Posted on 07/30/2015 6:02:43 PM PDT by C. Edmund Wright
Meanwhile citizenship amnesty for the "good ones", no thanks.
Anyone? Should I hold my breath?
This piece was written by Ben Shapiro of the Salem Radio Network, an outfit that features GOPe stalwarts Michael Medved and Hugh Hewitt. They have been supporting amnesty since Dubya tried to ram it through in 2006.
Pajama boy Ben surely isn’t bothered by Trump going mushy on immigration any more than his amnesty loving Salem Radio pals are. They are bothered because Trump poses a real threat to their GOPe anointed candidates.
So it os if all non-Trump candidates will deport no illegals? How illogical!!!
Keep in mind that Bernie Sanders, the socialist, is pro-gun and anti-open borders. Trump is pro-gun and anti-open borders. A few hot button issues does not a conservative make.
Trump isn’t some everyman telling it like it is to the man. He is the man.
Trump attended exclusive schools growing up. His dad was rich and he grew up rich. Now his dad has a great story and is self-made. Donald was handheld the entire way by his father and built on that success. His dad never went bankrupt. The Trumps have been NY government insiders for more than half a century. They made money in the most regulated and politicized industry there is: real estate. You don’t move into the big leagues of RE on your own merits. You need clout and government support.
Bingo. Great tag line.
So it is ok if all non-Trump candidates will deport no illegals? How illogical!!!
Is the Quinnipiac Poll of Likely Voters or what?
None. They really don't address it.
WHAT DOES TRUMP MEAN?
This is more difficult. I was talking today with somebody who has spent some time with Trump who emphasized that he does not have real experience with policy and doesn’t think in terms of detailed policy. The likelihood is that these comments from him on national TV are things he has thought about but not things that have been worked out in policymaking meetings with staffers and others.
Note that Trump largely sidestepped questions about citizenship. But these two interviews over the last two days — combined with interviews granted last week about wanting to keep hard-working illegal aliens in the country — seem to suggest a policy like this:
1. Illegal aliens would not be rewarded with legal status (work permits, benefits, Social Security cards, citizenship, etc.) without at least first leaving the country.
2. No legal status would be granted to those illegal aliens until illegal immigration is brought under control. At a minimum, that includes a fence and adequate Border Patrol activity. He still hasn’t said if he would take away the jobs magnet nor has he commented on a number of interior enforcement tools.
3. He would start giving legal status to illegal aliens who have gone home ONLY after the “bad” illegal aliens have been deported from the U.S.
4. Once the prerequisites have been met, he would move quickly to get deserving illegal aliens back into the United States. But who are the deserving ones? Some previous comments suggest that it might be only people who have worked hard (illegally) at U.S. jobs and not used taxpayer assistance. Some people think his comments suggest that only illegal aliens with highly valued skills would be allowed back in. Or maybe it is just anybody who didn’t build a criminal record while in the U.S. Depending on the answer to this question, the number allowed back in might be as high as nine million or as low as just tens of thousands, by my estimate.
5. He wants the deserving illegal aliens back in the United States in an expedited fashion. Does that mean there will be additional green cards made available, in which case legal immigration will rise considerably for some time? Or does he want to make the currently available green cards in the current numbers to be given first to the illegal aliens, causing other foreign citizens who are in line to wait more years, in which case the level of legal immigration would remain the same at around 1 million annually?
In general, Trump has described a Touchback Amnesty which was pushed a few years ago by Rep. Mike Pence (now governor of Indiana). At the time, he was one of the hottest rising stars of the conservative movement. Pence’s star immediately plummeted upon his championing the Touchback Amnesty, and it took him years to recover political stature.
The difference between Trump’s Touchback and Pence’s seems to be that Trump has put a lot of “have-to” steps before the amnesty would be given. Those steps might take years.
We may be being generous in giving Trump a Mixed rating on amnesty right now. We will be watching very closely for more signals. We know that he is very, very serious about protecting the American people from tragic violence from illegal aliens. We haven’t seen corresponding signs yet that he is thinking about protecting American workers and their families from harmful job and wage competition.
Reagan also was governor of California and governed like a conservative. Let’s not inflate Trump anymore than he already is.
So it os if all non-Trump candidates will deport no illegals? How illogical!!!
What?
My comment stands.
NONE, ZERO, NADA of all other candidates have anything on their web sites that says they will deport ALL illegals. How can anyone live with hypocrisy, I will never understand.
Instead of answering your question he tells you that you have a small mind?
LOL. It's a trick question to ask if you, as a conservative, are willing to vote for a Democrat?
"But I would point out that Reagan was a Democrat, in the same sense that Trump is, so I would have no problem with voting for a former Democrat."
You see, this is a perfect example of the selective hearing of Trump fans. You didn't even absorb what I told you. Trump is not a former Democrat, and he is nothing like Reagan.
He said in an interview which took place six days ago that many of his views ARE---not were---those of a Democrat.
So. Are you comfortable voting for a Democrat? Do you think that's what the country needs?
" I would also point out that I would have no problem voting for anyone of any political loyalty, if said candidate had the ability and will to neuter the media, and eliminate the upper echelons of the Republican party."
So you'd vote for a Democrat. Okay.
I wonder if that would have been the case before Trump came along.
" So I will play your little game."
It's only a game if you see problems with direct questions and simple concepts.
" I will vote for any candidate who can unite the public in a pogrom against the DC cartel, and who ALSO has clearly won the admiration of the few Republicans that I admire (Cruz, Palin, West, etc.)."
A Democrat will not be good for the country. Trump doesn't have a history of trustworthiness.
And, as much as I like Ted Cruz, I think for myself. I don't let public figures form my opinions.
"So, turn-about being fair play and all, answer my question: vote for someone who can and will destroy the DC cartel, or put your support elsewhere so you can feel better about yourself?"
Let me be clear. I'm sticking with Ted Cruz. Donald Trump will never get my vote, because I'm done voting for liberals.
sorry for the typo, please see post #193.
Never let them photograph you eating. If you must eat, use a fork and keep the portion miniscule. It’s the first rule of politics.
Registered. It’s a left-leaning outfit, I believe (kind of like PPP).
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.