Line(s) of the Day: Trump’s Immigration Politics

Trump really has no plan about the border save for demagoging the issue.

“Border Patrol Sign” by Steven L. Taylor is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

In a piece in WaPo concerning the current mess in the White House over immigration policy (Twelve days of chaos: Inside the Trump White House’s growing panic to contain the border crisis) I was struck by the following quote:

“He was politically grandstanding for his base, for his reelection, and not thinking through a plan,” said Domingo Garcia, president of the League of United Latin American Citizens, who has met with White House senior adviser Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, to discuss immigration reform. “He has no plan except to talk about immigration as a political piñata to score points with the far right. But illegal immigration has increased in the two years he has been president.”

I think this is exactly correct: Trump has no real plan, and had no real plan, save a vague sense of not liking immigration (especially from certain places). His crowds love it when he talk about the border and the only thing I can say for sure about Trump is that he loves it when the crowd loves him.

His solutions (I really should use scare quotes) for the border are all highly simplistic. A wall as a solution to the border is almost child-like in is simplicity. It isn’t even a solution to things like criminal gangs, drug trafficking, or asylum-seekers. Closing the border is patently absurd (and even as a negotiating tactic, is the stuff of playground-level strategizing).

Indeed, the quote reminds of reporting earlier in the year about Joshua Green’s book about the Trump-Bannon alliance. From a piece from Forbes in January (Where The Idea For Donald Trump’s Wall Came From):

Joshua Green had good access to Trump insiders, including Sam Nunberg, who worked with Stone. “Roger Stone and I came up with the idea of ‘the Wall,’ and we talked to Steve [Bannon] about it,” according to Nunberg. “It was to make sure he [Trump] talked about immigration.”

The concept of the Wall did not click right away with the candidate. “Initially, Trump seemed indifferent to the idea,” writes Green. “But in January 2015, he tried it out at the Iowa Freedom Summit, a presidential cattle call put on by David Bossie’s group, Citizens United. ‘One of his pledges was, ‘I will build a Wall,’ and the place just went nuts,’ said Nunberg. Warming to the concept, Trump waited a beat and then added a flourish that brought down the house. ‘Nobody,’ he said, ‘builds like Trump.'”

And yet, here we are–and with Stephen Miller having Trump’s ear on immigration policy in general. Back to the WaPo piece:

Meanwhile, Miller lobbied the president to make a wholesale overhaul among DHS leadership, telling him that senior officials, including Lee Cissna, the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, had slow-walked regulations aimed at curbing migration. Miller even argued that some of the DHS leadership was fearful of damage to their public reputations if they backed Trump’s hard-line agenda, the White House officials said.

FILED UNDER: Borders and Immigration, Donald Trump, US Politics
Steven L. Taylor
About Steven L. Taylor
Steven L. Taylor is Professor of Political Science and Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences at Troy University. His main areas of expertise include parties, elections, and the institutional design of democracies. His most recent book is the co-authored A Different Democracy: American Government in a 31-Country Perspective. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Texas and his BA from the University of California, Irvine. He has been blogging since 2003 (originally at the now defunct Poliblog). Follow Steven on Twitter

Comments

  1. Moosebreath says:

    “Trump really has not plan about the border save for demagoging the issue.”

    As opposed to any other issue confronting the country?

    ReplyReply
    15
  2. Teve says:

    Miller even argued that some of the DHS leadership was fearful of damage to their public reputations if they backed Trump’s hard-line agenda, the White House officials said.

    Let’s install some people who have even less shame than the current people. What can possibly go wrong!

    ReplyReply
  3. An Interested Party says:

    Trump really has no plan about the border save for demagoging the issue.

    Is this not the entirety of his presidency? Some of the reasons why he is the worst president in American history include that he is among the most unprepared men ever to win the position, his beastly temperament, and his hideous judgment…all part and parcel of someone who has no clue how to solve problems other than demagoguing them as a self-serving narcissist…

    ReplyReply
  4. Kathy says:

    @Moosebreath:

    El Dennison is a one-trick pony (or rather a one-trick broken down gelding), who a) loves his one trick and b) has an audience mesmerized by it.

    ReplyReply
  5. Andrew says:

    Donald is known for creating problems, then swooping in at the “last moment” to “save” whatever or whomever he sabotaged.
    Add in the GOP’s propensity for creating quagmires in regards to Defence. Vietnam, War on Drugs, War on Terror.
    Welcome ladies and gents to:
    The War on Immigration.

    ReplyReply
  6. Mister Bluster says:

    Add in the GOP’s propensity for creating quagmires in regards to Defence. Vietnam…

    Lyndon Johnson presided over the largest increase in American troops in Vietnam.
    From 16,300 in 1963 to 536,000 in 1968.

    Hey! Hey! LBJ!
    How many kids did you kill today!

    ReplyReply
  7. Andrew says:

    @Mister Bluster:
    Yes, and Johnson was also in talks to end the war. At least halt the bombing of Hanoi. To which Nixon/Kissinger tried to/did sabotage.
    There are reports the Paris deal was already on the ropes. But, we also know Nixon wanted that win.

    ReplyReply
    2
    1
  8. An Interested Party says:

    Lyndon Johnson presided over the largest increase in American troops in Vietnam.

    And Richard Nixon prolonged the Vietnam War to win an election…there are very good reasons for some Nixon/Trump comparisons…

    Oops…Andrew beat me to it… 🙂

    ReplyReply
    3
    1
  9. Kathy says:

    @Mister Bluster:

    Vietnam was a real team effort, beginning with Truman (D) giving aid to the French for their Reconquista in Indochina, and continuing through Eisenhower (R), Kennedy (D), Johnson (D), Nixon (R), and Ford (R).

    Presidents don’t make decisions in a vacuum, though. We need to take into account the Cold War mood, pressure from both parties, pressure from the public, pressure from allies, and pressure from enemies, among other things.

    Barbara Tuchman put it best in “The March of Folly,” with the subtitle to her section on Vietnam: “America Betrays Herself in Vietnam.”

    ReplyReply
  10. Mister Bluster says:

    Lyndon Johnson October 21, 1964

    ReplyReply
  11. Mister Bluster says:

    @Andrew:..To which Nixon/Kissinger tried to/did sabotage.

    Yes they did.

    NYT Opinion
    Anthony Lewis
    6/6/1994
    Henry Kissinger, the former Secretary of State, has taken exception to a recent column of mine. It noted that 20,492 Americans died in Vietnam while he and Richard Nixon made policy on the war, in the years 1969-72. It quoted H. R. Haldeman’s diaries as saying that on Dec. 15, 1970, Mr. Kissinger objected to an early peace initiative because there might be bad results before the 1972 election.
    In a letter to the editor of The New York Times, Mr. Kissinger said the column had pounced “on a single entry in 600 pages” of the diaries to show that “President Nixon’s Vietnam policy was driven by electoral politics.”
    A single entry? A few pages later in the diaries there is another.
    On Dec. 21, 1970, Mr. Haldeman recorded Mr. Kissinger opposing an early commitment to withdraw all U.S. combat troops “because he feels that if we pull them out by the end of ’71, trouble can start mounting in ’72 that we won’t be able to deal with and which we’ll have to answer for at the elections. He prefers, instead, a commitment to have them all out by the end of ’72 so that we won’t have to deliver finally until after the elections and therefore can keep our flanks protected.”
    And another. On Jan. 26, 1971, Mr. Kissinger discussed plans for “a major assault on Laos,” which he thought would devastate North Vietnam’s military capability. (The Laos operation turned out to be a costly failure.) “This new action in Laos now,” Mr. Haldeman wrote, “would set us up so we wouldn’t have to worry about problems in ’72, and that of course is the most important.”
    Of course. The overpowering reality in the Nixon White House, as so meticulously recorded by Mr. Haldeman, was that what mattered about any proposed policy was its likely political effect. (Mr. Kissinger was opposed to publication of “The Haldeman Diaries,” and it is easy to see why.)
    On Vietnam, the public wanted withdrawal of American soldiers from a war it increasingly hated. But Mr. Nixon had repeatedly said he would not be “the first American President to lose a war.”
    The political solution was to withdraw gradually, leaving South Vietnamese forces to carry on the war. No one could seriously expect them to withstand for long an army that had fought 500,000 Americans to a standstill. But the inevitable might be delayed, and a formula agreed with North Vietnam to let the United States claim “peace with honor.”
    Mr. Kissinger complained, in his letter, about the statement in my column that the United States could have got out of the war in 1969, before those 20,492 American deaths, in the same way it finally did in 1973: on terms that led before long to a North Vietnamese victory.
    Until the end, Mr. Kissinger wrote, the North Vietnamese insisted that a peace agreement remove the Nguyen Van Thieu regime in South Vietnam. It was only at the negotiating session of Oct. 8, 1972, that they dropped that point — and agreement followed.
    True. But it is a half-truth, leaving out the crucial fact. North Vietnam dropped the idea of a change of government in Saigon only when Mr. Kissinger acquiesced in its key demand: that its forces be allowed to remain permanently in the south.
    President Thieu saw that concession as a death sentence for his Government, and he strongly opposed the peace agreement. He was bitter at Mr. Kissinger for concealing the terms from him until after they were agreed, indeed deceiving him about the possibility of serious new U.S. negotiating positions.
    Who knows what might have happened if the Nixon Administration had made that crucial change in U.S. policy in 1969, conceding the right of Hanoi’s forces to stay in the south? Hanoi might well have abandoned, as unnecessary, the demand for political change in Saigon. In any event, the end result would have been the same after 1969 as after 1972: a North Vietnamese victory.
    President Nixon said in his memoirs that Mr. Kissinger had told him the 1972 peace agreement “amounted to a complete capitulation by the enemy; they were accepting a settlement on our terms.” Two years later North Vietnamese forces marched into Saigon.
    A fair test of Mr. Kissinger’s claim would be to put it to the families and friends of the 20,492 Americans who died in Vietnam during his years as policy-maker. Would they think it was worth four more years of war?

    ReplyReply
    7
    1
  12. rachel says:

    @Mister Bluster:

    “amounted to a complete capitulation by the enemy; they were accepting a settlement on our terms.”

    The leadership finally decided to declare victory and get out. It only took six years and tens? hundreds? of thousands more lives lost and ruined after Senator Aiken recommended doing so.

    ReplyReply
  13. Mister Bluster says:

    As I made my last post on this thread last night (Wednesday, April 10, 2019 at 23:43) I pondered “how far off topic have I gone here? Maybe this should move to the open forum.”

    ReplyReply
  14. john430 says:

    Lets put the wall and any other plans aside for a moment and let me ask one simple question of the No Borders folks: Given that they estimate us having 10 million or more illegal immigrants in the U.S. already, how many more “refugees” from Central America crossing over illegally are you prepared to accept? Give me a number and don’t equivocate. 5 million? 10 million? 20? Just answer the bleeping question with a number.

    ReplyReply
  15. Kathy says:

    @john430:

    Fifty (50) million (000,000).

    Happy?

    ReplyReply
  16. @john430:

    Give me a number and don’t equivocate. 5 million? 10 million? 20? Just answer the bleeping question with a number.

    One does love to be demanded upon in such a fashion.

    how many more “refugees” from Central America crossing over illegally are you prepared to accept?

    It is not illegal to seek asylum.

    ReplyReply
  17. Andrew says:

    @john430:

    Who is for no borders?

    ReplyReply
  18. Kathy says:

    @Andrew:

    Who is for no borders?

    Plenty of people.

    Do you know you can travel between Mississippi and California not just without a visa, but without even a passport?

    And once there, you can engage in business or trade, or be hired for a job, or request government services, without any risk of being deported.

    ReplyReply
  19. The abyss that is the soul of cracker says:

    @Kathy: To paraphrase Paul Simon: “He’s got one trick to last a lifetime/but that’s all a pony gelding needs.”

    ReplyReply
  20. Jax says:

    Hmmm….how many additional taxpayers do we need to add to our tax base to get 22 trillion out of debt? As long as they’re willing to work, educate their children, pay taxes, stay out of trouble, and live lives of peace and prosperity, that’s how many we need. It’s fairly obvious corporations, the uber rich, and politicians don’t ever intend to pay their fair share with Republicans in control, so it’s gotta come from somewhere.

    And nobody really IS for “open borders” like Fox News personalities and hate radio tell you they are John, in all their spittle-flecked, vein-busting, apocalyptic ranting. They just need to keep you scared, angry and donating, so they can keep bleeding rubes like you dry. Gotta pay for that second jet somehow!

    To quote a meme I saw at one point, the American Dream is not pie. Just because somebody else gets a little does not mean you get less.

    ReplyReply
  21. SenyorDave says:

    @Jax: To quote a meme I saw at one point, the American Dream is not pie. Just because somebody else gets a little does not mean you get less.

    That is a major part of the Trump philosophy: for me to win you must lose. It is why I think the long term damage he is doing internationally is the second worst damage he is inflicting on the country (#1 is the judiciary). World leaders are not going to accept a deal where they lose, and that is the only type Trump normally negotiates. What they can do is just sign on to improved deal that Trump “negotiates”, where in reality there is no material difference. Ultimately I assume that world leaders are tired of dealing with him and the US will begin to get marginalize. It will be a long process, but I have to assume that Europe will never trust the US again as it has in the past. Because another Trump can be waiting in the wings.

    ReplyReply
  22. Kathy says:

    @Jax:

    To quote a meme I saw at one point, the American Dream is not pie. Just because somebody else gets a little does not mean you get less.

    That’s true only when Democrats speak of higher taxes and/or redistributing income. then it’s self-evident that the economy si not a pie, and the more you let the rich accumulate, the more there will be for people in minimum wage jobs (so long as the minimum wage doesn’t rise too much!).

    But when it comes to immigration, them lousy foreigners are only here to take your share.

    ReplyReply
  23. Jax says:

    @Kathy: It has to be exhausting for so many people like John430 to be constantly living in a state of anger, hate and fear.

    SenyorDave, you are absolutely right on Trump’s philosophy and the damage he is doing. Even when it comes to American citizens, if they’re not for him, they’re against him, and deserve all the hell he can rain down on them. President for ALL the people, my ass. Only the sheep who vote for him. I honestly think if he could get away with it he would go full Hitler on all Democrats or any Republicans who dared speak against him.

    ReplyReply
  24. Scott F. says:

    @john430:

    Let me ask a more sophisticated question for you Closed Borders folks: how much are you willing to pay in taxes to fund the kind of government investment in foreign aid needed to truly mitigate the root causes of illegal immigration? Central American migration abates when the reasons to stay outweigh the reasons to flee. A stable, prosperous, Central American middle class is the only sustainable solution for the immigration that has you so afraid. No equivocating – 10% more?, 20% more? – just answer the question with a number.

    ReplyReply
  25. MarkedMan says:

    @Kathy:

    Do you know you can travel between Mississippi and California not just without a visa, but without even a passport?

    And, FWIW, you cannot do those things in China. Without the proper hukou you can’t work or live outside the region of your birth. There are literally tens of millions (100s?) of internal illegal immigrants working in China.

    I prefer the US way (and Mexico and Canada way) better, and hope that some day we can open borders to the world, everywhere. But we have a long way to go to equalize the standard of living so as to keep it from becoming a stampede.

    ReplyReply
  26. Mike says:

    Let’s do nothing, let 10s of thousands of people come in to the country. Hope no bad people. I’m sure it will be fine.

    Same w guns. Let’s keep mass producing; putting thousands more a day into society and hope for best.

    At this point, someone do something, anything, besides talk about it.

    ReplyReply
  27. MarkedMan says:

    I’ll tell you what, John430, I’ll answer your question if you answer one of mine: given that the most effective way to reduce illegal immigration is to go after the people that employ them, why aren’t you and your buddies clamoring for that? I would sign on in a heartbeat. I would join you in that crusade. So would many here. So why not fight for something that would be effective and get widespread support from the whole non-politician population?

    BTW, ever think about changing you screen name to Matthew6?

    ReplyReply
  28. MarkedMan says:

    I recognize that Ol’ John, being a typical Trumper, will never answer my question. But I’m gonna answer his anyway. 3M a year, at least. Look at what we are getting. People who are willing to take incredible risks to do something better for their children. People who are willing to bear months of hardship to improve their lot. I concede that most of these will not ever earn enough salary to pay high taxes, but every statistic shows that their children out perform their peers by wide margins. Children of immigrants get more education than the average. They start more businesses. They lead more civic organizations. So, yeah, I’m willing to take in a lot more such immigrants.

    At the same time, I’m not willing to have open borders. Letting people in because of economic hardship alone would drown the country. A billion people would show up on our doorstep in the next year and that would cripple us. And despite what John430’s Fox News con men tell him almost all of us on the left agree with that.

    ReplyReply
  29. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @MarkedMan: Matthew 6 is the second part of the Sermon on the Mount. What relationship is there between what John430 (which, IIRC, refers to his area code not the NT) believes and says and the Sermon on the Mount or the teachings of Jesus at all, on a broader level?

    ReplyReply
    1
    1
  30. @john430: I will admit, I do not have a specific number. I would allow a path to citizenship for the ~12 million undocumented in the country now.

    In terms of immigration, I would support a number that helped support population growth in the United States–our economy needs people (workers and consumers) and our government (and especially our welfare system–Medicare, Social Security, etc) needs taxpayers.

    We do not want to become Japan–and without immigration would could be.

    ReplyReply
  31. @Mike:

    Let’s do nothing, let 10s of thousands of people come in to the country. Hope no bad people. I’m sure it will be fine.

    While I wouldn’t quite put it that way, I would note that for a huge hunk of our history, that is pretty much what we did and it actually worked out pretty well.

    The flip side to consider is that a lot of really great people come when you let them.

    ReplyReply
  32. If we want to be all self-interested about it: I bet someone with enough fortitude, will, and physical ability to basically walk from El Salvador to El Paso might actually be a pretty hard-working and productive citizen.

    ReplyReply
  33. MarkedMan says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker: I should really have said Matthew 6:1-8 in my lame attempt at a dig. The choice of his screen name, John430, is the very opposite of the warning ” do not sound a trumpet before thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory of men”. Whatever claim he makes with the label he takes up are belied by the contents of his posts, which are garbage heaps composed of the bearing of false witness, judging without a care as to whether he will be judged, and various other non-Christ-like diatribes. It just struck me as funny that John thinks people will be impressed because of how he labels himself and never realizes that people will instead judge him for the content of his character. Like his boy Trump, he seems to think that just declaring himself to be something special should be all it takes.

    ReplyReply
  34. Mike says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: I don’t disagree. Most of the folks I come across w work are great “citizens “. Hard working folks who just want better life. I have no problem w them coming. We looked other way for a long time. Give those here amnesty and control the border in future

    ReplyReply
  35. john430 says:

    @MarkedMan: In the first place I do advocate E-Verify for employment. Additionally, I oppose “illegals”. There are many hundreds of thousands of legal applicants who are perfectly eligible because they knocked on the front door and not trying to sneak in the back. Lastly, for all the idiots who are curious about my screen name…Its my birthday, dummies. I was born on April 30, whereas Ignorant Cracker et al are their personal descriptors.

    @Steven L. Taylor: See my remarks about legal immigrants above. I see illegal immigrant problems firsthand because I live in San Antonio, Texas, my wife is Hispanic with credentials closing in on her PhD and Hispanic approval of Trump is approaching the 50% mark because of employment numbers.
    In the last few weeks we have read of local news reports of illegals from Honduras. One of which doesn’t even speak Spanish, just an indigenous dialect and is running away because they tease her for being unable to speak Spanish. In another story, a 53 year old grandmother is trying to sneak in with her 3 grand-kids. She is having problems with the paperwork because SHE CANT READ. Given her age and capabilities she’ll be on the dole forever.
    Steven: read up on automation, AI and menial jobs. We can’t offer lawn mowing jobs to everybody. Immigrants without any skills are being rejected everywhere. I’m not unsympathetic but we can’t fund everybody, despite what Ms. AOC wishes.

    ReplyReply
    1
    2
  36. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    @john430:

    No Borders folks

    When you start with complete and utter bullshit…why should anyone bother?
    If you’re serious about having a discussion…then try being serious.
    If you just want to spew shit Fox News told you to spew…then fuq off.
    Your comment does go to the heart of the post…Dennison is only interested in riling up his base…of which you are one of the most committed rubes.

    ReplyReply
  37. Daryl and his brother Darryl says:

    @Jax:

    It has to be exhausting for so many people like John430 to be constantly living in a state of anger, hate and fear.

    If it weren’t for people like John420, that are so easily manipulated with hate and fear, the Republican Party would cease to exist.

    ReplyReply
  38. Teve says:

    @Daryl and his brother Darryl: in the last six months the GOP has gotten behind pushing two really stupid lies. 1, everybody in the Democratic party wants completely open borders. 2, Democrats want to murder newborns.

    You might think to yourself, “that’s a bad strategy, there aren’t enough idiots who’d believe two things so contrary to reason and evidence.” Trumpers are here to prove you wrong! 😀

    ReplyReply
  39. @john430: You really should refrain from calling people “illegals.”

    I see illegal immigrant problems firsthand because I live in San Antonio, Texas,

    Anecdotes ain’t evidence. Plus, San Antonio is roughly 3 hours from the border and over 4 hours from a major point of entry. It isn’t exactly a border town. You want to cite some actual evidence?

    my wife is Hispanic with credentials closing in on her PhD

    How is any of that relevant? That you have a wife, that she is Hispanic, or that she is working towards a PhD neither enhances your argument nor does it even make syntactical or grammatical sense in the sentence from which I quoted the phrase.

    It is as if you think mentioning your wife’s ethnicity furthers your argument (it does not) or that it inoculates you from calling people “illegals.” And since I am certain that my holding of a PhD does not make you accept what I say, what is the relevance of your’s wife level of education attainment?

    Hispanic approval of Trump is approaching the 50% mark because of employment numbers.

    a) How does that have any significance to the question you asked?

    b) See Fact-checking Trump’s claim that he has a 50-percent approval rating among Latinos to see that the answer is “well, maybe.”

    Steven: read up on automation, AI and menial jobs. We can’t offer lawn mowing jobs to everybody. Immigrants without any skills are being rejected everywhere. I’m not unsympathetic but we can’t fund everybody, despite what Ms. AOC wishes.

    First, nothing you have ever said on this topic would suggest that you are sympathetic.

    Second, who says that immigrants from Latin America can only mow lawns and do menial labor? You make a lot of assumptions about “illegals” and what they can or cannot do.

    I tried to give a thoughtful, albeit brief, answer to your question. Your response is mostly a) noting (again) that your wife is Hispanic, b) noting (again) that you live in Texas, and c) repeating FNC-like talking points.

    ReplyReply
  40. Just nutha ignint cracker says:

    @john430: I really thought you’d told me before that it was related to your area code. Seems I was wrong. I apologize. As for me, I don’t have any particular problems acknowledging that I am both ignorant on some (many?) subjects and that I was identified by some of my peers at a 2-year where I worked quarter-to-quarter as “the most irredeemable cracker we have on the faculty.” Interestingly enough, one black student (maybe more, I dunno, I had many over the years I was there) acknowledged that he took my class because he’d decided that if he could do well in a class taught by the worst cracker on the campus, he’d do well in the rest of his classes, too. I count that as amazing courage and character. How about you?

    BTW: Did well, was a good writer and a good thinker.

    ReplyReply
  41. Kathy says:

    @MarkedMan:

    And, FWIW, you cannot do those things in China.

    See, that’s why China is eating the world’s lunch. they know how to keep immigration down. maybe trump should do the same, and introduce internal immigration controls. no more Californians heading to Texas for a handout, besides most of them are Mexicans anyway.

    ReplyReply
  42. Kathy says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    The flip side to consider is that a lot of really great people come when you let them.

    That’s a very good point. Let’s complement it with the Ratatouille Principle: A great artist can come from anywhere. Also a great engineer, businessperson, athlete, innovator, doctor, scientist, etc.

    It will be rare, but it will happen. Consider Steve Jobs, son of Syrian immigrants. Could he have done in Syria what he did in america? No. And that’s the point.

    ReplyReply
  43. john430 says:

    @Steven L. Taylor: You really should refrain from calling people “illegals.” How about “foreign nationals”? Will that do? Or perhaps, “surreptitious back-door immigrants”? Next you’ll be saying that burglars are “uninvited property redistributors.”
    As to my wife, etc. you ought to read other folks’ postings. I try to preempt the insults. I’ve been called anti-American, anti-Christian, racists and worse. Saw a cartoon recently that noted that Democrats haven’t been this mad at Republicans since we took away their slaves. Jes’ tryin’ to level the playin’ field, y’all.

    ReplyReply
  44. @john430: If you feel the need, I would argue that “illegal immigrant” is ok, but “illegals” is inappropriate. These are human beings and are not reducible to simply being “illegals”–indeed, such reduction leads to some of the policies you support.

    Beyond that: it doesn’t level any playing field. Your statements are what they are, regardless as to whom you are married.

    ReplyReply
  45. @john430:

    Saw a cartoon recently that noted that Democrats haven’t been this mad at Republicans since we took away their slaves.

    I glided over that one. You aren’t helping your cause with this.

    ReplyReply
  46. Kathy says:

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Your statements are what they are, regardless as to whom you are married.

    You’re stepping over his moral license.

    Well done.

    ReplyReply
  47. Teve says:

    Donald Trump Gets Stupider Every Day

    KEVIN DRUM

    OK then:

    President Trump said Friday that his administration is giving “strong considerations” to a plan to release immigrant detainees exclusively into “sanctuary cities,” reviving a proposal that White House officials insisted had been rejected months ago after only informal consideration.

    Put aside the fact that this would be illegal and just consider what signal it would send. Trump would be loudly proclaiming that if you come to the United States to seek asylum, we will put you into a comfy American bus and send you to a city where you will be given food and shelter. Everyone there will try to help you find work and provide lawyers to help with your asylum request. That should certainly stop the brown hordes from swarming to America seeking asylum!

    Look, I get that Trump is just saying this to impress his fan base, but how stupid is this? Even for Trump, pretty stupid.

    ReplyReply
  48. wr says:

    @john430: “Lastly, for all the idiots who are curious about my screen name…Its my birthday, dummies. I was born on April 30, whereas Ignorant Cracker et al are their personal descriptors.”

    And yet in the past, you’ve claimed it referred to your area code. I have no idea why you’d lie about something so trivial — and even less why you’d expect anyone to take you seriously on anything once you’ve revealed that you’ll lie about something so trivial.

    ReplyReply
  49. @wr: FWIW, 430 is a Texas area code, but not from the area where he says he resides.

    ReplyReply
  50. wr says:

    @Just nutha ignint cracker: “I really thought you’d told me before that it was related to your area code. Seems I was wrong.”

    You weren’t. He did.

    ReplyReply
  51. An Interested Party says:

    I’ve been called anti-American, anti-Christian, racists and worse.

    The alleged “fact” that you may have a Hispanic wife doesn’t make any of those labels untrue…

    FWIW, 430 is a Texas area code, but not from the area where he says he resides.

    You mean he’s lied about that too!? I’m shocked…

    ReplyReply
  52. MarkedMan says:

    @wr:

    I have no idea why you’d lie about something so trivial

    Many give me grief about my assertion that if someone is a Trump supporter it is reasonable to suspect everything they say. Here’s an example right in front of us. Like his boy Trump, John will lie about anything if he thinks it will help prove his point. As for his claimed PhD seeking Hispanic wife, there is just no reason to believe she is real.

    Trumpers are either okay with his constant lies, in which case it’s a reasonable precaution to assume they lie themselves, or they are so stupid and gullible they can’t recognize even the most blatant lies. In neither case should a reasonable person depend on what they say.

    ReplyReply
  53. MarkedMan says:

    .

    ReplyReply

Speak Your Mind

*