Trump: Word games on immigration
I cannot support a candidate for president who has not been consistent on the subject of illegal immigration for at least 30 days. That's why I have a problem with Donald Trump, even though he came out today with a plan, which, in some respects, is the most detailed and forceful one I've seen for dealing with illegal aliens:
On immigration, Trump said, "We're going to keep the families together, but they [those in the country illegally] have to go," according to a transcript released by NBC. [he would] force the "mandatory return of all criminal aliens" to their home countries.
"Criminal aliens" creates an ambiguity. Technically, all illegal aliens are criminals. But does Trump mean all those who entered illegally, or those, once here, who committed additional crimes? If it's clear to you he means all illegals, just keep reading below.
He also said the country should "get rid of" birthright citizenship.
"What they're doing: They're having a baby. And all of a sudden, nobody knows ... the baby's here," he said.
Trump is right. Birthright citizenship has long been abused. No other candidate is calling for this. Trump is ahead of the pack on this.
Trump's paper said Mexico "must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]."
This is great! (Except perhaps for tariffs.) Trump is the only candidate who has gone this far, and been this specific, so he deserves credit for these proposals.
The only problem is that on July 29, Trump said something very different.
When CNN’s Dana Bash asked Mr. Trump last month whether he favored a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants, he gave a more flexible answer than you might expect, given his comments about Mexican rapists. “Right now, no,” he said, but also, “we’ll see, later, down the line, who knows what’s going to happen.” For now, he wants an “expedited” way to offer legal residency (but not citizenship) to the subset of unauthorized immigrants he considers “the good ones.
This wasn't July 29 of 2010, or 2013 or 2014. It was less than three weeks ago. Less than three weeks ago, Trump was talking about legalizing some (or maybe most?) illegal aliens. Remember above the ambiguity about deporting "criminal" aliens? Taken in context with his July 29 comments of keeping the "good" ones, it looks like he supports deporting only the ones who have committed additional crimes (of some degree of seriousness?) while in the U.S.
Trump supporters will say, "No one is perfect!" And that is true. But when you set the bar so low that a candidate contradicts himself on the main issue of the day in less than three weeks, you are basically saying that the political equivalent of Bullwinkle or Rocky the Squirrel is qualified to be president. Ted Cruz and Bobby Jindal have managed not to contradict themselves on illegal immigration. Why can't we insist on better?
This article was produced by NewsMachete.com, the conservative news site.