politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: Trump Goes Mushy, Incoherent on Immigration
Source:
Breitbart
URL Source: http://www.breitbart.com/immigratio ... shy-incoherent-on-immigration/
Published: Jul 30, 2015
Author: Ben Shapiro
Post Date: 2015-07-30 17:21:09 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 3232
Comments: 32
Has Donald Trump made his first serious boo-boo of the campaign? For weeks, the media have trumpeted the supposed death of the Trump campaign. First, they claimed, Trump’s campaign imploded on launch thanks to his comments about illegal immigration. Then they claimed that Trump was finished because of his slap at Senator Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)’s (R-AZ) war service. But neither of those comments alienated Trump’s base – he’s maintained his seven point lead over Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker in the 2016 presidential polls, with no other candidate breaking double-digits in the polls. In fact, his original comments about illegal immigration launched his candidacy to prominence, with many Americans relieved that a major candidate had finally touched the media third rail and talked openly about illegal immigrant criminality. Now, however, Trump may have damaged himself with the very people excited by his candidacy. Asked point blank about his immigration policy, Trump dropped the brashness and the blurting, and suddenly went completely Hillary-vague on CNN. After blathering about deporting criminal illegal immigrants – even President Obama pays lip service to this idea – Trump continued: We have to bring great people into this country, okay? And I want to bring — I love the idea of immigration, but it’s got to be legal immigration. Now, a lot of these people are helping us, whether it’s the grapes, or whether it’s jobs, and sometimes it’s jobs, in all fairness, I love our country, but sometimes it’s jobs that a citizen of the United States doesn’t want to do. I mean, there are jobs that a lot of people don’t want to do. I want to move them out, and we’re going to move them back in, and let them be legal, but they have to be in here legally.…Otherwise, you don’t have a country. You don’t have a country, if people can just pour into the country illegally, you don’t have a country, but I would expedite the system. Trump later stated he would give such illegal immigrants “legal status” but not citizenship, then said that “later down the line, who knows what’s going to happen…[citizenship is] something I would think about, but I would say right now no. I’m not open to it. I would say legal status.” With regard to President Obama’s so-called DREAMERs, Trump explained with remarkable vacuity: We’re going to do something. I’ve been giving it so much thought, you know you have a — on a humanitarian basis, you have a lot of deep thought going into this, believe me. I actually have a big heart.…I mean, a lot of people don’t understand that, but the DREAMers, it’s a tough situation, we’re going to do something, and one of the things we’re going to do is expedite — when somebody’s terrific, we want them back here, but they have to be legally…They’re with their parents, it depends. But, look, it sounds cold, and it sounds hard. But, we have a country, our country’s going to hell. We have to have a system where people are legally in our country. Trump said he would be able to expedite the system because other politicians are dumb: “Politicians aren’t going to find them because they have no clue. We will find them, we will get them out. It’s feasible if you know how to manage. Politicians don’t know how to manage.” Um, wut? If this sounds incoherent, that’s because it’s more incoherent than a raging alcoholic after a night of shots who just crashed his Chevy Impala into a lamppost. Trump isn’t famous for his well-considered, well-informed policy proposals. Perhaps this is why. Let’s break down what Trump is actually saying here. Over the course of just a few minutes, Trump says America should: (1) Deport everyone; (2) Reimport nearly everyone; (3) Expedite the system to accomplish (2); (4) Allow everyone who came back in via (2) to gain legal status; (5) Perhaps give them citizenship; (6) Perhaps not give them citizenship; (7) Do “something” with DREAMers. For those who aren’t watching closely, Trump’s plan almost exactly mirrors George W. Bush’s infamous amnesty plan of 2007. Under that plan, Bush pledged to solidify the border; utilize e-verify; create a temporary worker program; reject legal status for illegal immigrants who did not learn English, pay their taxes, pass a background check, and hold a job for years; and send all illegal immigrants seeking citizenship to the back of the line. This, by the way, is also Jeb Bush’s plan. The only real difference is that Trump says he wants to temporarily deport everyone, then let everyone back in because illegal immigrants do “jobs that a citizen of the United States doesn’t want to do.” And he says he wants to do “something” for DREAMers by using his managerial skills to expedite the process. Trump’s charm in the race thus far springs from his willingness to spill his guts, without reference to the typical politically correct jargon that dominates the Republican caucus. Even Republicans who don’t like Trump have been able to contrast his openness with the ridiculous opacity of Hillary Clinton, who said on Wednesday, for example, that she would not explain her position on Keystone XL pipeline until she was elected. Now, Trump appears to be playing something of the same game on immigration. Of course, he’s already played that game with regard to ISIS; he said he had a secret plan to destroy them, then spilled the beans and announced that he would bomb the oil fields, not put troops on the ground, put oil workers on the ground, and then have to put troops on the ground. He’s criticized Obamacare, but also said that he wants nationalized healthcare. His latest expressed tax plan, circa 2011, embraces higher taxes. But we have no clue what his plans are on these issues as of this moment, because Trump probably doesn’t know. Trump has now gone as far as he can go without having to express exactly what he would do. The time is quickly approaching when, if Trump wants to maintain his support, he’ll have to actually enlighten us as to what President Trump’s America would look like, beyond magnificent golf courses and top-flight hotels. Ben Shapiro is Senior Editor-At-Large of Breitbart News and author of the book, The People vs. Barack Obama: The Criminal Case Against The Obama Administration (Threshold Editions, June 10, 2014). 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 30.
#5. To: cranky (#0)
He sounds just like the Stain.
He is AGAINST ILLEGAL ALIENS not LEGAL immigration. Just being fair. This is an attempt by the mainstream of the party to peel Trump's angry base away by making him seem wishywashy.
Oh? Exactly how did the conniving Gay Old Party force poor ol' Trump to make these damaging statements? The truth is that they didn't. But you got to beat a little on your favorite dead horse. Nicely done.
breitbart pioneered taking stuff out of context to freak out and anger the geriatric base.
Oh, come now. Trump chose his own words and he was quoted in full. It wasn't the GOP damaging Trump. It was Trump accomplishing it all by himself, much like Hitlery's own self-imposed death spiral in the polls. Damn, what would you do if you couldn't blame it all on some imaginary Republican, loathsome as they are?
It wasn't the GOP damaging Trump. It was Trump accomplishing it all by himself, much like Hitlery's own self-imposed death spiral in the polls. Damn, what would you do if you couldn't blame it all on some imaginary Republican, loathsome as they are? First of all - you know I was one of the first to critique Trump - I just like how he shook things up - but his words would not offend I assume the Sean Hannity kind of conservative - but Breitbart sure is trying. And, yes, Brietbart works for the GOP or lobbyists thereof.
They do seem aligned with one narrow segment of neocons in their coverage. They were all geared up for attacks on Rand Paul for a while, now far less so as it seems that Trump has sucked up a lot of Paul supporters and Cruz supporters and some Carson supporters. He takes less from the other GOP candidates, I think, because they have deeper support networks with stronger in-party connections.
PS: I should state I am a former Republican - resigned from the party when Bush, jr was president and won't join again until his reign is repudiated by his party. I don't think I can vote in the primaries in my state as an independent. But I would vote for Trump over Clinton. The only Republican I can stand is Rand Paul.
Rand was my first pick but he seems less savvy in his party outreach efforts and they don't seem likely to pay many dividends in the early primaries which is where he must have some wins in order to have any chance at the nomination. So I'm looking over the governors as well. I don't get the yuge stampede to pick a candidate you'll die for before they've even debated once. But I think an overinflated balloon, like any gasbag, will rise very quickly and come down just as fast.
Will so called conservatives tell me when it is OK to be anti-cop - like when so called conservatives wave their Gadsden flags and proclaim 2nd ammend solutions for the oppressive govt and when it's OK to back a cop abusing the citizenry. Because it seems the only difference is if the person the police are confronting is black. Pull guns on cops on the Bundy ranch? Freedom fighters defending liberties against jack booted thugs. Police shooting unarmed black men - the black men had it coming for not cooperating immediately.
You never tire of your little tales about the Bundy ranch, do you? : )
You never tire of your little tales about the Bundy ranch, do you? : ) It to me is the best and most recent example. Also, the people defending the Bundy ranchers on these forums were the ones defending cops when they shot or killed these unarmed people in custody.
I don't recall it that way. But I wasn't a Bundy fan. I thought it was pretty stupid stuff and Bundy was unworthy of such a fuss.
There are no replies to Comment # 30. End Trace Mode for Comment # 30.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestNow, a lot of these people are helping us, whether it’s the grapes, or whether it’s jobs, and sometimes it’s jobs, in all fairness, I love our country, but sometimes it’s jobs that a citizen of the United States doesn’t want to do.
#15. To: TooConservative, cranky (#5)
#17. To: Pericles (#15)
This is an attempt by the mainstream of the party to peel Trump's angry base away by making him seem wishywashy.
#18. To: TooConservative (#17)
Oh? Exactly how did the conniving Gay Old Party force poor ol' Trump to make these damaging statements?
#19. To: Pericles (#18)
breitbart pioneered taking stuff out of context to freak out and anger the geriatric base.
#20. To: TooConservative (#19)
ericles breitbart pioneered taking stuff out of context to freak out and anger the geriatric base. Oh, come now. Trump chose his own words and he was quoted in full.
#21. To: Pericles (#20)
First of all - you know I was one of the first to critique Trump - I just like how he shook things up - but his words would not offend I assume the Sean Hannity kind of conservative - but Breitbart sure is trying. And, yes, Brietbart works for the GOP or lobbyists thereof.
#25. To: TooConservative (#21)
#26. To: Pericles (#25)
The only Republican I can stand is Rand Paul.
#27. To: TooConservative, misterwhite, Liberator, Deckard (#26)
#28. To: Pericles (#27)
Because it seems the only difference is if the person the police are confronting is black. Pull guns on cops on the Bundy ranch? Freedom fighters defending liberties against jack booted thugs. Police shooting unarmed black men - the black men had it coming for not cooperating immediately.
#29. To: TooConservative (#28)
Because it seems the only difference is if the person the police are confronting is black. Pull guns on cops on the Bundy ranch? Freedom fighters defending liberties against jack booted thugs. Police shooting unarmed black men - the black men had it coming for not cooperating immediately.
#30. To: Pericles (#29)
Also, the people defending the Bundy ranchers on these forums were the ones defending cops when they shot or killed these unarmed people in custody.
Replies to Comment # 30.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]