From MP Trump Immigration
"Based on the last numbers I saw, net illegal immigration was about zero. Now that sounds good until one digs and finds out that it means that ~400,000 people entered the country with no backgrounds checks and that we Americans had to pay to process and deport ~400,000 people. Not to mention the amount of illegal drugs imported from down South.
What is your rationale that this is adequate / acceptable border security?
And for the folks who want higher wages for Americans with low skill and/or academic capabilities, do you support having an open border even though it keeps downward pressure on the wages of these American citizens? What is your rationale?" G2A
44 comments:
The thing that feels missing to me from the Trump immigration proposal is enforcement action against employers. If you truly think that illegal immigration is that big of a problem, then you need to choke off the demand in addition to the supply. Mandating use of E-Verify will help some, but there's a lot of evasion that still occurs in states that currently mandate its use.
What is your rationale that this is adequate / acceptable border security?
there are two basic rationales for lax border security.
For Republicans, open borders means an influx of cheap labor which drives down wages.
For Democrats, open border is favored by base supporters of our party and because ultimately, it is assumed possibly quite wrongly, that children of illegal aliens will vote Democratic.
That, and really the cost and difficulty of closing borders, is why we have the policies we do.
--Hiram
I understand that the states with universal e-Verify have strong sanctions against employers. 3-6 months closure on first offense, permanent closure on the subsequent offense. Lax enforcement doesn't mean the law is wrong.
What is your rationale that this is adequate / acceptable border security?
I was responding to this question. Those who oppose illegal immigration have their rationales too.
--Hiram
Immigration policy provides fertile ground for hypocrisy. Don Trump for example seems to have employed aliens who worked illegally in his modelling agency. And there is substantial reason to believe that his wife worked here illegally in her early years in America.
--Hiram
These charges of hypocrisy, even if true, do not suggest that the policy is in the least incorrect, nor does it suggest that the man himself should be disqualified from suggesting/promoting/enforcing it. How many of us drive 70 in a 65mph speed zone? Does that mean we would suggest not enforcing the speed laws or ignore them in general? If everybody exactly obeyed every law there would be no crime and no police would be needed.
And remember, only Republicans or conservatives can be accused of hypocrisy-- failing to behave according to your stated standards of behavior. Since liberals have no fixed standards....
These charges of hypocrisy, even if true, do not suggest that the policy is in the least incorrect,
Actually, I totally agree with that. The merits of America's immigration policies are quite independent of Donald Trump's abuse of them. But what Trump does can help to explain why we have the policies we do, and the ways in which we enforce them. And to the electorate, Trump's hypocrisy on the issue provides a reason why he shouldn't be taken at his word with respect the policies he says he wants to pursue.
"How many of us drive 70 in a 65mph speed zone?"
But isn't that the kind of tolerance that exists in the status quo that Trump tells us he will put a stop to?
--Hiram
On the first point, you are correct, that campaign promises or speeches often turn into baked air. What we are forced to do is to evaluate such statements on the basis of 1) how truthful we believe the candidate to be generally and, 2) How practical and reasonable the proposed policy is. For example, when Obama promised that our insurance premiums would go down by $2500, we knew he was a bald-faced liar and that such a thing was impossible under Obamacare as structured. Trump's immigration proposals are essentially what he has been saying all along, well buttressed by common knowledge, but with more detail, and those proposals are spot on with a common sense (compassionate) solution.
To your second point, yes and no. Trump tells us he will enforce current law, but prioritizing that enforcement so the worst offenders get deported first. The status quo tolerates essentially open borders, "catch and release," permitting illegal alien criminals to roam free, sanctuary cities, and free government benefits, all of which are illegal under the current law and which Trump proposes to enforce.
I don't think Donald Trump is a truthful guy. I don't think he would say that about himself. He sees himself primarily as a negotiator, and negotiators say untruthful things all the time. Such statements don't even constitute lies, because there is no intent to deceive.
The problem is that Trump, like everyone in the business wing of the Republican Party has benefited enormously from illegal immigration. That's why they support a de facto open borders policy. Now he says he will modify it in certain ways, but that's pretty generally the view of business Republicans now, they just never get around to do anything about it.
--Hiram
Most liars don't lie about every thing at every time. And I think Trump is generally truthful, proven by his consistency over the last several months, but hidden a bit by his tendency towards bombast.
Again, I believe him on immigration because what he proposes is pretty much common sense. Whether he can make that happen, or even intends that to happen, is of course a question. Now, if your belief is that he wants to serve "business Republican" interests, then his plan to enforce current law "with compassion" serves both the "anti-illegal-immigration" cause AND the "cheap labor" cause. If we deport the criminals and leave those who have long-time jobs, maybe have family and have more or less assimilated, we've got a win-win.
I think Trump is generally truthful, proven by his consistency over the last several months, but hidden a bit by his tendency towards bombast.
Trump rarely says things that are true. As a person, he just isn't built that way. He, after all, built his career on the claim that Obama was not born in the United States, something no reasonable person believes. The best you can say, is that his lies are so blatant that they show a lack of intent to deceive.
--Hiram
Trump has a problem with exact language, I will go that far. Obama couldn't prove, for years, that he was born in this country. He was partially raised outside this country, and many people do not believe, based on the obvious evidence, that he doesn't really like this country like someone born here should. And of course the Constitution requires "native born" and disqualifying him from the Presidency would have saved us all a lot of grief. Trump speaks in shorthand, that Obama "was not born in this country." Right idea, poor choice of words.
Trump now says, by the way, "I don't know, but Hillary was a birther, McCain was a birther, neither of them could get the document. Four years later he suddenly comes up with this thing?"
I think you are correct, perhaps, that there is no intent to deceive. Indeed, I believe has supporters understand what he is trying to say in spite of the words he may use to say it. It's almost as if they understand he uses those words to get media attention knowing that THEY will take offense while his supporters understand clearly the underlying idea. He's deceiving the press, mostly, and his supporters love that, too.
Trump has a problem with exact language
Sure, but an inability to speak clearly is hardly a qualification for office.
==Hiram
Nor is high intelligence a requirement for high office. Or to vote, for that matter. I would prefer to qualify or disqualify a candidate based on the ideas underlying their words rather than the words themselves. Words can be changed, adjusted, or explained, while a bad idea remains a bad idea.
So we should turn over nuclear weapons to a man who has problems expressing himself in and understanding the English languages?
--Hiram
I think he understands just fine. I don't think nuclear codes should be entrusted to someone who by all rights should not be able to obtain a security clearance.
After moving my middle daughter to Eau Claire on Thursday, taking my youngest daughter and a friend to the Grand Marais area on Friday - Sunday, and discarding all the junk I took out of Mom and Dad's cabin storage shed earlier today... I am happy for low gas prices and time away from the Clinton / Trump silliness.
I think Hiram is wrong regarding the reason why Liberals like an open border.
"For Democrats, open border is favored by base supporters of our party and because ultimately, it is assumed possibly quite wrongly, that children of illegal aliens will vote Democratic."
These folks are not thinking, they are using their "bleeding hearts". These are the folks who you did not want in your life raft if you had survived the sinking of the Titanic. They are the people who would say let's save everyone by letting them climb into the raft, even as the raft was sinking.
These are the same folks who complain about low wages while encouraging more illegals to enter the country to take the jobs. They see people hurting in Mexico and Central America and think we should help them, even as it is hurts our low income households.
So I think the answer is more likely that they are not thinking. They just see people suffering and they feel "someone" should help them... Preferably those rich people who have too much money anyway...
These folks are not thinking, they are using their "bleeding hearts".
That's certainly an element too. But I also think conservatives favor closed borders because they like to affect an attitude of toughness. The rather wimpy Donald Trump is always telling you how tough he is, especially when he is beating up on someone less powerful than he is.
--Hiram
Sorry, but liberals err when they try to impute motivations to conservatives. If you want to say Trump is "tough on law and order issues" you might get agreement, but you would be wrong to imply it is personal animus (he doesn't know this "someone" you speak of) or racial bigotry.
And we do NOT "favor closed borders." We object to uncontrolled open borders.
liberals err when they try to impute motivations to conservatives
I wasn't speculating on motivations of conservatives. I was just talking about the attitudes many of them project, something quite different from what might motivate such attitudes or such projections. The Donald, for example, in any situation where he is in a power position, reflexively chooses the option which appears to be toughest.
Trump certainly isn't tough on legal issues relating to gambling where the tough option would have been to push him into personal bankruptcy. Back then he was all into leniency and let by gones be by gones for the good of everyone.
--Hiram
I guess we're all entitled to an opinion. Frankly, I hadn't noticed.
It's like the other day, Donald said the president should walk out of a meeting because he was arguably snubbed at the airport. That would appear to be a tough response, but it's one that turns power over to the guy who works the stairs at an airport. Or when Trump refused to appear at a debate because it was moderated by someone he didn't like. Again, a superficially tough response that once again turned power over his actions to someone else.
Trump was an advocate of Brexit, supposedly a strong and tough position. But the result is that it threatens to turn reopen negotiations with Europe, in a context where Britain's negotiating power couldn't possibly be weaker. It's the superficiality of the school yard bully too immature to realize that the stronger powers are necessarily on the playground on a continuing basis.
--Hiram
I second this very important point.
"And we do NOT "favor closed borders." We object to uncontrolled open borders."
And wonder why Liberals continue to try to equate wanting secure borders and complete background checks to xenophobia? I assume it is just name calling, like some kid would do on the play ground.
I am a big fan of securing the borders, deporting the illegals, ensuring background checks are thorough and doubling the rate of legal immigration... How does that align with their xenophobic name calling?
One of my complaints about Trump's immigration speech is that, while he mentions the "touchback" deportation proposition (what I call "wink-wink amnesty" and I'm OK with), he does not suggest a way for someone now here illegally to "touch back" and then come in under the existing quota-- spots supposedly already "reserved" for those "standing in line" to come in legally. I'm not sure "double" is the right number, but I think that after "universal e-Verify" is working and all of the 90% of illegal residents now known to the government have been served notice, we need to have a "temporary easing" of the quota so that those with a job waiting, know where there is an apartment open, with family here and speak passable English, can come in as a "guest worker" with not a lot of questions asked about HOW they know these things.
"And wonder why Liberals continue to try to equate wanting secure borders and complete background checks to xenophobia?"
Most Democrats favor secure borders and comprehensive immigration reform. Let's keep in mind here that it's the Republican nominee for President who has said Mexicans who cross the border illegally are "rapists" and "killers". Those are the sorts of comments that are rightfully called out as xenophobia.
"They see people hurting in Mexico and Central America and think we should help them, even as it is hurts our low income households."
OK, hold on a minute. Previously, you've blamed liberals for not wanting to help others (in the Middle East, primarily) based on humanitarian means. Why is it bad, then, for liberals to help Latin American folks?
Or, are you just criticizing based on the fact that it's "liberals" doing something?
Sean,
A. Some of the people who are crossing the border illegally are smugglers, murderers, rapists, thieves, drug suppliers, etc. Do you disagree?
B. "Teaching to fish" vs "handing out fish that someone else pays for". This is a common repeating difference between Conservatives and Liberals.
Helping Central American people by encouraging them to risk their lives and those of their children to crawl illegally into the USA to take jobs from American workers and to give them benefits that are paid for by the American worker is the latter.
Helping Central Americans to take back their country, so that they can live their in peace and prosperity is the prior.
The latter is better for all in the long term. Just like NAFTA and the USA narco work is helping Mexico to become a more stable country.
"Do you disagree?"
Are there some criminals? Sure. But the rhetoric frequently employed isn't that precise. Let's face it, there's a reason the white supremacist community is flocking to Mr. Trump's campaign.
He does love to stir up the masses... Just like Sanders liked to do against Wall Street workers and Business Owners.
No, no, no. Not playing the false equivalency game here.
False equivalency... You must be kidding...
Bernie was just as big on broad negative stereotypes as Trump is. That is how both of them whipped their more extreme supporters into a frenzy...
Just think of all the financial class hatred that Bernie was tapping into during his rallies. Feel the Bern I mean just look at these stereotypical accusations. One could envision those diabolical evil wealthy people saying Let them eat cake while laughing at the suffering they are causing...
"The rich get richer and the poor get poorer because of government policies that benefit the very few at the expense of the vast majority of Americans."
"Currently the super-rich and the largest corporations and banks in America don’t pay their fair share of taxes, which means there’s not enough funding for programs that will alleviate systemic inequalities."
"Bernie was just as big on broad negative stereotypes as Trump is."
Let's say I agree with you on this point (I don't, but for the sake of argument...). There's a very real difference between Bernie's stereotypes and Trump's stereotypes. Trump's political cachet is based on birtherism, nationalism, sexism, fear of Islam, and an appeal to xenophobia and white supremacy.
So, rhetoric, incitement and [false] stereotypes against some groups are perfectly OK, and in no way morally equivalent to the same against /other/ groups? Why does that sound a lot like political correctness taken to its extreme illogical and detrimental end?
I again point out that an idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it. Nor is a candidate.
Jerry,
I agree... Apparently Sean thinks it is okay to incite hatred towards people who save, invest, start businesses, etc. But Lord knows we would not want to question people who knowingly violate our border or who have incomplete documentation on the refugee request.
Sean,
Sanders was attempting to stage a Socialistic coup and would have been happy to take a huge amount of wealth from the savers/investors and give to the spenders/debtors.
Now I agree that Trump uses the same tools, I am not sure why you are hesitant to agree.
Good Lord, Sanders was trying to win an election not stage a coup. Come in off the ledge.
Another thing Trump and Sanders had in common. :-)
And yet Liberals insist Trump wants to end American democracy as we know it.
Maybe both sides should come off the ledge.
By the way, I agree that coup was not the correct word... The correct word was Revolution.
Revolution: Something we citizens of the United States of American can be thankful for.
But maybe you can prove that Sanders was inciting hatred instead of pointing out the problems with the way we are governed. You have that opportunity.
Joel
Wiki Political Revolution "Such political revolutions are envisioned to overthrow undemocratic governments of bureaucratic privilege, replacing them with governments based on workers' democracy while maintaining state owned property relations."
I wonder if we would be the first fully transparent Democracy to have a revolution against ourselves?
The [desirable] term I keep hearing is "conservative revolution." That is, putting "things" back the way they were before the great liberal transformations of FDR, LBJ, and BO. It took us at least 50 years to get in this pickle, but if Trump can reverse the last 8 he will be doing us a great service.
Post a Comment