"TGIF!" Albrecht Durer
Posted on 08/26/2016 9:27:54 AM PDT by 20yearsofinternet
The immigration issue is not an absolute deal-breaker in my opinion, because it’s not the biggest problem that the country now faces anyway.
I would rank the problems in this order:
1. Out of control spending long-term that will eventually bankrupt the nation and ruin the economy.
2. Slavish adherence to political correctness in all things, as one major example, climate change, preventing realistic and prudent solutions at the expense of fantasies of college professors with no actual clue.
3. National security; the Mexican illegal immigrants form a component of this but unvetted Middle East refugees are the larger component.
4. Unbalanced trade deals.
5. In this particular election, the prospect of electing somebody potentially worse than the current office holder.
6. Racial tensions that are being whipped up by cynical race baiters who need the unrest to remain relevant, and with a long-term view of social revolution (i.e. communism).
Some leeway is probably necessary on details of Trump’s plans to respond to any or all of these (no subtlety exists with point 5, you have to win the election to prevent this one).
As others have noted, finding, rounding up and deporting roughly ten to fifteen million people would not come easily or without costs, meanwhile if the trend can be reversed and policies enacted that will make the illegals think twice about staying, that will likely produce a good end result. Perhaps some will make good citizens after a process of returning and applying in good order.
For me, Trump would have to have a series of unprecedented reversals and meltdowns before he got even in sight of the failure barrier. He is so far ahead of the alternative in so many different ways that we should trust in the process and take whatever is available, at this point the choice is more or less get in the lifeboat or hang out with the captain on the bridge and see what happens after the hull cracks open.
Of course Ann is doing this. She is hot headed and jumps into a controversy on the wrong side and very often
Rush was fueling this yesterday saying her book was all about trump never giving in to amnesty and any wavering would lose him his support
Rush says trumps supporters (he was calling them trumpists pretending that’s not an insult)
Could be she’s reacting to that
Rush is wrong so is she
Trumps base is smarter that politicians and pundits give them credit for.
Trump is not a politician and he is not going to turn into one not to the extent that McCain Rubio Romney et al are used to getting into a position then blowing off their voters. There is reason to believe trump will do the opposite: say what he needs to to get elected, then enforce the law after he gets in
These two need to dry up as much as they say trump needs to change to suit tgem
“Then you should know better.”
Right, I should know that he doesn’t really mean softening when he says “softening.” and his position is rock solid even when he put his position up for an audience vote in Austin.
And I should know that Eric Trump has no idea what he’s talking about when he says his father’s rock solid position is evolving.
To add about the law already on the books that I see posted here time to time.
There are time limit restrictions set, depending on severity of recidivism, when someone found illegally inside the United States and deported can legally come back.
The perpetrator who has been found illegal inside the US can be restricted to come back to the country after is 1, 3, 10 years, or banned forever.
So when Trump says they can come back legally he’s talking about this.
As you wish.
"TGIF!" Albrecht Durer
I agree with the 75 - 80% rationale, but I think Trump still deserves a higher grade than 75-80, despite the “softening” remarks.
Jeff Sessions explained it best, but it’s a subtle point and I wish some other Trump defenders would pick up on it.
Sessions’ point (paraphrased) was that the worst part about Reagan’s amnesty wasn’t that the illegals already here got cut a break. The worst art was that it was offered in exchange for real ‘from now on’ border enforcement that never materialized.
Like Charlie Brown, conservatives are not willing to go for the kick with Lucy holding the ball - they’ve been burned too many times by the offer of ‘if you grant amnesty to those already here, we will secure the border and enforce the law from now on.’
So as Sessions says, we should insist on securing the border FIRST unconditionally, and independent of any decisions of how to deal with illegals already here. No comprehensive reform that offers amnesty in exchange for reforms we want that will never materialize. No deals.
Trump and Sessions are still completely (100%) on track with this position.
All they are saying is that after we get 100% of what we want regarding border enforcement going forward (a great victory), it is wise to acknowledge that there are difficulties with affecting mass deportation of 20-30 million illegals - if not moral difficulties, at least political difficulties.
To force Trump to say the words “I will deport illegals immediately” is to corner him politically so that he can’t win. The left sees this as a perfect wedge issue and will keep asking him the question; “will you deport?”, hoping that his own core supporters will be such useful idiots that they will join in and say, yeah Trump - will you deport?.
What Sessions is trying to tell us is that Trump must not be forced by his own supporters to say something most Christians would have such a hard time swallowing, that tens of millions of poor brown people will be forced into box cars and dumped on the other side of the order.
Look it’s criminal what’s been going on for decades with the borders - terrible for the American worker, taxpayer and since they are all democrat voters, terrible for the future of the republic. You don’t have to tell me how bad it is.
I’ll be happy if we really fix the borders going forward - and Trump has not backed down on that at all. As for the illegals already here, I think Trump is exactly right- it’s a tough problem, let’s deal with it AFTER the borders are secured, let’s deal with it separately.
We have a chance to get Trump into the White House - why force him to say words that 90% of Republicans sitting in church on Sunday would have a hard time uttering?
“Chicken Little Annie” didn't listen to Trump...she listened to the MSM spin....She should know better!!!
It says he is a pragmatist, not an ideologue.
I knew that about him thirty years ago.
Marxist and Neocon ideologues have well-nigh destroyed the USA. I am willing to allow a non-professional politician who is a professional capitalist have a shot at undoing some of the damage.
Take him or leave him.
I take him.
“He says he’ll deport criminals, but lots of them aren’t criminals.”
True. He’s clearly stated repeatedly, “We’re going to enforce the law.” If you want to look for something that isn’t there. I’m sure nothing I say is going to deter you from continuing. This is a made up MSM talking point too many on FR apparently have bought into. It’s ok, Trump is going to win anyway.
Vote Trump 2016
Ann is not stupid and she’s not a liar about this. Trump is sounding like he’s going to the gang of eight plan for illegal immigration. (From the Town Hall he had with Hannity) This plan to accommodate illegals was soundly rejected by American-Americans in the past. No use in getting angry at people for stating the truth. People are not stupid. Trump needs to understand what he is doing at the behest of his uni-party/globalist advisors.
I’ll still vote for him and work for his local campaign and during the election because I don’t want Hillary in the White House. But his new team of idiots sure knows how to curb the enthusiasm. They put a globalist wedge issue right in the heart of his own solid base. They want him to lose.
I was thinking the same thing.
I think the criminals finals should be deported ASAP along with the recent influx of illegals.The rest could take some time, but if someone has been here a long time and is actually productive they could be offered some papers as long as they pay taxes owed. That does not mean they can go back and collect child tax credits and earned income credits like the IRS said they would when it was proposed before. And anyone that gets legal should not be able to collect any kind of benefits for reversal years. If they want a better life for themselves as they say, citizen taxpayers should not have to pay for it!
Ideally (unfortunately, like a snowball’s chance in hell), I’d want to enforce the constitution strictly, which would mean millions of illegals wouldn’t be here in the first place, and any found would be deported immediately, regardless of how sad they looked. Moreover, the income tax and its tax funded socialist “magnet” of welfare transfers, free medical, free education, etc. wouldn’t even exist.
But the point I wanted to make here on FR is that Trump should NOT be held accountable (by his own supporters) when he occasionally ‘softens’ slightly from publicly advocating this ideal of strict enforcement of the constitution.
It is like saying that since sugar is terrible for children, we should force Trump to pledge that as president he would outlaw ice cream cones. How stupid is it to force your own candidate to declare unpopular positions?
Yet that’s what conservative republicans always try to do. The democrats love how stupid we are, and take advantage of it by bringing these wedge issues up all the time, and we fall for it.
I think Trump is pragmatic enough and intelligent enough to know that conservatism works and push for conservative reforms when in office.
I think he is also pragmatic and intelligent enough to know that this will take some finesse and just the right tone to appeal to an electorate that is not so intelligent.
Appealing to frustrated people to reject the rigged system, the incompetent leaders, the donor class establishmment in DC. - this is just brilliant.
I say let him do it his way, let him choose his own words, let him try it his way without policing his every word for whether he is conservative enough.
What do we have to lose? Worst case, if he cops out, he’ll be 1000 times better than the alternative. If he doesn’t cop out (and I don’t think he’s s cop out) he could be the best thing that happened for conservatism since RR.
I agree with you. Good post.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.