The thought crimes of Donald Trump

[MachineGhost]

5) Voting.

No ID is required for voting unless its a rare state that passed voter ID laws.  It's kind of crazy, but true.  I registered with bogus info through the mail and they didn't even blink.

[MachineGhost]

Can you tell the illegal-undocumented-alien immigrant from the legal citizen?

[align=center][/align]

[Lowe]

About Trump, it looks like he couldn't see all the angles.  It was a mistake to question anything about McCain's war record.  There are a lot of Republican primary voters who won't like that, and the rest of the field knows it.  There are at least as many stories out now about these remarks, as there were about the immigration remarks.  This is a chance to kill his campaign, and his opponents won't miss it.

I dislike John McCain, and I can't say I would have supported the war in Vietnam, but even I felt a feeling of disappointment when I heard what the Donald had said.  I hope his campaign recovers, but it may not.

[Libertarian666]

Really? How about the US before the "immigration reform" of the 1920's? Pretty much anyone who wasn't actively contagious could get in.

Who was allowed in was much more tightly controlled than it is today. For one, populations looking to get in were a lot smaller. Secondly, modern transportation didn't exist to make movement very easy for many even if they did want to come. Finally, there were no massive welfare programs that tend to attract people looking to abuse the system and stay when they normally couldn't afford to. Even past waves of immigration saw many people return home simply because they couldn't make it and there was no social welfare net to support them.

It was not at all tightly controlled, since pretty much anyone who could get here and wasn't obviously contagious could get in.
Modern transportation was not necessary for the tens of millions who came in via ship.
However, the last of your points is correct: what is actually incompatible with freedom is a welfare state.
Thanks for clarifying that.

[Libertarian666]

Who was allowed in was much more tightly controlled than it is today. For one, populations looking to get in were a lot smaller. Secondly, modern transportation didn't exist to make movement very easy for many even if they did want to come. Finally, there were no massive welfare programs that tend to attract people looking to abuse the system and stay when they normally couldn't afford to. Even past waves of immigration saw many people return home simply because they couldn't make it and there was no social welfare net to support them.

It was not at all tightly controlled, since pretty much anyone who could get here and wasn't obviously contagious could get in.

No that is not true. The country had national origins policy which was completely dismantled in 1965. The idea that the U.S. would have accepted millions of third world immigrants in the 1900s or earlier is completely wrong. The idea that the U.S. has always taken in anyone regardless of nationality and culture is a modern immigration romantic fabrication.

Notice the catchphrase "Nation of Immigrants" didn't have much prominence in literature until the mid-1960s, which just happens to coincide with Ted Kennedy's disastrous 1965 immigration act changes. The message of "Nation of Immigrants" was pure propaganda to work with the proposed law changes:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?c ... ts%3B%2Cc0

The reality is the U.S. used to be extremely selective about who was being allowed in but is not any longer. The national interests of immigration has been completely discarded.

"One of the first significant pieces of federal legislation aimed at restricting immigration was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which banned Chinese laborers from coming to America. Californians had agitated for the new law, blaming the Chinese, who were willing to work for less, for a decline in wages.

Other than that, the first national origin limits were in the 1920's:

"In 1917, Congress enacted legislation requiring immigrants over 16 to pass a literacy test, and in the early 1920s immigration quotas were established. The Immigration Act of 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent of the total number of people of each nationality in America as of the 1890 national census–a system that favored immigrants from Western Europe–and prohibited immigrants from Asia."

http://www.history.com/topics/u-s-immig ... efore-1965

By the way, several of my grandparents came over from third world countries in the early years of the 20th century, so I know a fair amount about this topic.

[Libertarian666]

"One of the first significant pieces of federal legislation aimed at restricting immigration was the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which banned Chinese laborers from coming to America. Californians had agitated for the new law, blaming the Chinese, who were willing to work for less, for a decline in wages.

Other than that, the first national origin limits were in the 1920's:

"In 1917, Congress enacted legislation requiring immigrants over 16 to pass a literacy test, and in the early 1920s immigration quotas were established. The Immigration Act of 1924 created a quota system that restricted entry to 2 percent of the total number of people of each nationality in America as of the 1890 national census–a system that favored immigrants from Western Europe–and prohibited immigrants from Asia."

You are proving my point. Immigration to the U.S. has not been an open door not only because cheap travel was hard, but no welfare existed to support anyone once here. Finally, there were specific exclusions to preserve the demographics. Together, the immigration system was anything but an open door.

No, actually you are proving my point, which is that many people came here even though it was expensive and there was no welfare, and there were very few demographic restrictions until the 1920's.

I don't think we can do anything about the cheapness of travel, but getting rid of the welfare state would definitely improve immigration, among its other virtues.

[Greg]

Does the poem have anything to do with shaping people's thoughts towards what we actually did historically for immigration. Did this poem then lead people to false assumptions about who we wanted to actually come into this country?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

[Xan]

getting rid of the welfare state would definitely improve immigration, among its other virtues.

Since that's not going to happen (really, it isn't, not judging either way), the question is what do we do about immigration?

[Xan]

Does the poem have anything to do with shaping people's thoughts towards what we actually did historically for immigration. Did this poem then lead people to false assumptions about who we wanted to actually come into this country?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_Colossus

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Read that with a pre-welfare-state mentality and then with a welfare-state mentality.  In the former, the poem is about giving everyone who wants one a shot.  In the latter, it's about giving away free stuff to degenerates.  I think it was intended to mean the former.

[Libertarian666]

getting rid of the welfare state would definitely improve immigration, among its other virtues.

Since that's not going to happen (really, it isn't, not judging either way), the question is what do we do about immigration?

It is going to happen, one way or another. The question is whether it will happen as a result of a total collapse of the dollar, or voluntarily.

In the meantime, asking what to do about immigration while we have a welfare state is like asking what religion the Pope should convert to.

[dualstow]

I've read this entire thread and copied some of it to an archive.  WiseOne, the experience you related below is, for me, the most disturbing part of the whole 7 pages.  There's got to be some way to stop the flow of those who have recently arrived, have contributed nothing, and are eager to pillage the healthcare system.

Unless we come up with some kind of (technological?) solution akin to magic, Thomas Malthus & craigr will eventually be right. It's just the cruel mathematics of limited resources and too many homo sapiens.

Perhaps it's time to shed the guilt and feelings of hypocrisy because we were born here. My ancestors arrived from the border of Hungary & Romania speaking nine languages...but had to learn English here. They couldn't just move to Miami and survive in an enclave. I didn't have to worry about that, and believe me I know how good I've had it, and how easy I have it. That doesn't mean I should want to keep the floodgates open until our society is ruined.

I wonder if China is laughing at us.

It is tempting to make an analogy between the current Hispanic immigration wave and the European immigrants of the early 20th century, but there are some VERY notable differences.  A big one is that the European immigrants knew they needed to speak English here, and did not expect to be catered to in their native language.  Another is that welfare was non-existent, and it was a given that they'd have to work hard to succeed and live only on what they earned.

My dad used to tell us repeatedly, "The world doesn't owe you a living."  I detect the converse of that attitude in the majority of recent immigrants.  In the Medicaid clinic at my workplace where about 99.9% of the patients are from the Dominican Republic, the sense of entitlement is just breathtaking.

[moda0306]

Hilarious. If you're a fan of Always Sunny, read this.

https://medium.com/@jhermann/who-said-i ... 50d02cc0f8

[dualstow]

Hilarious. If you're a fan of Always Sunny, read this.

https://medium.com/@jhermann/who-said-i ... 50d02cc0f8

Classic!

[MachineGhost]

I dislike John McCain, and I can't say I would have supported the war in Vietnam, but even I felt a feeling of disappointment when I heard what the Donald had said.  I hope his campaign recovers, but it may not.

Same here, but being a POW is not a war hero.  A war hero earns a valor medal for doing something brave against the enemy, not surviving a prison camp as a war loser.  Trump is just being honest about the situation.  But, he sure lacks tact!

[MachineGhost]

Why did Ted Kennedy change immigration law to literally allow anyone and their mother to come in based on family connections instead of meritocracy?

Obviously, that's been an utter disaster.

[rickb]

Bumping this thread in honor of Trump's win in Nevada and to illustrate again that immigration is *the* issue for America, bar-none.

Since this thread started, we have had massive immigrant crime wave sweep through Europe, Paris shot to pieces, San Bernadino shootings, and countless other violent acts because of out of control immigration.

My points in this thread are just as valid as ever. Hopefully Trump will take the same attitude with him into the White House to get control of the immigration situation and shut the entire sham down. I also hope other Western countries take his lead and do the same.

Yes, I understand that the massive immigrant crime wave may be as much as 0.1% of the number of traffic fatalities in the same time interval, so obviously the world is coming to an end!

I'm not suggesting Trump has said anything like this, but we could round them all up and put them in camps - and if it's too expensive to ship them back to where they came from, we could figure out some other way to permanently keep them from taking our jobs!!  (applause here) Let's do it folks!!!  (more applause)  Let's make America great again!!!!!  (wild applause and cheering)

[Pointedstick]

You're right, Trump hasn't said anything like that. All he's suggested is that we enforce the immigration laws that we already have. Laws that I'll mention Obama has been at times vigorous about enforcing himself; his administration has deported more than two million people over the course of his presidency. Does that make him Hitler-lite as well? Or maybe it's more like enforcing immigration laws it just a basic part of being the president no matter who you are, and these hyperbolic comparisons to Japanese internment or the holocaust are just embarrassing histrionics borne out of unnecessary fear and panic.

[rickb]

You're right, Trump hasn't said anything like that. All he's suggested is that we enforce the immigration laws that we already have. Laws that I'll mention Obama has been at times vigorous about enforcing himself; his administration has deported more than two million people over the course of his presidency. Does that make him Hitler-lite as well? Or maybe it's more like enforcing immigration laws it just a basic part of being the president no matter who you are, and these hyperbolic comparisons to Japanese internment or the holocaust are just embarrassing histrionics borne out of unnecessary fear and panic.

Well, actually, he's suggested rounding up and deporting 11 million illegal immigrants - which I'm sure would go perfectly smoothly (he's Trump after all!!!).  Of course, maybe he doesn't actually mean that.

If enforcing immigration laws is just a basic part of being the president no matter who you are, what will Trump do differently from anyone else?

[Pointedstick]

It is indeed quite possible that Trump doesn't mean it, and the figure is simply or strong first offer or "big ask"--a negotiating technique to get something less but still substantial. After all, this is what he always does, by his own admission.

Of course, if he actually does plan to do it, I don't see why anyone who believes in borders and laws should have a problem with it. We're talking about the people who broke the law and are in the country illegally. Enforcing the law necessarily entails kicking them out. That's the penalty for breaking that law: being kicked out. Obama shows us the way: just do what he's doing, but more and harder. Obama after all has been rather tentative at various points in time, and very vigorous at other points in time. His has been a kind of schizophrenic enforcement--for example, at one point basically inviting people to enter illegally, only to later deport them once they came.

http://www.al.com/opinion/index.ssf/201 ... utive.html

Now, President Obama appears shocked by the influx of unauthorized immigrant children into the United States. In a June 30th letter to congressional leaders, President Obama requests help in stemming the tide of children, especially unaccompanied children, illegally entering the United States. He also highlighted the need to clarify to potential migrants that "recently arriving individuals and children will be placed into removal proceedings, and are not eligible for [DACA]...." Even the President tacitly concedes the impact DACA has had in incentivizing unauthorized immigration, particularly with respect to children.
[...]
President Obama's DACA program falsely fueled hope for thousands of would-be immigrants seeking opportunity for their children. Now those parents who traveled with their children and thousands of unaccompanied children are detained and being carted around the United States as our government attempts to sort out their return. The President accurately recognizes the "immediate humanitarian crisis," but he fails to acknowledge his role in creating it.     

If you want to talk about cruelty to the vulnerable, this fits the bill pretty well, I'd say: enacting by fiat and with no support a policy that encourages desperate families and vulnerable children to cross through a burning desert, only to deport them once they arrive at their destination, full of hope. This thing that Obama actually did seems a lot more cruel than anything Trump has proposed to far.

[jafs]

Last time I checked, Obama has been deporting as many people as there was funding to do, and the R controlled Congress refused to authorize more money for deportations.

[jafs]

Do you have any sources for that, especially the "catch and release" part?

I understand that there have been a number of ways in which he has prioritized who's to be deported, and given limited resources, those mostly make sense to me, like deporting people who have committed crimes first.

[jafs]

I looked it up.

Catch and release was the name of the policy that existed for many years under Bush 2, until 2006, in which arrested illegal immigrants were released before their trial, because of limited resources and the lengthy nature of that process.

Breitbart and other right-wing sources are calling Obama's prioritization policies "Catch and release 2".

The point remains that our resources are limited, and if we want more deportations, it will cost more money.  And that it makes sense to prioritize those in some way, given limited resources.  A quick search finds Obama has deported more illegal immigrants than other presidents.

Executive orders are of limited value over time, precisely because they can be changed by new presidents every four years, possibly.  Regardless of who wins the election, their new executive orders will have that same characteristic.

[Pointedstick]

Jafs, it's not surprising that Congress has failed to appropriate more money for border enforcement since the Republicans took it over. It's not a high priority for them, either. They and their business interests like the cheap labor. That's the primary thing that makes Trump different from all the other Republicans: he actually wants to do something about this. They don't. Nobody in D.C. did until he came along. The Republicans and Democrats had a tidy gentleman's agreement to let it continue for their own reasons.

[jafs]

So, a Trump presidency wouldn't change that.

It's the Congress that makes and passes budgets, not the president.

[Pointedstick]

So, a Trump presidency wouldn't change that.

It's the Congress that makes and passes budgets, not the president.

Are all presidents equal in their skill at working with congress?