Donald Trump

Donald Trump's Mexico Day Trip and Immigration Policy Nightmare

Trump visits Mexico before offering a laundry list of anti-immigration policy proposals at a rally in Arizona.

|

YouTube

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump visited Mexico today, in a trip his campaign described as a "relationship builder," before speaking at a rally in Phoenix in the evening, where he talked about his immigration plans, largely involving the border wall, deportations, and other police state measures. The speech was reportedly written by Stephen Bannon, formerly of Breitbart.com, and Stephen Miller, a former aide to Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) who has taken a hard-line on immigration.

In Arizona, Trump told the crowd that immigration reform meant "amnesty, open borders, lower wages" and that the "fundamental problem with the immigration system" was that "it serves the needs of wealthy donors, political activists, and powerful, powerful politicians." At the rally, Trump painted a grim picture about immigrants overwhelming government services and contributing to higher crime rates (not true).

Trump also noted the attention paid to his immigration plans in recent weeks and said he'd make his plans clear to the crowd. "We will build a great wall along the southern border," Trump said to great applause and chants of build the wall, "and Mexico will pay for the wall, 100 percent." He said the wall would be "impenetrable, physical, tall, beautiful, southern border wall."

Trump said his ten-point plan also included an end to "catch and release" (praising Dwight Eisenhower's Operation Wetback) , "zero tolerance for criminal aliens," two bills named after victims, hiring 5,000 new border patrol agents (the number of border patrol agents has doubled since 2004), President Obama did), establishing a deportation task force ("maybe they'll be able to deport" Hillary Clinton, he said), ending the acceptance of refugees from Syria and the Middle East, stricter screenings, "ideological certification," turning off "the jobs and benefits magnet," and a litany of other severe measures that will require an expansion of government power and government spending. Trump insisted his plan would earn a "peace dividend" that could be spent on other government programs.

Earlier in the day, at a joint news conference with Mexico President Enrique Peña Nieto, Trump claimed he and Peña Nieto discussed the border wall but that "we didn't discuss payment of the wall." Peña Nieto tweeted afterward that he had made clear his position that Mexico would not pay for a wall across the U.S. border. The Trump campaign said the meeting was not a negotiation, which would have been "inappropriate."

Trump and Sessions and Rudy Giuliani, former New York City mayor, met with Mexico President Enrique Peña Nieto for about an hour before the joint press conference. In Mexico City, Trump pointed to five "shared goals" that would increase "prosperity and happiness" in both countries: stopping illegal immigration to the U.S. and to Mexico, a secure border, which he called a "sovereign right and mutually beneficial," dismantling drug cartels and "ending the movement of illegal drugs, weapons and funds across oru border," which would require "cooperation, intelligence and intelligence sharing, and joint operations between our two countries," improving the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), "a 22 year old agreement that must be updated to reflect the realities of today," and keeping "manufacturing wealth" in the Western hemisphere.

Trump called the migrant routes from Central America to the U.S. a "humanitarian disaster" that had to be solved. "It must be solved, it must be solved quickly," Trump said, "not fair to the people anywhere worldwide you could truly say, but certainly not fair to the people of Mexico or the people of the United States." Deportations by the United States and by Mexico have gone up in recent years, with the Obama administration ordering more deportations as recently as this spring.

Trump, of course, didn't mention ending the war on drugs, one of the surest ways to dismantle the drug cartels, as mainstream candidates in the U.S. and in Mexico by and large still do not, although he did say he would stop the flow of drugs into the country. The drug war is yet another significant exception to whatever conceit toward "non-interventionism" some of Trump's supporters believes he has.

On NAFTA, Trump insisted that wages had been going down in the U.S. for 18 years, a popular refrain also on the anti-trade left. "Improving pay standards and working conditions will create better results for all, and all workers in particular," Trump said of renegotiating NAFTA, "there's a lot of value that can be created for both countries by working beautifully together, and that I am sure will happen." Trump's America first anti-trade stance took a hemisphere approach in Mexico, where Trump said the two countries had to "keep manufacturing wealth" in the hemisphere. "When jobs leave Mexico, the U.S. or Central America and go overseas, it increases poverty and pressure on social services as well as pressures on cross-border migration," Trump argued. Since the passage of NAFTA, 25 million jobs were created in the U.S. and Mexico, and the economy has improved in other ways since the deal.

Peña Nieto said he had extended invitations to Trump and to Clinton. Clinton said she'd meet with the Mexican president at the "appropriate time."

NEXT: First Relevant Poll in Nearly a Month Is Very Bad News for Gary Johnson's Debate Prospects

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. Clinton said she’d meet with the Mexican president at the “appropriate time.”

    After an appropriate donation had been made to the foundation?

    1. Basically.

    2. Depends on the donation. Chelsea’s a lot cheaper.

      1. And worth it.

    3. The Clintons Foundation makes Watergate look like business as usual. Although many things do. Of course you’ll never hear that from the leftest media. Nixon, although probably to the left of Obama economically had the R next to his name.

      1. Whatever his faults (and they were legion), Nixon was staunchly anti-communist. You can wait until the heat death of the universe, but you’ll never hear leftards admit that he was right and they were wrong.

    4. When Huma gives her permission.

  2. In LA, Latino immigrants have to pretend that they are Mexican to get a job. Seriously.


    In L.A., speaking ‘Mexican’ to fit in

    Quote:
    Juan Carlos Rivera knew that if he wanted to get a dishwashing job at the MacArthur Park hamburger stand, he would have to pretend to be Mexican…

    1. I figure everyone from Latin America speaks like a Cholo.

  3. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state at the same time:


    Report: More than half of immigrants on welfare

    Quote:
    About 51% of immigrant-led households receive at least one kind of welfare benefit, including Medicaid, food stamps, school lunches and housing assistance, compared to 30% for native-led households? Those numbers increase for households with children, with 76% of immigrant-led households receiving welfare, compared to 52% for the native-born.

    1. And when looking specifically at immigrants from Mexico and Central America, the number is 71%, the highest of any region in the world.

    2. These bullshit statistics have been debunked before. Go join Tony in the corner for a timeout.

      1. I notice your lack of citations.

      2. No, they haven’t. Because they’re official statistics from the Census Bureau’s Survey of Income and Program Participation.

    3. Then end the welfare state.

      1. For some reason people making that argument always go for the “close the borders” option.

        Seems to me that effectively preventing people from crossing the border isn’t much more likely to be practically possible than ending the welfare state, or ending welfare for immigrants.

        1. This is ridiculous. Israel’s security fences have been resoundingly successful in preventing illegal immigration. Same with Hungary. Fences work period. The impossibility fallacy is so transparently dishonest.

        2. This is ridiculous. Israel’s security fences have been resoundingly successful in preventing illegal immigration. Same with Hungary. Fences work period. The impossibility fallacy is so transparently dishonest.

    4. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state at the same time

      And which one of those things most closely represents libertarian principle and respects the rights of the individual?

  4. Where’s SIV to do some Trump bukkake all over this one?

    1. Oh, you just had to wait two minutes!

      1. I think it was commenting on the Gary Johnson article and missed this one.

    2. a trumpkake?

  5. Trump, of course, didn’t mention ending the war on drugs

    He’s trying to win an election. The God Damned Libertarian Party nominee isn’t even talking about ending the WoDs.

    Ending the drug war was about the most consistent political position Trump publicly held between 1990-2011.

    1. Trump bukkake.

      1. Of course everything in it is true. No candidate is calling for drug legalization. Trump advocated legalizing all drugs for over 20 years until he sought (and won) a major party nomination. His statement during this campaign that legalization should “continue to be studied” is more antiprohibitionist than GayJay’s campaign statement on drugs other than marijuana.

        1. What the fuck are you smoking? More cock?

          1. He’s a cucktivist. No rest for the wicked.

    2. “Ending the drug war was about the most consistent political position Trump publicly held between 1990-2011.”

      And now he’s pandering to shits like you.

      1. The legalization of ALL drugs has never been a popular political position. Who was Trump pandering too when he advocated it for 20+ years?

        That a major party nominee held (holds?) such views is the best example of that elusive moment Matt and Nick like to claim is happening.

        1. Yes, Trump wants to legalize all drugs. Which is why he’s trying to scare voters with stories of Mexican immigrants flooding our streets with drugs.

          1. If you legalize ’em you “stop the flow of illegal drugs”

            1. That’s a fact Jack.

            2. Weird that he wouldn’t even make a token reference to the ending the war on drugs. Which, you’re lying aside, is something Johnson talks about every time you put him in front of a mic.

              Notice Rand Paul never shied away from saying that and he’s going to coast to reelection in Kentucky.

              1. Johnson backed off from that position in the town hall, particularly when it came to heroin. While I believe all drugs should be legal, I would take all non-opiates today if I could get it so heroin not necessarily a deal breaker. Especially given the status quo.

                1. I would try them one at a time, if I were you.

              2. Johnson wants to “end the drug war” like Obmama does…with thousands of new federal agents.

              3. Won’t Naomi Judd be able to stop him?

                I thought she said she had most of the voters in Kentucky on her side.

            3. You want to fix this? Legalize drugs.

              http://hotair.com/archives/201…..ar-police/

        2. “The legalization of ALL drugs has never been a popular political position. Who was Trump pandering too when he advocated it for 20+ years?”

          You stupid shit, Trump has advocated for *every* position under the sun, and shits like you cherry pick the ones you like.
          You deserve each other.

          1. GayJay is the bigger flip-flopper. What’s his position on vaccines and carbon taxes this week?
            The opposite of what it was last week.

    3. “He’s trying to win an election.”

      Could have fooled me.

  6. Work oppertunity: Start your work at home right now. Spend more time with your family and earn. Start bringing 85USD/hr just on a laptop. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously.last week my check was 24551USD pop over here this site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Siteweb80.com

  7. Work oppertunity: Start your work at home right now. Spend more time with your family and earn. Start bringing 85USD/hr just on a laptop. Very easy way to make your life happy and earning continuously.last week my check was 24551USD pop over here this site

    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.Siteweb80.com

  8. The Bears speaks about immigration.

    Cosmo’s underwear hit hardest.

    1. To be clear: We’re talking about the Cal Bears and their heroic victory over Hawaii last week?

      1. Ha ha. I meant the beast speaks

    2. Yes, disagreeing with someone means that you are hysterically shitting your pants.

      Can we please just stop with the “pants shitting” nonsense?

  9. The fact that he doubled down on illegal immigration is good news – it means he doesn’t think he has a terror attack in the bag for just before the election. He will become increasingly desperate, erratic and delusional. I almost feel sorry for him.

  10. Real shame here.
    I heard him interviewed by the golf analyst/commedian. I was amazed that he seemed to shuck the blow-hard act and spoke with some evident interest in the issues and thought about them.
    He could have gone to Mexico and returned speaking about the harm the WoD has done, dropped his imbecilic “wall”, and acted like an adult.
    Instead, we get SIV’s fave head case.

    1. The brunch at his golf course is still good.

    2. Yes. Trump fumbled a great opportunity. He should realize that the undecided voters are less enthusiastic about walls and deportations. He also didn’t play up ‘looking presidential’ by having a positive message from the meeting – “Pena has the same problem on his southern border, and we will work together to develop the best solutions.” He could have countered the ‘divisive’ image he has, but didn’t. Rookie mistake.

      1. So he should screw over his decided voters before the elections by going week over immigration?

        Sounds like a great way to get you core voters to not vote while at the same time he will still be attacked by Reason magazine and the rest of the SJW press

        “looking presidential” = lying to the voters.

        If you want that then vote for Hillary.

        1. He needs to get more voters. His core is very loyal and the ‘softening’ of the past two weeks hasn’t alienated them at all.

          The voters he needs are being told that Trump is a loose cannon, racist, mysoginist, etc. He needs to counter that. Optics – looking presidential – will be very beneficial. No one need be screwed over.

    1. And fill Scrooge McDuck’s money bin with all those new revenues from Gary Johnson’s national sales and carbon taxes?

      1. Trump = no entitlement reform, spending more on infrastructure than the Democrats are proposing, exploding the deficit.

        Gary Johnson wants to cut all federal spending, entitlements, defense, education, by 43% while pushing for a balanced budget amendment.

        1. Hey, you’re dealing with ‘the disabled’ here.

      2. Trump will be an economic disaster. Wonder why everyone on Wall Street is behind Hillary and not billionaire Trump?

        Yeah, the market has spoken loud and clear.

        1. Wall St wants Hillary because she’s buyable, and they know what they’re buying. Predictability is always better than uncertainty.

          Neither would be a “disaster” more than the other. Bernie was the only one really advocating overnight-socialism. Trump and Hillary each have their smattering of protectionist bullshit, and various flavors of stupid-spending ideas, equal amounts of which would ever likely become actual policy.

          1. “Wall St wants Hillary because she’s buyable, and they know what they’re buying. Predictability is always better than uncertainty.”

            Had lunch with someone who manages a LOT of money last week; his take was that Shrill was ‘known’ (although he objected to my characterization as within the normal deviation, until I qualified it as ‘not worse than Boss Tweed’). He presumes she’ll be less disruptive of the market, but sill might cause more harm over the entire term.
            By now I presume she will be elected; entirely too many brain-addled Ds are gonna pull that lever. But her stench will be strong enough that she’ll be limited to ‘making important speeches’, and if Bill wants to augment his income with the rental for the Lincoln bedroom, well…
            I just hope she doesn’t unscrew the HW plumbing fixtures and put ’em on Craigslist.

  11. I like how the “not true” link doesn’t even pretend to disprove the things it’s supposed to be disproving.

  12. My two cents. Trump will be no diffrerent than Hillary because he’ll have the same people telling him what to do (CFR, etc). As far as the wall goes. Even if he does build it, it will have very little effect other than leftist ( including the media) pantsshitting. I see very little difference between the two presidencies from a practical standpoint. From a shadenfreud standpoint some pantsshitting might be fun but I’m not pulling the lever for either.

  13. I read the text of Trump’s immigration speech. As expected, there are bad things (more Border Patrol agents, E-verify) and good things (enforce the “public charge” law, increase immigration of those who will be an asset to the country). The main takeaway is he’s not backing down on anything. Worth noting that Trump’s paternal grandparents were immigrants, as was his mother.

    1. SIV (sigh…), you’ve been chopped.
      Your dishes are tasteless and unvarying. Your ingredients are equally boring; they never change.
      Your plating looks like you tossed the portions at the plate from 20 feet away.
      Often we hope chefs go on to better conditions, but not you.
      We hope you flip burgers in some greasy spoon, put out of business when The Donald gets the building condemned for a loading dock.
      Screw you.

  14. Some excerpts from the Phoenix speech

    The fundamental problem with the immigration system in our country is that it serves the needs of wealthy donors, political activists and powerful politicians. Let me tell you who it doesn’t serve: it doesn’t serve you, the American people.

    When politicians talk about immigration reform, they usually mean the following: amnesty, open borders, and lower wages.

    Immigration reform should mean something else entirely: it should mean improvements to our laws and policies to make life better for American citizens.

    Countries from which immigration will be suspended would include places like Syria and Libya.

    For the price of resettling 1 refugee in the United States, 12 could be resettled in a safe zone in their home region.

    Another reform involves new screening tests for all applicants that include an ideological certification to make sure that those we are admitting to our country share our values and love our people.

    For instance, in the last five years, we’ve admitted nearly 100,000 immigrants from Iraq and Afghanistan ? in these two countries, according to Pew research, a majority of residents say that the barbaric practice of honor killings against women are often or sometimes justified.

    1. Another reform involves new screening tests for all applicants that include an ideological certification to make sure that those we are admitting to our country share our values and love our people.

      I’ll ask again: is Trump going to let a Muslim baker come here if he doesn’t want to bake a cake for a gay couple?

      1. I’d love to see that question in the debates. Hillbot’s answer might be interesting too, though it might consist only of sparks shooting out her mouth and smoke going out her ears.

        10 GAYS GET WHAT THEY WANT
        20 MUSLIMS GET WHAT THEY WANT
        30 IF NUM(GAY_VOTES) > NUM(MUSLIM_VOTES) GOTO 10; ELSE GOTO 20
        40 END

    2. For instance, we have to listen to the concerns that working people have over the record pace of immigration and its impact on their jobs, wages, housing, schools, tax bills, and living conditions. These are valid concerns, expressed by decent and patriotic citizens from all backgrounds.

      We also have to be honest about the fact that not everyone who seeks to join our country will be able to successfully assimilate. It is our right as a sovereign nation to choose immigrants that we think are the likeliest to thrive and flourish here.

      We will reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers

      We’ve admitted 59 million immigrants to the United States between 1965 and 2015.

      Many of these arrivals have greatly enriched our country. But we now have an obligation to them, and to their children, to control future immigration ? as we have following previous immigration waves ? to ensure assimilation, integration and upward mobility.

      Sounds- dare I say- reasonable?

      1. I am a legal immigrant and naturalized citizen and read the entire text of the speech and it was very reasonable, especially since it started from first principles – immigration needs to serve the interest of the country and not the other way around.

        I don’t agree with the Exit tracking system since it won’t really be effective, but eVerify will work if implemented nationwide. And yes, there will be people who will game it, but they will be small in number.

        1. Personally know someone that was planning on ignoring the return date on his visa but changed his mind because Trump scared him into not doing so.

      2. Racist, sexist, big government bs.

        – typical HnR commentator

        Complain about Trumps position, then complain again when he adjusts those as you have prescribed. Reasons.

        Trump derangement syndrome isn’t just for Welch and Nick anymore.

        1. No, just regular old big government BS.

          Yeah, he’s sounding fairly reasonable. But reasonable in a way that I still disagree with.

          None of that is going to happen without cranking up the police state and further conscripting employers into helping to enforce immigration laws. Where is freedom of association and right to contract now?

          1. Where is freedom of association and right to contract now?
            With Americans, as intended.

  15. my tongue clicks with lizard spins and even the fragile robots underneath the sprang brinch wonch frudge droung whim a linga longa zeldo brungthy and clouds can actually scratch from the alleys of toppled triad topside semi trailers winding up for picnics on the side alleys of deep lost planets

    1. [Gently takes Agile’s stash away and hides it in his underwear drawer behind the dildos.]

      Shhhh, Agile. Those are not words. Only sleep now.

      1. Reminds me of James Joyce.

  16. Tunnels break the angels of my goddamn lost fingers and the new empire
    is root to the fucking brain trip drop frum my jaw jingles and shit

  17. i saw a very old person walk from the screams of lost bedlam and this very old person spent clench ttraps and clouds

  18. Since the passage of NAFTA, 25 million jobs were created in the U.S. and Mexico, and the economy has improved in other ways since the deal.

    Since the passage of Smoot-Hawley, over 100 million jobs were created in the US and over 40 million in Mexico, and the economy has improved in other ways since the deal. Does that mean Smoot-Hawley was far more effective at creating jobs than NAFTA?

    1. Open borders fetishists had libertarians at “cheaper tacos.” Alot of times the shallowest beliefs are the ones people defend most dogmatically.

      1. I’m not convinced open borders types are really libertarians. I’m pretty sure they would be more accurately described as anarchists.

        1. And closed border types are definitely not libertarians. Why do freedom of association and freedom of contract fly out the window when immigration comes up?

          Restricting immigration may be a practically necessary measure, but there is nothing libertarian about it in the least. I wish people would at least acknowledge that it is at best a utilitarian compromise.

  19. Text of speech:

    http://dailycaller.com/2016/08…..migration/

    …illegal immigration costs our country more than $113 billion dollars a year. For the money we are going to spend on illegal immigration over the next ten years, we could provide one million at-risk students with a school voucher.

    While there are many illegal immigrants in our country who are good people, this doesn’t change the fact that most illegal immigrants are lower-skilled workers with less education who compete directly against vulnerable American workers, and that these illegal workers draw much more out from the system than they will ever pay in.

    Hillary Clinton has pledged amnesty in her first 100 days, and her plan will provide Obamacare, Social Security and Medicare for illegal immigrants ? breaking the federal budget. On top of that, she promises uncontrolled low-skilled immigration that continues to reduce jobs and wages for American workers, especially African-American and Hispanic workers. This includes her plan to bring in 620,000 new refugees in a four-year term.

    1. (Continued)

      The time has come for a new immigration commission to develop a new set of reforms to our legal immigration system in order to achieve the following goals:

      To keep immigration levels, measured by population share, within historical norms
      To select immigrants based on their likelihood of success in U.S. society, and their ability to be financially self-sufficient. We need a system that serves our needs ? remember, it’s America First.
      To choose immigrants based on merit, skill and proficiency
      And to establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first.
      We want people to come into our country, but they have to come in legally and properly-vetted, and in a manner that serves the national interest.

  20. as Leslie implied I’m in shock that you able to earn $7211 in four weeks on the computer . go to this web-site
    ?????->> http://www.businessbay4.com/

  21. “Intelligence sharing” with the Mexican government is probably a bad idea.

    If we’ve never heard stories about the cartels hacking into Mexican government servers before, it’s probably because the cartels don’t need to hack those severs.

    They probably get their passwords and a 1-800 number for tech support–just in case they need it.

    Dear Mexican Mafia:

    Please be advised that our servers will be down for routine maintenance between 12 am and 2 am on Saturday, September 2, 2016.

    We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you. Please let us know whenever we can be of assistance.

    Love,

    The Mexican Government

    XOXOXO

  22. Alexa . you think Kathleen `s posting is impossible… last wednesday I got a great volvo after having made $5563 this-last/5 weeks and-over, 10 grand this past-munth . with-out a doubt this is the most financialy rewarding Ive ever done . I began this 7-months ago and straight away started making a nice over $70, p/h . pop over to this site

    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  23. Alexa . you think Kathleen `s posting is impossible… last wednesday I got a great volvo after having made $5563 this-last/5 weeks and-over, 10 grand this past-munth . with-out a doubt this is the most financialy rewarding Ive ever done . I began this 7-months ago and straight away started making a nice over $70, p/h . pop over to this site

    ????????> http://www.factoryofincome.com

  24. immigrants overwhelming government services and contributing to higher crime rates (not true). One can get stats from California where 50% of shootings are Illegal immigrants and gang members.
    While there is cross over as to the participants, ‘American gangsters’ versus foreign illegal ‘gangsters’… one cannot ignore the significant percentages hold true also in Arizona.
    Also one looks to ‘Cal-Med’ costs for birthing in California with illegals, one has to consider how the costs are paid for and what is being , or lack of being exposed, as too total cost for the services of delivering.
    ‘…charged from $3,296 to $37,227 for an uncomplicated vaginal delivery, depending on which hospital they visited. For a C-section, women were billed between $8,312 and nearly $71,000.’
    If California has 10% of as many as 30 million illegals= 3million, there should be an obvious costing that actually is noticeable.
    California is going BACK, to a model of education to include Spanish speaking allowance for students( even after dropping the program as the program slowed learning English).. so Education costs will rise again.
    Perhaps ‘Ed’, the writer. should stick to Comic books.

  25. I grew up in California. I get that all Mexicans aren’t horrible people. I also understand that they can become Americanized. My best friend was second generation born in the USA (third living here, his grandma being the first), and he could hardly speak Spanish. Other than not being the “college bound type”, he was a perfect example of how it can go right.

    However there are numerous reasons to not think it’s a good idea to let uneducated people, from oppressed countries, flood into your country.

    If too many come too quickly they don’t assimilate, which is bad for them and bad for us. There was plenty of this where I grew up too. A lot of research has shown 2nd generation folks are often worse than their parents in many respects in terms of being law abiding. In the case of Mexicans many unfortunately fall into the “gangsta” culture, instead of the straight an narrow Catholic culture of their parents.

    Their bad political leanings learned from their native countries are carried over in many cases.

    They have poor educations, hence are more likely to be low earners and on welfare/take more out of the system than they pay in.

    1. My biggest one is that we simply don’t have jobs for uneducated people in this country anymore. My ancestors who toiled in steel mills in Pennsylvania came to a country where a strong back was still a valuable commodity. It no longer is. We don’t have enough low skill work for native born people, let alone millions more uneducated people. We need to allow unlimited immigration from skilled people (engineers, IT, etc etc) because those will create more “down the ladder” employment, ultimately allowing us to have more unskilled labor as the overall market grows.

      Adding unskilled people to the bottom merely puts downward pressure on wages for the kind of people who can’t quite hack the mental work that is the most valued of the 21st century. I don’t think the government can perfectly manage the exact ratios… But it doesn’t take a genius to know we already have too many unskilled workers in this country to employ, and we don’t need to import millions more…

      And there are a myriad of other reasons, none of which are racist or evil. I’m supposedly part Mexican myself back a few generations on my moms side, so it’s just a bit of being “real world” about this subject vs living in a perfect world of principles trumping reality. I don’t see where we owe the poor people of the world a free ticket to the USA if it will in fact ultimately cause our standard of living to get fucked up.

    2. There are some principled stances where it makes sense, and is reasonable, to accept the real world negatives generated by going with the principle. Like guns. I think they do more good than harm as is, but even if you accept that you could statistically reduce murders (which I don’t), I’m still not in favor of it. Ultimately everything has pros and cons to SOME degree, even if it is small.

      I just don’t see allowing in a bunch of people who don’t speak the language, and don’t really have a lot to contribute, and in fact will have at least some negative consequences, reaaally wins me over because of the principle of free movement of people across borders of sovereign nations.

      The main upside I can find is in fact if you believe it is desirable to suppress low skilled workers wages for the benefit of employers. I AM an employer, and I like paying low wages (gotta pay for them monocles somehow!)… But at the same time I can appreciate how paying actual poverty level wages is in some ways not desirable for society overall.

  26. How is the wall supposed to work? Surely people could just dig under it or something.

    1. “below ground sensors.”

    2. A wall or fence doesn’t have to stop 100% to be effective.

      It is difficult to smuggle human beings, compared to drugs or other contraband. They require food, water, air to breathe, have to relieve themselves periodically, can’t be kept in hidden compartments for days on end, and weigh 150 lbs on average.

      If we can reduce the 500,00 illegal border crossers by 95% to (say) 25,000 per year, then the illegal immigration problem is greatly reduced. At that point, the public will be willing to look at what to do with the illegals already in the country.

    3. “We will use the best technology, including above and below ground sensors. Towers, aerial surveillance and manpower to supplement the wall.”

      Hilariously infeasible to install underground sensors on a 2,000 mile border but hey, it’s an answer.

  27. My dear, the next five minutes can change your life!
    Give a chance to your good luck.
    Read this article, please!
    Move to a better life!
    We make profit on the Internet since 1998! ????? http://www.jobsea3.com

  28. Immigration is one of those things where I honestly see the benefits to both sides, and I think nationalists and libertarians are both totally wrong that they have the answers.

    (I don’t have the answers either.)

    I was pretty unperturbed by Trump’s 10-point plan. It’s boilerplate Republican mouth-flapping, nowhere near as dangerous to freedom as a complete ban on a religious group and nowhere near being moderate enough to actually get through Congress. Other than the expense of the construction project I saw nothing I would be troubled by and nothing I would be excited by.

    1. The expense of the construction project has been approved by several Congresses, just never carried out.
      Since most of the plan involved enforcing existing laws, that have gone ignored for years, what needs to “get through Congress”?

  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..
    ???????>>> http://www.earnmax6.com/

  30. “Immigration policy nightmare”
    Krayewski is against the rule of law.
    Noted.

  31. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail.
    >>>>>> http://www.Sky.Jobss1.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.