Election 2016

Yes, Donald Trump Has Totally Flip-Flopped on Immigration. Good for Him!

He's gone from calling for mass deportations to letting illegals pay taxes and stay. That's a start toward a better policy.


Todd Krainin, Reason

How central was attacking illegal immigration to Donald Trump's success at winning the Republican presidential nomination? Let's say it was just about everything to him and to his early supporters. Remember that five minutes into his announcement that he was running for president, Trump started laying into Mexicans as rapists, drug mules, disease-carriers, and all the rest.

Attacking illegal immigration was his campaign in its earliest incarnation. He railed against "sanctuary cities" and the nonexistent crime waves caused by illegal immigrants all over the country. He talked incessantly about his big, beautiful wall on the country's southern border and how Mexico would pay for it. In a characteristic outburst on the subject, Trump told NBC's Chuck Todd that he would even kick out kids who were U.S. citizens but whose parents were illegal. "They've got to go!" he told the newsman on his private jet. "They've got to go!"

Despite ranking low-to-nonexistent among the concerns of Republican voters, addressing the supposedly ruinous influx of mostly Hispanic illegals remains central to many, if not most, professional conservatives and right-wingers. "Conservatives are now starting to see a candidate's position on immigration as an index of his conservatism in general," wrote National Review's Ramesh Ponnuru at Bloomberg View. "Favoring tighter control of immigration is becoming a stand-in for conservatism." Indeed, the main beef with the #NeverTrumpers at the conservative National Review was precisely that The Donald wasn't serious when he promised to deport 11 million people upon taking office. As NR's editors wrote in their house editorial, "Conservatives against Trump":

Trump says he will put a big door in his beautiful wall, an implicit endorsement of the dismayingly conventional view that current levels of legal immigration are fine….

Trump piles on the absurdity by saying he would re-import many of the illegal immigrants once they had been deported, which makes his policy a poorly disguised amnesty.


Well, it turns out that they were right. Here's Trump talking yesterday on Fox News' Hannity about his new-and-improved policy toward illegal immigrants:

During a "Hannity" town hall on Tuesday, Trump said he was open to "softening" laws dealing with illegal immigrants.

On Wednesday, Trump told Hannity there would be "no citizenship" for those illegal immigrants.

"Let me go a step further—they'll pay back-taxes, they have to pay taxes, there's no amnesty, as such, there's no amnesty, but we work with them," Trump said.

He also spoke of how hard it would be to deport people who have lived in the country for decades and raised a family.

"Now, everybody agrees we get the bad ones out," Trump said. "But when I go through and I meet thousands and thousands of people on this subject, and I've had very strong people come up to me, really great, great people come up to me, and they've said, 'Mr. Trump, I love you, but to take a person who's been here for 15 or 20 years and throw them and their family out, it's so tough, Mr. Trump,' I have it all the time! It's a very, very hard thing."

Trump stands firm on no path to citizenship and he insists that what he is outlining now isn't "amnesty" in any, way, shape, or form. He's full of it, of course. As Conservative Review puts it, "Trump just officially adopted the Jeb Bush/Gang of 8 position on amnesty."

To which I would only add: Good for him.

It's a start toward acknowledging reality—finding, arresting, and deporting millions and millions of people all over the country would require the establishment of exactly the sort of domestic police state about which conservatives used to be worried. It also puts Trump and by extension the Republican Party closer to the two-thirds of Americans who favor citizenship if current illegals meet "certain requirements" (such as paying fines and back taxes).

The conservative paroxysms over immigration (legal and illegal) are misplaced and deeply disturbing from any sort of policy or moral and ethical position. Immigrants (again, legal or illegal) commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans. They don't "steal" jobs from Americans, or use welfare at higher rates than similarly situated natives. Two-thirds of illegals pay Social Security, Medicare, and payroll taxes, a proportion that will only increase when they are brought out of the shadows. Like previous waves of immigrants, they come here chiefly for economic opportunity (and they stop coming here when the opportunities dry up.

Washington Post

So in this sense, it's good to see Donald Trump change his views on dealing with illegal immigrants already in the country. His new, softer position may be a tough sell to #NeverTrump conservatives, but they're already against him anyway. If he's smart—and he rarely misses an opportunity to tell us his very, very smart!—he might even start pressing the Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who in 2003 stated she was "adamantly opposed" to illegals, on her connection to one Barack Obama.

Who, as we all know (don't we?), is the. worst. president. ever. when it comes to deporting people:

Obama's government has deported more than 2.5 million people—up 23% from the George W. Bush years. More shockingly, Obama is now on pace to deport more people than the sum of all 19 presidents who governed the United States from 1892-2000, according to government data.

If Donald Trump—and conservatives and Republicans more generally—want to consider different immigration policies that would actually help the country as well as the people who want to come here to live and work, they should start here.

NEXT: Baltimore Police Deploy Surveillance Tech Designed for the Iraq War

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Taking away the Trump campaign’s meat and potatoes is only going to leave us with an empty plate.

    1. Start working at home with GOOGLE! YAHOO. ABCNEWS AND MORE GLOBAL SITES? It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Monday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this ? 4 weeks past. I began this 7-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $97 per hour. i work through this web.. Go this website and go to tech tab for more details… http://goo.gl/jrG8Uv

    2. Seriously. Trump is a total moron. True, this change shows he’s a moron in the right direction (for once), but a moron nonetheless.

      1. Please tell me Johnson is thinking about flipping away from his Statist, Socialist Authoritarian political positions….
        How in Hell does a “Libertarian” support carbon taxes?
        Or FORCING Jewish bakers to bake for Nazis?
        Or supporting gun control?
        Or supporting hate groups like BLM?
        Trump is more Libertarian than Johnson ever dreamed of being.

        1. Not that Trump is a Libertarian.

        2. I keep seeing this line, and then I struggle to square it with the whole “foreign trade is evil and we have to stop it” sort of approach.

          I mean I thought free trade was kind of a cornerstone of libertarianism.

      2. No. Immigration was one of Trump’s positive areas. No more illegals.

  2. Good for him?!?!?

    I don’t know who stole Nick Gillespie’s logon ID and is using it to publish silly articles under Nick’s name, and I think they should have their IT guys jump on this pronto!

    Because it can’t be the real Nick writing this article. The real Nick has been following politics for years and would know that nothing Trump says actually matters. The guy is a lying shitweasel who will say whatever sequence of words he thinks will serve his purposes at that moment in time.

    Thus none of his pronouncements actually say anything about which policies he will pursue in office. They give a hint as to what he really worries about, but no more.

    Trump is primarily a reactionary. Today he will promote policy A because that is what circumstances dictate. Tomorrow, he will flip and promote the complement of A, not because he realises A was a bad idea, but because the circumstances dictate the complement of A.

    In the case of Trump, who currently doesn’t hold *any* political position, there are no actual policies he is executing, only ideas he throws out to the crowd in order to get their support. And he will say whatever he thinks will get him elected. And if elected, he will do whatever he thinks is best, even if he shamelessly is violating a sincere pledge made two months ago.

    1. It’s interesting, if you replace “Trump” in your post with “any politician”, it’s still just as true

      1. It is!

        Hell you could write the same comment about one of Hillary Clinton’s speeches.

        This is why I get so exercised about Reason wasting reporter man hours and precious column inches on covering the campaign.

        The politicians lie. The reporters report those lies as if they had some connection with the truth (when we all know that whatever connection they have is primarily accidental). People consider the lies the reporters have transmitted as is they were the truth and react to them. The people who are politicians generally react by publishing their own lies to buttress/debunk the original set of lies. The reporters then report that new set of lies and the cycle of bullshit begins anew.

        And it will keep continuing as long as reporters keep transmitting politicians’ lies!

        While Reason is wasting time analyzing Hilary’s latest twitch, Trump’s latest brainfart or the comically irrelevant sideshow that is Gay Jay’s vanity campaign, how many Corey Mayes are languishing on death row for lack of an investigator to look into and publicize their plight?

        1. Yeah I agree man. It’s just lies all the way from the bottom to the top.

          I think the constant lying, and the media spreading all these lies, is what has lead to the development of the current culture of identity politics that we have. People know (or are at least starting to catch on) that these liars aren’t going to do a single thing they say they will. So they vote for the person based on their identity, not based on their policies.

          And so we end up with two despicable scumbags as the major party nominees. And we end up with two major party’s who are both unabashedly statist, a choice between a liberal fascist and a right wing fascist

          1. Yall are both exactly right. When faced with the exact same two people running for office with the proven penchant for corruption, one does not need to hear what they have to say.

            If I were to waste my time to vote, it would be for the orange headed likely criminal over the existing uber criminal only because she is such a disgusting, despicable, nasty c*nt hag and I just cant take 8 years of listening to her.

            1. What soft headed crap. Teump and Clinton are not equivalent. If Hillary gets in, she will move this country so far towards Marxism there won’t be much left. At least Teump will not do that.

              Christ some of you people are idiots.

          2. Not to mention that reason could far better serve free minds and free markets by discussing how people can operate in the underground economy when our government becomes so bloated it cannot enforce its own onerous regulations and thus just unravels under its own weight.

        2. The value of the lies politicians tell is that they can then be used against them. If you are for the other side, this matters a lot. If it’s your side doing the lying, you try to cover it up or spin it away, of course.

      2. Some politicians flip out of regretful necessity. Others flip out of convenience. Donald Trump flips for reasons known only to Donald Trump.

      3. Trump is the Al Jolson of politicians.

      4. You could replace “Trump” with “most people”. It’s less true among voters than non-voters, but people generally don’t have time to waste thinking about these things and so make snap judgments about these things that they can scarcely affect anyway.

        1. “It’s less true among voters than non-voters”


    2. Look, you have to believe this is all serious business. They’ve been reporting on it nonstop for months now!

    3. You don’t have to worry, Gillespie is still voting for the Snukeapotamus anyway. Probably in both D.C. and Ohio.

      1. I think it’s very safe to say that Gillespie will pull the lever for Johnson. Or not vote. I can understand the former and heartily endorse the latter since I won’t be casting a vote for any presidential candidate.

        But, yeah, it’s pretty clear he wouldn’t agonize over the question of Clinton vs. Trump for a microsecond. He’d vote for Mrs “let’s destabilize the middle east and north africa and bomb the shit out of brown people” without hesitation.

        1. But, yeah, it’s pretty clear he wouldn’t agonize over the question of Clinton vs. Trump for a microsecond.

          In the hypothetical world where that exists.

          Is it really fair to say that anything is clear in a counterfactual, hypothetical situation?

        2. Never stay home. Always vote, even if it’s for Bugs Bunny. Politicians care much less about people who don’t vote than those who do.

    4. even if he shamelessly is violating a sincere pledge made two months ago

      Shamelessly is exactly the right word.

      Trump calls himself the world’s best negotiator, but most of us who have at least some morals and ethics and scruples would say he doesn’t negotiate at all – he only renegotiates. For most of us, negotiation is what you do before you sign the contract, signing the contract is the end of negotiations and, having given your word, you feel some sense of obligation to keep your word. With Trump, signing a contract, giving his word, is merely the beginning of negotiations because the real negotiation is in trying to force him to keep his word. If you give him what he wants, if you live up to your end of the bargain before he delivers what he promises, what leverage do you have to make sure he keeps up his end of the bargain? As far as Trump is concerned, you’re just a poor negotiator if you don’t have anything to hold hostage. He firmly believes a fool and his money are soon parted and he sees it as his mission to do the parting. How the hell can you believe he’s running his campaign any different than he’s run his businesses his whole life?

      1. If you owe the bank a million dollars, you have a problem. If you owe the bank a hundred million, the bank has a problem.
        Of course I re-negotiate deals – doesn’t everybody?
        I’ve never declared bankruptcy, my corporations have, but I’ve always done very well on my business dealings.
        This may be the first campaign in history to turn a profit.

        Those ought to give you a clue as to how the guy thinks and operates. As long as he can make a buck, that’s all that matters. If you’re the stupid investor losing ten so he can make one, well, it must suck to not have a good brain.

        Trump has always worked the same way – hype the investment and leverage the shit out of it, make sure you borrow as much money as possible to the point where you don’t have a nickel of your own money in it. Pay yourself lavish management fees, take as much money out of the business’ cash-flow as you posssibly can. When the business collapses, why do you care? It’s not your money, it’s the lenders money and you made plenty of money running it into the ground. Trump doesn’t care if his campaign crashes and burns or who gets mangled in the wreckage – he’s done just fine and that’s all that matters.

        1. I don’t think any of Trump’s investors were ignorant of the risk of the junk bonds with which he financed the construction of a major portion of his real estate portfolio. High-risk investing does involve the possibility of loss. Using such financial instruments to raise capital and then not succeeding is not criminal or unethical – it’s why we have bankruptcy courts. Everybody knows the game they are playing when they sign up (unless fraud has been committed, which Trump hasn’t been accused of – although he did get nailed by the SEC for pro-forma earnings statements once). This isn’t remotely controversial in business ethics. And it didn’t used to be controversial in libertarian philosophy vis-a-vis contracts.

    5. And since people generally are like that, they should elect him.

  3. You almost have to feel sorry for Trumplings at this point. They rallied behind Trump because unlike other politicians, he had the integrity to say whatever the audience in front of him wanted to hear at that particular moment. Now that he is actually in the race and has to appeal to people besides deluded white losers, he has cucked them like every politician past and future.

    It’s kind of sad to imagine them out there alone in the cold of the tool shed, bent over the riding mower with their pants around their ankles, gradually realizing that Daddy is never gonna show. Even more tragic is that not even this will prompt them to rethink their impractical, irrational, and harmful desires to punish other people for their own failures.

    1. It’s not that sad, Hugh.

      1. Maybe not sad, but still kind of tragic. Like a clown walking in on his wife having sex with his brother.

        1. +1 sad trumpet squeak

    2. You almost have to feel sorry for Trumplings at this point…Now that he is actually in the race and has to appeal to people besides deluded white losers, he has cucked them like every politician past and future.

      First, I’d say he’s “cucked” them even worse than most other politicians. He’s gotten them to speak publicly in the language of retarded white nationalist (e.g. “cucked”). And more to the point, they’ve been reduced to such mindless hero-worship, that they’re willing to ignore what they signed on to the whole shitshow for in the first place.

      1. First, I’d say he’s “cucked” them even worse than most other politicians. He’s gotten them to speak publicly in the language of retarded white nationalist

        You almost just kinda made me want to vote for Trump.

        If this was his plan all along, I would be sincerely impressed.

    3. So, I guess they’ll just go away now and feel ashamed? Or will they decide that if political solutions are an impossibility, they need a plan B?

      1. They can go back to their militia groups and wank off to their guns and confederate flags again.

      2. I thought Trump *was* plan B.

  4. Immigrants (again, legal or illegal) commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans

    This stat includes black American males between the age of 16 and 25. Be more cautious about throwing that number around.

    1. The They don’t “steal” jobs from Americans, or use welfare at higher rates than similarly situated natives. is from the same Fun With Numbers book. It’s true. But not particularly informative, because immigrants generally and illegal immigrants in particular are “similarly situated” with the portion of the native population that is almost entirely on welfare.

      1. This.

        We do not need to replicate Appalachia.

    2. It’s also unclear whether they literally mean legal or illegal, or mean legal and illegal.

      That is, are they saying that taking either category will still give you a lower crime rate? Or are they saying that if you average them together, you get a lower crime rate? I can absolutely believe that legal immigrants have a lower crime rate — but if that is the case, then averaging them together would hide any increased criminality among illegal immigrants. And since the concern and the allegation is that illegal immigrants are a high crime population (as indicated by the fact that the typical demand is for borders to be tightened, which would not affect legal immigrants), it would just be a straw man argument. It’s a shame to see likely intellectual dishonesty on the part of Reason staff. I would have thought until recently that libertarians would be better than that, but I guess “journalist” cancels it out.

    3. No, immigrants commit MORE crimes. This really is an issue where libertarians lose their fucking minds. Seriously.

  5. Is there anyone who didn’t expect this flip? He was never serious about mass deportation, he isn’t serious about most things he says.

    But I like this idea. Let everyone who’s here stay, build a wall, and then increase legal immigration allowances.
    You can’t have a massive, bloated welfare state like we currently have AND open borders at the same time.

    1. Well Mark Levin and National Review certainly expected it which means that pretty much anyone that labels themselves as primarily ‘conservative’ knew it all along. As both of those sources will note, there aren’t very many actual ‘conservatives’ these days so it’s probable that no one really cares.

      Republicans have made their anti-conservative bed, now they’re going to need to lie in it.

    2. If only Democrats would figure that out. The Leftist factions of the party (those who sincerely believe doubling the minimum wage is a good idea and would have no adverse economic effects on the poor) could possibly be convinced.

  6. Apparently, Trump believes that he can get the most votes by being on all sides of an issue and by timing his flip-flops to certain stages of the campaign. That would imply an intricate, Machiavellian plan devised by a powerful intellect…Oh… never mind.

    1. “E Pluribus Awesome!”

      That’s gold, Annie! Gold!

      1. So it goes.

  7. Except it does not seem to be a pragmatic position designed to maintain his voting base. How does this not repel more of his supporters than it will attract?

    1. This is an attempt to attract the Republican voters who were likely not going to vote for anyone because Trump was so bad and they could not bring themselves to vote for anyone else. The never trumpers are a lost cause.

      But I think you are correct in that this will turn off many of the independent voters that are hardcore Trump supporters specifically because of his stance on immigration than it will attract.

    2. A funny thing happens when the general election rolls around. Your campaign needs the fundraising resources of a national party to sustain itself. He who pays the paper calls the tune. You didn’t actually think the man was going to “self-finance” a 2 billion dollar presidential campaign, did you?

      1. Paper, piper, tomato tomahto

    3. I presume if his actual policy stances were of interest to his voting base, they would have abandoned him long ago.

  8. The one bright side about this election is the glorious level of schadenfreude.

    1. I’m getting a little burned out on schadenfreude, to be honest…

    2. I’ve been saying that for months. No matter who wins, someone I hate loses.

  9. It shouldn’t surprise anybody that Trump will say what he thinks he needs to say in order to get elected. He’s a politician, and that’s one of reasons why politicians shouldn’t be trusted and what they say shouldn’t be given too much importance.

    Why do we pay so much attention to what Donald Trump says? I’ve read stories elsewhere that will all but denounce him as a populist demagogue –and then take every word he says as if it’s of profound importance.

    It’s also frustrating to see Trump’s statements being projected (elsewhere again) as novel policy prescriptions.

    Oh no, Donald says he wants to bomb ISIS–even if it kills innocent bystanders! He’s CRAZY!!!!

    Meanwhile, Obama has killed hundreds of children in drone strikes over the course of seven years.. Are people completely unaware of this, or is it just that Obama doesn’t get on TV and talk about it?

    Oh no, Donald says he wants to deport illegal aliens! He’s CRAZY!!!

    Do people think we don’t deport illegal aliens now? A cursory google search and a glance at some charts suggest that we’ve been deporting illegal immigrants for decades–and Obama may be the most prolific deporter ever.

    Donald says something different today, and “phew!”, the danger is over?

    Something is wrong with this picture.

    1. Meanwhile, Obama has killed hundreds of children in drone strikes over the course of seven years.. Are people completely unaware of this, or is it just that Obama doesn’t get on TV and talk about it?

      What are you talking about? Since Obama has taken office the concept of collateral damage has ceased to exist. Obama’s bombs are special progressive bombs whose explosions only kill bad people.

      1. Well, if they weren’t bad before they were blown up, they certainly are afterward.

    2. He’s a politician

      But Trump’s not a politician. That’s why we can trust him!

      1. My sarc-meter just exploded. That’s the third one this week.

    3. “Why do we pay so much attention to what Donald Trump says? ”

      Because he’s running for president?

      1. Maybe that’s why you pay so much attention to what he says, Tony.

        Maybe that’s why you can’t seem to get out of elementary school and graduate to critical thinking.

        The question was why do people who are capable of critical thinking pay so much attention to what Trump says.

        From past threads, you apparently also pay a lot of attention to what Hillary Clinton says (to the exclusion of what she does).

        When you’re ready for junior high, you won’t be so easily distracted by what people say.

        Here’s video of Tony when he finds out that Hillary isn’t really taking him to the broccoli farm:


        1. Perhaps Tony’s brain (or what passes for it) never made it to/past the concrete operational stage.

          I suggest a post mortem biopsy. Immediately.

    4. Obama is simply not the most prolific ‘deporter’ ever. They changed the metrics to deflect criticism. Period.

      1. I’m not sure whether Obama wants to be known as the most prolific deporter ever.

        Maybe he did before his reelection campaign; maybe he doesn’t now.

        The point was that Trump controversial plan to deport illegal aliens is neither new nor unprecedented.

        1. You are correct.

      2. I don’t understand how “Reason” keeps forgetting this. Do they get a new batch of know-nothing interns each year?

    5. Obama has deported the least aliens of all. Your numbers have been rigged by the administration to include foreigners who overstayed their VISA’s, and others. Prior administrations never calculated deportations in this manner. It is akin to Obama’s bullshit numbers on unemployment. Where once again, he changed the formula to arrive at the desired result.

  10. Where’d you go wrong, stupid Trumpkins?

  11. They don’t ….use welfare at higher rates than similarly situated natives.

    This claim is highly misleading. And I wish Reason would drop it unless the topic is the worthiness of illegal immigrants as human beings, per se.

    Yes, they use welfare at lower rates than other poor people. And that’s admirable. But, poor people use welfare at higher rates than the general population. And unsurprisingly, more illegal immigrants are poor.

    Come on, guys. I come here for insightful analysis. Not talking points that can be dismissed summarily.

    1. “We must kick out the illegals because that’s the only way to overcome our addiction to giving them free stuff!”

      1. Sure, why not? Just so long as we kick them out.

    2. I don’t see anything wrong with Reason pointing this out since lots of people probably assume illegal immigrants get the same welfare or even more welfare than poor citizens.

      1. …lots of people probably assume illegal immigrants get the same welfare or even more welfare than poor citizens.

        On a household basis they do, and the cited statistic acknowledges as much. That’s what the “similarly situated” qualifier means, and that’s why it’s misleading. It’s like the stat you often see bandied about that there are more white people on welfare than black people on welfare. Which is 100% true. But also doesn’t adjust for the relative population of each group, and hence doesn’t reflect the reality that black families are twice as likely to have received welfare than white families. Means-tested programs by definition are going to pay similarly situated recipients similar benefits – that’s what means-testing is for.

    3. What I’d really like to see is some people arguing for more open borders and reducing the welfare state, or at least denying welfare to any immigrants.

      I feel like it shouldn’t be such a hard sell, at the federal level at least, to forbid money being spent on welfare for immigrants. If you want to come here and work and be productive, great. Otherwise, figure your own shit out.

      1. I feel like it shouldn’t be such a hard sell, at the federal level at least, to forbid money being spent on welfare for immigrants.

        Existing federal law basically does that already. Legal immigrants are time barred before they can receive benefits and must attest to their financial independence. Of course, when your immigration sponsor loses their job and gets on welfare, the feds don’t come and check to make sure you’re not eating any of the food purchased with their SNAP benefits. And refugees, of course, do not apply via the same process – they are eligible for benefits immediately and typically require assistance just to get here.

        Similarly, illegal immigrants don’t get welfare. They might just happen to live in the same household with close relatives or children who are citizens or otherwise qualify though.

        Not one penny of federal grants or repayments to Planned Parenthood are used for abortion. But money is fungible. There’s a difference between receiving and receiving.

      2. To be able to differentiate between legal and illegal immigrants and citizens, you’d need some kind of ID and requiring ID for any trivial like determining whether to give someone government benefits (or voting) is RACIST!

  12. Trump was just trolling us all along. He was not the ‘second coming of Hitler’. Haha! You people are idiots. You got cucked!

  13. We are now actively importing muslim religious kooks from the middle east and MS13 gangsters from central america to provide atmosphere for Quinton Tarantino films. This might be worth a second look.

    1. It worked for Danny Trejo.

      (But not for anyone who sat through Machete.)

      1. I liked machete kills. Over the top nonsense, but fun.

      2. I like how Trejo plays that same character in the Spy Kids movies. Kids, do NOT go hang out in Uncle Machete’s other movie.

  14. “Obama’s government has deported more than 2.5 million people?up 23% from the George W. Bush years. More shockingly, Obama is now on pace to deport more people than the sum of all 19 presidents who governed the United States from 1892-2000, according to government data.”

    Isn’t this is disingenuous though? The policy has shifted and redefined “deportation” to mean turned away at the border instead of removed from the interior.

    1. I know right? So, so disingenuous. Plus they didn’t have boxcars and stuff. Who wants to check out my boxcar designs?

      1. “I know right? So, so disingenuous. Plus they didn’t have boxcars and stuff. Who wants to check out my boxcar designs?”

        Let’s see them.

        1. It’s just a cardboard box he put on top of his civic.

          1. You didn’t design either of those!

            FH actually increased my hope for you too.

    2. Obama has done a lot of creative bookkeeping. Unemployment numbers stand out too. Some smart-ass carved the phrase “the man with no occupation” on the concrete sidewalk where I regularly walk.

      1. +1 Not Economically Viable

      2. And don’t forget how there’s no inflation as long as you don’t include all the things that have increased in price.

      3. I don’t know who to blame the bookkeeping on, but it’s disingenuous none-the-less.


        “But the portrait of a steadily increasing number of deportations rests on statistics that conceal almost as much as they disclose. A closer examination shows that immigrants living illegally in most of the continental U.S. are less likely to be deported today than before Obama came to office, according to immigration data.”

        And here’s an exciting chart:


    3. Next to the “unemployment” number they throw out in the jobs report, this is probably the second dumbest stat the administration likes to throw out. The Jacket knows better yet continues to trot it out in every story he does on immigration.

    4. Obama’s numbers are bulkshit. Is anyone shocked?

  15. ?T in man bites dog news.

    This morning I saw Mika absolutely grilling a Dem politician about the emails and Clinton foundation shenanigans. She was having none of the guy’s old news/no proof of quid pro/right wing conspiracy spin.

    One highlight was her telling the guy that no, she’s not a foaming at the mouth republican, she just wants answers.

    My favorite talking point that the dem kept repeating is that we’ve been talking about this (latest foundation news) for over 48 hours and there’s STILL no direct proof that anyone benefitted from their donations.

    My take is that the left must be terrified about what assange will unleash next.

    1. Then Mika proceeded to show a clip of Donald Trump acting like a ridiculous buffoon, then she pointed and laughed at him like he was a puppy.

      She and that stupid potato she sits next to get irrationally outraged over Hillary Clinton. It’s shrill and hard to watch lately. There has been no wrongdoing uncovered in the latest drama. That happens to be true.

      1. Assuming you don’t consider access to a public official as a “quo” in the first place.

      2. Tony, I think you should consider voting for Johnson.

        1. Lol good one

      3. Tony, you are either the biggest fuckwit ever, or just completely disingenuous. Probably both. Every one of you progtard shitbags should be stripped of citizendpship and removed from America.

    2. People are really bad at probabilities.

      What is the probability that you will get a meeting and desirable result if you donate $2M to the Clinton Foundation vs the probability if you don’t?

      It is just as wrong if these requests were legitimate, as it implies that people who deserved help from the government were forced to pay Clinton.

      It’s no different than paying off building inspectors to get them to do their jobs.

    3. No Direct Proof?

      I had a meeting with Don Corleone at his daughter’s wedding. I gave him $10,000 and then my worst enemy turns up floating in the Hudson River. That may not be legal proof but as an average person you don’t need that level of proof to avoid doing business with me. Not voting for someone isn’t the same as putting them behind bars.

  16. Tangentially related:


    1. Damn character limits…..

      http://www.cato.org/blog/ma ke-america-realize-its-safe-again

      1. Never trust anybody who uses a first initial or anybody named Trevor. And what’s up with getting a PhD in Political Science – from MIT? Is that like getting an accounting degree from the Sorbonne or a computer science degree from Johns Hopkins?

      2. You can’t bring facts to a fear-fight. Being safe and feeling safe are rarely connected.

  17. Ok Nick. I’ll be back to bitching about your cocktail parties shortly, but I want to say both thank you and congratulations for reacting correctly to this news. When people change their positions for the better, this is the appropriate response. Almost all the cable news dickweeds are reacting to this with weird-anger-disbelief : “Shit, how can I all him racist against Mexicans now? I dunno, let’s stick to flip-flopper for now and start working on the bigot angle again tomorrow”

    1. True.

  18. I’ve made $64,000 so far this year working online and I’m a full time student. Im using an online business opportunity I heard about and I’ve made such great money. It’s really user friendly and I’m just so happy that I found out about it. Heres what I do,

    ———— http://YoutubeJobs.Nypost55.com

  19. How many times can even so-called christian conservative site repeat the
    same old media/politician lie of 11-12 illegal aliens in the USA!!

    Univision boasts 50 million
    Retired INS M. Cutler talks 40-50 million
    Debbie Schlussel writes of 40 million
    CAPS Study 2007 talks of 38 million…


    1. That’s why we need to seal the border and start the hard work of getting rid of all the illegals. Although I am open to a program in which we let one illegal stay for every ten orogtards deported in their place. And the progtards don’t get to keep their assets. They shouldn’t mind anyway. They love asset seizures, and redistribution.

  20. self explanatory pics don’t require alt texts.

  21. How about just enforcing the law, or do libertarians no longer believe in the Rule of Law? I’ll admit to not being a scholar of libertarian ideology, so maybe they never did.

  22. Did Trump really flip flop – or, just explain his originally un-intelligible comments?

  23. Now, if Trump would only flip on the incredibly stupid ‘policy/goal’ of using tariffs to protect American Jobs or the bizarre concept of “Bringing manufacturing jobs back to America,” THAT would be nice, too.

  24. I think I just heard Trump say he’d order the police to deport the “bad” ones. That sound like a recipe for disaster. What will these law enforcement officials do when given an order by someone who has no authority over them? What’s to keep them from using the edict politically? Where’s the due process? Who decides which of them are “bad”?
    Trump is a bull in a china shop. That’s bad for the china, the customer, the shop owner, and the shop.

    1. Well there are a lot of obvious “bad” ones. Like people who have committed crimes we all agree are bad. Like stealing cars, or mugging people, or murdering people, or raping 6 year olds. I guess drug convictions of course would qualify at this point in time too, even though that might not meet my meaning of bad. Other than that I guess some things would be subjective. I personally don’t think we really need to have La Raza/Reconquista folks living in the US really… We got the southwest by stealing it fair and square! They’d just be shit stirrers. But hopefully it wouldn’t get that political because it generally leads down a bad road…

  25. We obviously need reform, and we need a sane and humane way to deal with those here… But before anything else we DO need to actually stop NEW illegals from coming in, lest we start the madness all over again. I do not think the Government can perfectly balance the flow of immigration, because government never does anything well, but it’s so painfully obvious we have too many low skill workers here now that it’d be insane to not mitigate things at least a bit. After reforming the rules making it easier to get it, maybe give amnesty to those here, and then make sure we don’t have a ton more that sneak in afterwards.

    We should make it essentially a guaranteed thing that any college educated/skilled trade foreigner, who isn’t a criminal, and can pass a health examination, and maybe a basic English and/or civics test can move here. And make it work fast. Like put your paperwork in and fly in next week and you’re done. We need skilled labor, not unskilled. We already have too many unskilled people in the country to be supported (as in by the downstream jobs created by high wage earners) by the skilled labor pool here. Unskilled labor is no longer useful in the 21st century like it was in the past since we’ve lost manufacturing jobs and a lot of other types of employment.

    1. Endless increases in unskilled labor used to mean endless job/wage/economic growth, now it no longer does because there’s nothing for them to do. See % of population participating in the labor force, and number of adults doing jobs that high school kids should be doing for the reality check on this. It’s a supply and demand thing plain and simple.

      If we increase the number of skilled people via immigration, then we can have more unskilled that can be gainfully employed as a result. With unlimited skilled labor we may well be able to support unlimited unskilled labor too. Or maybe not, but certainly far more than we can really afford to take in now.

      And to anyone who says all the illegals haven’t bottomed out wages… In what market does supply and demand NOT exist? That’s BS, plain and simple. I’ve known professional tradesmen (painters, carpenters, etc) who haven’t really seen nominal wages go up since basically the 90s, let alone inflation adjusted wages. These are good guys who chose a profession and stuck to it. Not lay about slackers. Being a carpenter may not be glamorous, but it’s not like being a burger flipper either. I’ve read previously that wages for janitors in California (the specific subject of the article I read) are actually LOWER now than 20 years ago. I bet the same can be said for a ton of other jobs.

    2. Supply and demand. If you care about quality of life and not needing to have welfare going to millions because they can’t get jobs at reasonable wages, maaaybe you should not import more of a commodity that is already in excess supply? It may be callous to put it like that, but it’s true. The reason poor lefties are shouting for $15 minimum wage is because a lot of jobs used to pay that in the free market due to supply and demand of low skilled labor, but now that there’s too much of it to go around those jobs are at relatively lower wages.

      So you either 1. Put in absurd minimum wages. 2. Keep minimum wages low, and expand socialistic welfare. 3. Cut off excess supply of low skilled labor being imported, and allow the market to figure out proper wages, which will likely rise. 4. You do nothing and have a peasant revolt.

      Of all these at least #3 keeps peoples dignity by allowing them to work, and keeps the free market more involved. I don’t think a borderless world is necessarily needed for other libertarian principles, or even advisable. If we had legitimately, legally, completely open borders we would probably be flooded by so many people in a matter of a few years that the country would look like a 3rd world shithole in some places almost immediately.

    3. It’s not a fixed pie. I’m not saying that. The pie would grow with a lot more people here. But unless you’re adding THE RIGHT TYPE of inputs into the economic system, you will have results most wouldn’t fine desirable. I don’t want twice the national GDP at half the average wage, which is what you’d end up with. You can argue the math (because that was pulled out of my ass and obviously wrong) of what GDP at what immigration level vs per capita GDP blah blah blah, but 50 million more people here in a few years would not leave per capita GDP where it’s at now. Only a steadily absorbable flow of immigration can do that.

      I don’t want that, and neither do most other people. So you control the flow a bit, but perhaps try to be a bit on the liberal side if ya can. If not then FUCK the other people from crappy countries who want to move here. We don’t have an obligation to them. Screwing our own quality of life so it’s better for someone else from half way across the world is not something I am obligated to do.

      1. A lot of open borders idiots here want unlimited immigration, no matter what. Hell p, they even favor the state transplanting them here from halfway across the world. Just because.

    4. Also, I’m talking real world solutions here, not perfect world. Perfect world is “Well Americans should all just get educated to the do high skilled jobs!” That’s ignoring reality. A lot of people are simply not smart enough. One of my best friends in high school was as smart as a rock. Hard worker, great guy, but smart as a rock. Some that are smart enough, are too lazy to actually follow through.

      Solution: Import smart motivated people from abroad, so that our less intelligent and less motivated native born can still do ok without being on the dole.

      Likewise on the minimum wage thing. There shouldn’t be a minimum wage. BUT getting rid of it ain’t gonna happen in the next several election cycles… And if we did it would still not solve the problem of “non living wage” pay happening for jobs that should pay a little better than burger flipping, but not as good as being an engineer. No minimum wage and a flooded low skilled jobs market = peasant revolt. We don’t want that either, so it’s still down to picking one of those 4 choices.

  26. ‘…Party closer to the two-thirds of Americans who favor citizenship if current illegals meet “certain requirements” (such as paying fines and back taxes)….’;

    That’s great.

    Can’t wait when the American public agrees philosophically with 2/3rds of the nimrods graduating from our colleges these days – can’t say boy or girl; students demand segregated housing; trigger warnings if a professor is going to talk about something that might offend them…Kangaroo courts for rape charges…..no more slippery slope – let’s all just go over the cliff together…

    I guess if 2/3rds ever get to to the point to bring back internment camps or Jim Crow, NR and this cite will be quoting that nonsense too ….

  27. Would this be because we need more Mexicans in the US or something else, never before seen, in the history of mankind, or?.

  28. my best friend’s mom makes $74 an hour on the computer . She has been without work for five months but last month her payment was $19746 just working on the computer for a few hours. find more information …
    ?????????? http://www.homejobs7.com

  29. I’m making over $9k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life. This is what I do…. Go to tech tab for work detail..

    CLICK THIS LINK?????? http://www.earnmax6.com/

  30. This article posted by an attorney shows how Trump can use the legal system to actually implement mass deportations. Specifically, he refers to the Korematsu v. United States court case during President Roosevelt and operation wetback during the Eisenhower administration. Here is the link: http://www.charleskurmay.com/c…..president/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.