1B proposal. If you are a young computer science graduate looking for your first job, you’ll have trouble finding one at one of America’s largest healthcare providers, where I worked for 10 years. They contract to Tata Consulting Services (India) to support many applications. There is no entry point for an American College graduate to join the team that manages the application.
I lived through the transition from American employees to H-1B and off-shore employees. I helped make this strategy work for them. I got on well with the Tata people and we worked well together. Good for Tata; bad for America.
So, raising the prevailing wage for H-1B workers makes a lot of sense. We would still have H-1B workers coming in but they would be the cream of the crop, not the mediocre ones. I could tell stories.
OK, Clayton, you may be a somewhat sincere person, but trump?!? Where in his past, present, or future do you find a single electron to state he is sincere? Your blah, blah, blah royal donald is not accepted as evidence.
Now, I go to sleep. May we all (including children and grandchildren) sleep well… even bho.
Just a lonely and somewhat despondent after-note.
Half way down, Steyn confirms that his support of Trump exists despite whether or not Trump is a “phony and a liar”.
Steyn concedes that Trump might be a phony and a liar. But, he argues, look at the phonies and liars who are Republican office holders! Phonies and liars like Cruz, Walker and Jindal.
I wish I could come up with a Steyn-like witticism about non-sequitors.
http://www.steynonline.com/7116/the-big-finnish
See what Trump hath wrought? I sit here, now, more deeply disgusted at Rush and Steyn et. al, than anyone else.
Oh well, as long as I am venting long after the thread has been read to sleep.
Steyn in his “Trumping the party” column had disdainful words about those who were concerned about or saw significance in Trump’s incoherence.
But he cites as significant the coherence and undeniability of the three guiding principles enunciated in Trumps’ written immigration proposal. And truly, they are wonderful principles.
Trump did not write those. Like BO’s authorship, there is zero evidence Trump has the capacity to write those. And it is at best charitable speculation whether Trump ever thought those things or even believes those things.
Cruz, Fiorina and Jindal could have actually written those principles themselves (I don’t know about Walker).
As far as any human can trust another human under the circumstances, the ability of the three to be capable of actually writing those principles presumably is strongly related to having thought about those principles and believing in those principles. In other words, coherence and integrity.
There are no firewalls in this type of thing.
But when it comes to doing the right thing, I trust the coherent “alleged non-buffoons” to the actual, undisputed buffoon.
neo neocon and MJR
Thank you both for taking the time to respond, especially on Sunday. It was useful to me. And prompted me to look more thoroughly. The thread is now passed but I will continue to read and respond.
One thing that appears to be true — in reacting to Trump, national conversation about issues (once we get beyond pro-anti Trump) seems to have been stimulated.
Anyway thanks for a terrific blog neo .
Parker,
Good morning. I trust visions of sugar plums danced in your head, and your head is clear now.
With regard to sincerity, Trump is as capable or incapable as ANY other politician ……remember we are talking POLITICiANS…..as for Trump, you are aware I’m sure, that we are dealing with 2 personas here …..Donald Trump and “The Donald “….Right?
Clayton Bigsby:
And we as viewers are capable of judging the relative sincerity of candidates. We also judge whether their proposals are at all realistic.
I judge Trump more wanting than most of the candidates on those. The issue of sincerity—the one you’re discussing here—I judge by demeanor and previous statements. Now, it’s certainly possible to change one’s mind and be sincere. But Trump has changed his mind too quickly on way too many things, and also done some of it without explanation. He also admits a present-day very close friendship with the Clintons. He also is a narcissist, self-admitted really, and a blowhard. Blowhards and narcissists tend by their very nature to be untrustworthy.
He is not even that fabulous a businessman, by the way (the four bankruptcies). He is a good self-promoter, and a fairly good businessman who is not a self-made man except as a celebrity, and of course in growing his inherited wealth.
By the way—calling George Bush evil is pretty evil itself, and calling him a liar is simply following the liberal/leftist handbook. Trump might have disagreed with Bush’s policy and the Iraq War without doing it in that particular way. I think those things reveal what Trump’s about.
gracepc:
You’re welcome!
PatD:
He did not qualify it in his comment to illegals who are criminals.
And every single pundit and opinion writer reacted as though he was saying all illegals. Nor did he correct their supposition. So I think we can assume it was correct.