Remember that any immigration bill will have to have 60 votes in the Senate to pass. Under either Cruz or Rubio (or Trump, for that matter), it will have certain features:

1. Secure the border.
2. Identify everyone in the US. (To you libertarians out there, yes, that means everyone will have to carry “papers”)
3. Immediately deport all non-immigration felons and gang-bangers.
4. Impose a 15% withholding tax on all remittances to foreign countries.
5. Expand and toughen E-Verify.
6. Require filing and payment of back taxes, but with credit for “grey” Social Security payments and income tax withheld.

Now, what about the other “optional” features?

6. Reinstitute the bracero program, with a maximum annual stay on the US — almost certainly, as the farmers will insist on it.
7. Limit H1-B visas to companies who can prove they have tried to hire Americans — tough to say whether it will pass — the tech companies won’t want it, plus we’ll need Indian doctors to replace all the American doctors who quit because of Obamacare.
8. Repeal anchor baby citizenship for children of illegals — that one will never get 60 votes, and the Supremes would probably rule it unconstitutional, anyway. I might throw that in as a give-up, though.
9. Now for the hard part — what about the rest of the illegals? To get a bill passed, it will have to have some sop to the Dems. I would suggest the following: grant a five-year, non-renewable visa. (This should satisfy the Dream Act whiners.) If someone applies for a green card (this green card would not make one eligible for citizenship) or the bracero program within the first two years, they can join the line (at the end, no cuts!) without returning to their home country. If not, at the end of their five years, out they go.

Call that amnesty if you will, just remember, a bill must have 60 votes in the Senate to pass. If anyone can come up with a better plan, I’d love to see it.

The underestimation is Horowitz saying “fool” rather than “knave.” At the same time, Horowitz overestimates Trump’s ability to do things he’s promised in the political sense.

Horowitz uses absolute language—Trump won’t do these things, Trump will do these things. But Horowitz never explains why. He doesn’t couch it as opinion, he couches it as fact, but it’s only fact because Horowitz says so.

It’s probably the strangest, most illogical article I’ve ever read of Horowitz’s.

As for what I’ve written about Trump, I don’t know how likely it is that Trump will go tyrannical. But I know that his entire previous personality and actions lead me to believe he will try his level best, and anyone who doesn’t see that is ignoring almost everything the man has ever said, done, and is.

I don’t even see this as something to argue about. It is right there in his record, including the threats he’s made during this campaign (see this, for example). It’s his natural reaction to anything he doesn’t like. I can’t imagine why so many people don’t see it.

And (as I think I’ve said before), my reaction to Trump is after learning about his history. I’m old enough to have been exposed to Trump for many years. I never watched his shows, but I certainly am familiar with his persona, and I can tell you (and have said before) that I had virtually no emotional reaction to him at all. Rich guy, big mouth, celebrity, lots of wives, so what? Why would I care? So I had no disgust about him, or much of anything else.

My disgust is at the electorate and his defenders who don’t see who he has been, the way he has conducted himself, and in particular who he has been during this campaign season. He has revealed himself as one of the most abominable human beings I’ve ever seen in public political life, and that’s saying a lot. The reason I have more anger at him than at Obama is not really about the two men and a comparison, it is all about how people on the right have gone for Trump. I don’t think I ever idealized the right, but apparently I did think that to a certain extent voters on the right had more principles and brains than that. Apparently not. My anger at Trump is for being just the man to exploit that stupidity.

Horowitz may be misunderstanding Trump but I see no evidence of idealization. Perhaps minimizing is more accurate? But in any case, rather than minimizing, I suspect that Horowitz simply sees the alternative explanation of Trump’s actions he offers, as more likely, a view confirmed by his intuitive reading of the man. Horowitz and myself are NOT saying we ‘know’ or even believe, we are saying Trump motivations may not be as ‘monomaniacal’ as you insist. You have painted Trump as likely to turn into a dictator and we don’t read the man that way.

I agree, Trump’s “sloppiness” and “carelessness” is strategic and purposeful. As is the harshness of his attacks. But I do not believe that Trump is doing that to ‘pull the wool’ over his supporters eyes.

I suspect that Trump may, in regard to deporting 11 or 20 million illegals and, calling for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States, be speaking generally, keeping it simple, to communicate his seriousness on those issues. Privately knowing that what he can achieve will fall short, yet because he’s serious (admittedly an assumption), unlike say Ryan, Trump knows that by demanding it all, he can end up ‘settling’ for the maximum achievable.

As for what he can do, as President, Trump can certainly enforce the current immigration laws. He can go after employers. Using the bully pulpit, by repeatedly pointing out that the federal benefits for illegals exceed those for our veterans… he can pressure Congress to end the incentives for illegals.

As President, Trump can issue executive orders to create onerous vetting procedures, that in effect will greatly slow Muslim migration into America, while again pressuring Congress to act on the threat.

Of course a President Cruz can do the same but we are discussing what Trump can actually do on those issues.

Personally, I think you’re allowing your disgust for Trump’s character and actions to negatively color your perceptions. I base that assessment upon the high degree of vitriol that you direct toward Trump in your arguments. Vitriol that IMO substantively exceeds the vitriol you have previously directed at Obama. Something that frankly, I thought impossible 😉 There’s an inherent emotionalism in your writing about Trump, at a level that far exceeds your prior, consistently objective assessments of Obama.

I am not saying that you are wrong about Trump, as that no one can know. I am saying that you may be wrong about Trump and that your fears of what he might do if elected are just that, fears of what he might do.

The reason in Trump’s case, why past is not necessarily prologue to the future is that bombastism is a mask, a ploy to gain maximum leverage in social situations. Trump as you point out is far too smart to think that he can have everything he wants or force people to do what they just don’t want to do but through intimidation and projecting confidence, he can often leverage people into giving him more than they would otherwise. That ‘bullying’ is unethical but not monomaniacal.

IMO, Trump not being a conservative is sufficient grounds for preferring Cruz or even Rubio but not grounds for panicking at the very idea of a Pres. Trump. And, in both my and Horowitz’s view, even a bullying Trump is preferable to a Marxist pretending to be a ‘progressive’.

So Pat D what was the color of the hair of the girl next to you on the flight to trumptopia? 🙂

I do know shit. Shoveled it, spread it, tilled it into the soil from an early age. You do not want to get into the various olfactory levels of manure with me. Compared to you I am a connoisseur. 🙂

I wasn’t talking about what Trump said he would do. I was talking about what he’s able to do. It’s easy to find what Trump says; I’m not arguing about that.

You wrote that Trump’s program is to “end birthright citizenship.” But it’s in the Constitution. Any act of Congress not only would not pass—despite what Trump wants—but would probably be challenged in court if it were, and the challenge has a high likelihood of success.

It is highly probable that only an amendment could do it, and Trump has no special ability to accomplish that—it’s not an executive power. So my sarcastic point was that the only way Trump could actually do it in a way that would be different from Cruz or anyone else would be to try to use some sort of executive power a la Obama. Otherwise, who cares what he says he will do? And my other point was that it’s Cruz who knows a lot about the law on this, and the way to do it is almost certainly an amendment.

I also have written a lengthy post on the subject of ending birthright citizenship and the law behind it. I’m well aware of the topic, and what you can do and cannot do, and I happen to be in favor of ending birthright citizenship.

A politician was seated next to a 10-year-old girl on an airplane. Being bored, he turned to the girl and said, “Let’s talk. I’ve heard that flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger.”

The girl, who was reading a book, closed it slowly and said to the guy, “What would you like to talk about?”

Oh, I don’t know,” said the guy. “How about nuclear power?”

“OK,” she said. “That could be an interesting topic. But let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow and a deer all eat the same stuff… grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, and a horse produces clumps of dried grass. Why do you suppose that is?”

The guy thought about it and said, “Hmmm, I have no idea.”

To which the girl replied, “Do you really feel qualified to discuss nuclear power when you don’t know shit?”

I read or do not read his comments based upon the same criteria as artfldgr… long comments are a waste of time, more succinct comments may/may not have some value. IMO PatD has become a sycophant sock pocket lacking originality while artfldgr yields an occasional pearl.

Me, I am a flyover farm boy grown old. I know bull, pig, chicken shit from several miles away based on atmospheric parts per billion.

You say:

As for birthright citizenship, is he just going to declare it invalid by executive order? Don’t you think Ted Cruz knows a lot more about the ways to try to do that legally (it would take a SCOTUS ruling or an amendment)?

Cruz on Birthright Citizenship:

End birthright citizenship. Birthright citizenship was not intended to legalize the children of people who are breaking the law by entering and staying in the country illegally. I will take steps to pass legislation or a constitutional amendment to end it.

Trump on Birthright Citizenship:

End birthright citizenship. This remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration. By a 2:1 margin, voters say it’s the wrong policy, including Harry Reid who said “no sane country” would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

I see little daylight between the two. Trump has said it only needs congress to act, and he has sought legal opinion. Cruz adds that it might need a constitutional amendment, which is much more difficult.

I do take the care to read Trump’s actual written positions before posting. Some people haven’t actually bothered.