Donald Trump's Position Paper on Immigration.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by vrDrew, Aug 16, 2015.

  1. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #1
    And strangely enough, at first glance it didn't seem that nutty.

    I will give The Donald credit: He obviously paid someone to wrap up his ideas on immigration in a fashion that passes at least a cursory examination for credibility. Where the problems arise is in the detail.

    Lets start with the obvious: His plan for building a wall along the border with Mexico would cost in the tens of billions. And Trump's words notwithstanding, its unlikely that the Mexican government could be persuaded, under any circumstances, to pay for it. Trump's interim solutions, such as raising the fees on foreign imports at US ports and raising fees on visas issued to Mexican diplomats and executives - couldn't possibly make up the shortfall, and would probably result in (at the least) retaliatory fees from other countries. In either case, raising tariffs and fees on imported good effectively raises taxes on American consumers. So it won't be Mexico paying for Trumps Wall - it'll be you and me.

    Then there is his proposal to triple the number of ICE agents - to 15,000. An idea that may have some merit. But one that is going to come at a quite high cost. Is the Republican Congress going to authorize such a costly expansion of the Federal Government?

    The same is true for his proposals regarding the detention of aliens. Keeping such people in permanent detention would cost a tremendous amount of money. And I'm not sure that America really needs to adds tens of thousands of additional non-violent offenders to our prison rolls.

    His proposal to end Birthright Citizenship would require an Amendment to the US Constitution. And inevitably open up a huge can of worms.

    He does bring up the issue of high unemployment among African-American youth. But he seems to conflate this with the HB-1 visa program. I'm not sure that too many unemployed black teenagers have electrical engineering degrees. But I could be wrong.

    Lastly his observation that "we need to stop giving legal immigrant visas to people bent on causing us harm" raises more questions than it answers. How exactly does one do that? Ask potential Visa recipients to check off a little box asking them of their intentions of committing terrorism or other crimes?

    And Trump's harping on the grisly murder of a woman by an alleged illegal immigrant, suffice it to say, is nothing more than textbook demagoguery.

    Donald Trump on immigration: 8/10 for trying. 7/10 Style points. 0/10 for Practicality.
     
  2. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #2
    You put a lot of time into that. How about rating Trump a 100 for offering to DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING about the situation?

    * Have we heard any proposals from the present administration on this issue?
    * Have we heard anything about a plan from Republicans?
    * Have the Democrats offered up a plan?
     
  3. unlinked macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2010
    Location:
    Ireland
    #3
    How many weeks of military spending is that?
     
  4. mrsir2009 macrumors 604

    mrsir2009

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    #4
    Third world immigration is a hard one. On one hand having loads of unskilled workers coming into a region will depress wages in that region, but on the other hand it is very difficult to stop people coming in if they are desperate enough. I think that the only genuine solution is to increase economic opportunities and stability in Mexico so that fewer people will want to enter the U.S illegally to engage in low-skill jobs -- anything else is just putting a plaster on the underlying issue, really. A great start would be to end the war on drugs.
     
  5. vrDrew, Aug 16, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2015

    vrDrew thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #5
    Free Discussion/Debating Tip: Don't ask a question if you don't already know what the answer is.

    I would refer you to this.

    And of course, there is the 2013 Immigration Reform bill negotiated by the President, which passed with bipartisan support in the Senate (including, might I add, current Republican candidate Sen. Marco Rubio). The proposal would have added 20,000 border patrol agents, added hundreds of miles of additional fencing; set aside billions for high tech surveillance equipment; and reduced the deficit by almost a trillion dollars over twenty years. Except it was blocked by maneuvering by House Republicans. (If the bill had come up for a vote it would have passed.)

    See: Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013

    Because, of course, it contained the humane provision to allow people who had lived in this country since they were children to eventually apply for US Citizenship.

    Don't delude yourself that the nation's immigration problems are something that were only uncovered six weeks ago by Donald Trump.
     
  6. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #6
    I disagree with you here. He had the opportunity to publish a well reasoned paper on his opinions. It suffers from a lot of noise and unsourced statistics, and concepts that have failed to gain traction for various reasons.

    He mentions getting Mexico to pay for a border wall, but that's hardly a plan. He won't get democratic support from congress as you already know. He won't have the necessary support from republicans either when they see cost estimates for construction and security. He can't state that Mexico will pay for it without a backup plan.

    The rest of the material regarding immigration is completely unsound. He indicated that he would increase the cost of visas to discourage immigrants from overstaying. That might keep some of the ones who would overstay from crossing in the first place, but he's just speculating. It's not really a plan at all. Nationwide everify is just borrowed from others, but it's probably a good idea.

    There are all kinds of assertions that rely more on congressional authority, which would fall outside his sphere of influence, even as president. It has descriptions of single incidents thrown in for emotional appeal and propaganda statements like "A nation without borders is not a nation." Even the core principles are dishonest.

    I can't see how any of you guys (anyone on here) would view this as more than a meaningless fluff piece. It doesn't contain plans or real positions, and when it attempts to leverage statistics, they are left unsourced. Let's give Trump 100 for stirring the pot.
     
  7. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #7
    A couple of months deployed, give or take.
     
  8. FieldingMellish, Aug 17, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2015

    FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #8
    Senator Jeff Sessions: Trump's America-first immigration plan 'exactly' what American needs.

    In a strong endorsement of Trump's bid to close the border to illegal immigration, the Alabama senator said that regular native Americans and especially minorities would benefit by being put first in line for jobs.

    "This plan puts the needs of working Americans foremost, and develops an effective strategy for improving their wages and job prospects. Crucially, this plan includes an emphasis on lifting struggling minority communities, including our immigrant communities, out of poverty -- by preventing corporations from bringing in new workers from overseas to replace them and drive down wages," said Sessions in a statement.

    "For too long, 'immigration reform' plans in Washington have served the special interests at the expense of working Americans. When the labor market is oversupplied, it tilts the balance of power away from workers and towards employers.

    "In combination with a smart, fair trade policy this proposal would reinvigorate the middle class," added Sessions.

    "This is exactly the plan America needs. Not only would the plan outlined in this paper work, but more quickly than many realize. Most importantly, this plan reestablishes the principle that American's immigration laws should serve the interests of its own citizens.”

    "In combination with a smart, fair trade policy this proposal would reinvigorate the middle class. Polling shows this plan will appeal broadly to all segments of the electorate: prioritizing the just demands of loyal, everyday Americans who have been shunned by a governing elite."
     
  9. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #9
    Wow, who would have thought 'Trump's plan', consulted by Jefferson Beauregard Sessions would be endorsed by Sessions.

    Anyone find it humorous that Trump's Positions page on his site has but one position?
     
  10. vrDrew thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #10


    Free Discussion/Debate Tip #2: Don't plagiarize.

    Its OK to cite and/or quote other people's work. But doing so without proper attribution is disrespectful to just about everyone concerned.
     
  11. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #11
    I've always been against the wall idea thinking that it was too expensive and that it would be more economical to go after employers and institute a citizen database for employers to check an employee's credential. I don't know but imagine if the social security database could be used for such a purpose. However the system would require a bureaucracy to manage.
     
  12. Praxis91 macrumors regular

    Praxis91

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #12
    Illegal aliens would self-deport if they could not find work. Ending the war on drugs would help as well. Some areas probably need walls/fencing, but it doesn't seem feasible for the whole border. Just to be safe, we should line our borders with tanks and mines. We don't need to have military bases in 150 countries.
     
  13. Technarchy macrumors 603

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #13
    I support a wall between the USA and Mexico.

    People talk of cost, but the military spends billions on projects that literally go no where and have no benefit to soldiers or combat effectiveness.

    Build the wall, and let union labor build the whole thing to create American jobs, and create an incentive to finish under budget and on time. Put out contracts for wall maintenance after.

    And anchor babies are a legal and political farce. Make it a requirement for at least one parent to be a citizen.
     
  14. Huntn, Aug 17, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2015

    Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #14
    Your response seems uneven. :rolleyes:

    Do you like the idea of an employment database and bureaucracy or are you just observing that if there was no one here who would hire them, that in itself would be a solution?

    Line the border with tanks and mines? Are you missing a smiley emoticon? ;)

    I'm against the wall, but I've always felt that if you are born in the U.S. while your parent is here illegally, that should not be a basis for citizenship. It seems obvious that the baby should be deported along with the parent(s), if that is workable.
     
  15. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #15
    The Pentagon spends about $10.7 billion per week. That's not counting the DHS and the intelligence community.
     
  16. Praxis91 macrumors regular

    Praxis91

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    #16
    If they could not find work, they would leave. The fastest way to do that is to impose HUGE fines on employers. I had to verify my citizenship to my employer. It's not difficult. You also have to reform the welfare state meaning giving $0 of state and federal to ANY illegal aliens, period. It's not rocket science. You must also punish sanctuary cities.

    Why the hell are we NOT punishing the illegals? Can I simply choose which laws not to follow? Fair is fair, right?

    If someone wants to become a citizen, they need to get in line, but they also have to be skilled or educated. We can barely take care of our own people via the flooded entitlement programs. We can't take every 3rd world reject. The immigration process must be strict and thorough.

    I'm not kidding about lining our borders with tanks/mines/whatever. The primary job of the federal government is national security.
     
  17. sodapop1, Aug 17, 2015
    Last edited: Aug 17, 2015

    sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #17
    The fastest and cheapest way to not only completely end illegal immigration but also to ensure that the current illegal immigrant population entirely self-deports is to take a page right out of the Nazi playbook. We do not need to build any silly wall nor do we need to increase the number of border control agents. We could simply pass a law that mandates that any illegal immigrant caught in the US to serve, let's say 10 years, in a self-sufficient concentration style forced labor camp where if you do not work you do not eat. All costs associated with dealing with illegal immigrants would be offset by the work of the labor camps.

    We would of course give a sufficient notice, let's say a 180 days, before enacting the policy to allow the current illegal immigrants to voluntarily self-deport. Anyone caught harboring an illegal immigrant would be subject to a year of jail in a regular prison, anyone or any business caught employing an illegal immigrant would be subject to a $100,000 fine and as an incentive to report illegal immigrants, we could offer a $10,000 reward.

    While this would certainly end illegal immigration as we know it, it selfishly only protects US interests and doesn't do anything to solve the underlying problem as to why people are illegally immigrating to the US in the first place. This is where the US and other countries could reevaluate their trade policies with Mexico and other South American countries to help better stimulate their economies.
     
  18. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #18
    I've caught FieldingMellish plagiarizing twice before.

    First, should the military be spending "billions on projects that literally go nowhere?" That seems like its own problem and not a logical argument for spending billions more on a border fence.

    Second, let's talk about the cost and the feasibility. The cost of a building a border fence runs, according to a 2009 GAO report, from $400,000 and $15 million per mile. The variation is because of terrain, but also because of the kind of fencing. The fencing produced in Yuma Sector, which is primarily Normandy barriers, is great at stopping vehicles but people can simply wiggle through them. On the other hand, some of the fencing built in Nogales, Ariz. or San Diego, Calif. will be very expensive.

    But, for a moment, let's take the GAO average per mile of $3.9 million a mile. That would cost approximately $7.6 billion for a new fence. Of course, that's not much of a fence and that means that people will climb over it, tunnel under it, or cut their way through it. (On one Arizona ranch, there are welded squares where smugglers have used diamond-toothed cutters to saw through the fence and passed narcotics and people through before jerry-rigging a repair.)

    So, to defend this fence, you need more Border Patrol agents and more surveillance systems. So, we need to estimate that cost as well.

    Also, there are places were you cannot build a fence, for instance along the Tohono O'odham Nation who will fight against a fence on the Baboquivari Mountains, while building anything significant in the Rio Grande Valley means redirecting a major river and hoping that it doesn't swamp, flood, or otherwise destroy your new fencing. The Army Corps of Engineers could probably solve this, but that would mean screwing around with a major source of water for thousands of Texan farmers.

    Of course, now that you have your fence you have stopped approximately 50 percent of those who come to the United States each year and become illegal immigrants because of visa overstays. You've also created a major inducement for drug smugglers, who will still want to get their loads across, to continue making people yet another commodity for smuggling and all the horrors that entails. (The formation of Operation Gatekeeper effectively ended the Mom'n'Pop smugglers who knew the routes and kept people alive in the Sonoran desert, and created the inducements for people to bring whole families across).

    Moreover, this won't solve, for example, the movement of unaccompanied minors and immigrant families because they will just arrive at the Port of Entry, and international law requires we take them in.

    That's fine, I guess. Feel free to amend the U.S. Constitution.

    A Modest Proposal.
     
  19. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #19
    I found this interesting reading:

    Citizenship Clause


    I did not know that this clause was first included in the Civil Rights Law of 1866 and incorporated into the 14th Amendement in 1868, was motivated and specifically written because of the eradication of slavery in the U.S. According to the link, it was written as a Constituional Amendment so the Supreme Court could not overturn it. It can be argued that it's time to update this rule addressing when illegal aliens come to the U.S. pregnant as a strategy to bypass the lines and unlock citizenship.
     
  20. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #20
    My last post was a direct cut and paste. I forgot to add where it came from, and I see that it takes away from the points being made.

    Here's another cut and paste:

    Trumps core principals for his plan are:

    1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.

    2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.

    3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.
     
  21. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #21
    It was Democratic President President Franklin D. Roosevelt who authorized the deportation and incarceration of Japanese during World War II.
     
  22. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #22
    These principles are leading non-sequiturs for Trump's arguments.

    Just because a nation must have borders doesn't mean it needs a wall. Just because a nation needs laws doesn't mean that all laws have to be enforced. And finally, an immigration plan doesn't have to also be a jobs plan.

    It's a good bit of rhetoric, but when it comes to policy, it's mostly hokum.
     
  23. FieldingMellish Suspended

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2010
    #23
    We can use a wall.

    C'mon. No wall is like having a penitentiary on the honor system.
     
  24. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #24
    But what if they are a teenager and this is literally the only life they have ever known? Said teenager might not even be fluent the language of the country their parents came from.
     
  25. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #25
    Why stop at the southern border? Believe it or not people do sneak in from Canada. There are also people getting in by boat on our coastal regions. Obviously the only way to ensure our national security is by building walls around the entire country!

    Oh, but of course not every undocumented worker crossed the border illegally. Many came through with Visas which later expired. Obviously the only real solution then is to block all immigration!
     

Share This Page