PayPal

Thursday, September 01, 2016

Surrender by Any Other Name: Donald Trump’s Big Immigration Speech: “There Will be No Amnesty” = There Will be an Amnesty

By Nicholas Stix

Trump said that there will be no amnesty, but followed that by saying that anyone who entered America illegally will have to go back to his native country and “touchback,” before he can apply to return.

If the federal government permits illegal aliens to return, then it has granted them amnesty. This is exactly what GOP amnestisiacs have called for, for years.

On gay, black supremacist Don Lemon’s CNN show last night, the American Conservative Union’s Matt Schlapp said that Trump's policy prescription was “very similar” (read: identical) to what his old boss, King George II, called for.

“Touchback," apply for re-entry, and get to return and on a “path to citizenship,” was the Bush/McCain/GOP amnesty plan. Thatr’s amnesty, plain and simple.

Even though Trump gave the racist Left what it wanted, Bakhari Sellers and Maria Cardona still vilified him as a "racist," etc., the same as they would have, had he not surrendered.

They immediately interrupted, and sought to shout down Matt Schlapp. He responded, “I waited very patiently, while you spoke.”

As far as Sellers was concerned, America has no immigration laws. “These 11 million—or 12 million people who are here quote unquote illegally…”

What’s with the scare quotes? They’re all illegal aliens, and the real number is more like 50 million.

Maria Cardona vituperated, “As an immigrant, this speech sickened me.”

She claimed that Trump had not offered Hispanics anything that would cause them to vote for him.

“If he does not do that, there is no credible path to 270.”

Do what? He just said he was going to do “that.”

I guess for her, “that” means saying that all illegal aliens can stay. But that wouldn’t help him with Hispanic voters, and would alienate his white voters.

Cardona was just concern-trolling. She’s a Democrat Party operative. What could Trump do that would possibly get a good word or a vote out of her or her ilk? Nothing. But following her malicious advice will certainly cost him the election.

And Cardona isn’t alone. I repeatedly heard last night from talking heads that Trump had gone back to his original position, from June 2015. He did nothing of the sort.

Fox News claims a poll it just did showed that Trump’s base would not be bothered by him “softening” (flip-flopping) on immigration.
I don’t believe that for a minute. Trump created his base with his tough immigration positions. The notion that his base support him, independent of his positions is a blood libel that was foisted on the public by Democrat operatives and Never-Trumper Republican operatives, who asserted that his followers were completely irrational, and that he had no positions. That was part of the “Trump is Hitler” smear campaign.

Trump developed his base through his position on immigration. Period. Millions of his supporters stayed home in 2008 and 2012, because John McCain and Mitt Romney betrayed them. The notion that they could lose through betraying GOP-leaning voters, whole Trump could win while doing so, sounds like a Bizarro World analysis to me.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

I'm a Trump supporter,no matter what--just because I can't stomach the Clintons.So I'll disagree,by acknowledging that Trump,if he wants to try to convince a small percentage of blacks and Mexicans to vote for him,must tweak his immigration message to allow that to happen.
I understand the gameplan.He's also calling for commissions,which by their very nature,are hypothetical,nebulous and non-specific--to study all this.
Therefore,whatever he says now is politics--and I don't hold those views against him.
--GR Anonymous

Anonymous said...

"What could Trump do that would possibly get a good word or a vote out of her or her ilk? Nothing."

This is the whole thing in a nutshell.

What can Trump do that will make "Hispanics" like the GOP and vote for the GOP candidate whoever that person is.

NOTHING. For a "Hispanic" to vote for a GOP candidate would mean the GOP will have to basically violated everything they believe in.

Anonymous said...

"Trump said that there will be no amnesty, but followed that by saying that anyone who entered America illegally will have to go back to his native country and “touchback,” before he can apply to return."

Go back. Stand in line. Wait your turn. Get the correct papers. Do it the legal way. Maybe wait five years or so before you can do so. Sounds about right.

Legal, orderly, peaceful.

And say I am sorry.

Anonymous said...

"Millions of his supporters stayed home in 2008 and 2012, because John McCain and Mitt Romney betrayed them. The notion that they could lose through betraying GOP-leaning voters, whole Trump could win while doing so, sounds like a Bizarro World analysis to me."

YEP. Must not offend the "Hispanic". And maybe have a man named Cruz run for the Presidency. There! That will get their vote! Sure!

Anonymous said...

And build a wall. A literal wall and not some "virtual" wall.

Too bad Mexico. You brought this all one yourselves.

Glaivester said...

I'm a little less picky than you are on this, Nick. It is amnesty in the sense that their having been here illegally won't be held against them if they apply to return.

On the other hand, they'll only be in the same position as any other foreign national applying to come into this country. And if they are allowed in, it will count against whatever other people that country would have sent us. So overall, a big win.

Also, this technically isn't a flip-flop, because he has always said that "the good ones" can come back in. The hope has always been that he will define "good ones" very narrowly.

In any case, the most significant, if unnoticed, point in his speech was his statement that no everyone belongs here. That is, we have the right to keep people out. This is a slap to those who declare "they come here illegally because it's too hard to come here legally" and a significant improvement over "we love immigrants, but they have to come here legally." In effect, it declares that we have a right to determine whom we want in our country, instead of immigration simply being a matter of process (we get to determine how they come into our country).

In any case, he did just what I said he should do. Didn't threaten mass deportation, but didn't promise anything to anyone, and focused on the most unsympathetic cases. He also laid out some principles that can be used to harden his position later.

The important point is that he pulled the Overton Window very, very far toward the right on the immigration question.