Donald Trump on Immigration (Deportation)

Jump to Last Post 1-11 of 11 discussions (80 posts)

84
peoplepower73posted 8 years ago
Trumps speech on August 31 was fraught with lies and miss-information. He should not call it his policy on Immigration, but it should be called his policy on Deportation. I watched the entire speech and it gave me chills. He sounded and acted just like Hitler and Mussolini. Here is the link to FactCheck. org. The lies are far too numerous to copy and paste. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/08/factch … migration/
reply report
1. 88
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  From your link:
  "The peak for removals processed by the Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agencies, going back to 1892, was 435,498 in fiscal 2013."
  
  From the Center for Immigration Studies (http://cis.org/ICE-Illegal-Immigrant-Deportations):
  
  "Total deportations in 2011, the latest year for which complete numbers are available, numbered 715,495 – the lowest level since 1973. The highest number of deportations on record was in 2000, under the Clinton administration, when 1,864,343 aliens were deported."
  
  Wonder who is right. And who is misstating factual statistics for political reasons.
  reply report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness: If you want, scroll to the bottom of the link and it will give all the sources that fact check used for their disputes. So you found one thing that is different from all the lies that Trump told and now that gets him off the hook? I looked at your link. If you go to their about page, they are all about favoring low immigration rates. In fact, I heard Trump refer to them many times in his speech.
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  https://www.ice.gov/removal-statistics
  
  This one gives figures more in line with your link. It is also for Immigration and Customs Enforcement figures only, and leaves out the deportations from border patrol. Is that the difference?
  reply report
2. 0
  ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  People power ,You and Alternative Prime should join the mainstream new news media , You slant is as delusional as most of that junk today , When Trump is elected watch out , you're apt to be deported too ! Right after he jails you for ten years for all the hysterical posts you create !
  
  Good luck with your most imaginative opinions!
  reply report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback: I'm betting you didn't even look at the link, because you can't even handle the truth. You have to stay in denial and lash out with insults at those who don't agree with you just like Trump. It you accepted the truth, your whole world would come crashing down like a house of cards. You fit the mold of a "compassionate conservative", that is really not compassionate at all. That's why the GOP is coming apart at the seams because they don't have the right stuff to relate to the changing world..
  
  That's why you like Trump because he doesn't have a compassionate bone in his body and you are willing to overlook all his lies and insults. Every time he opens his mouth, he lies, insults, and contradicts what has just said and it is recorded for all the world to see.
  
  Unlike Hillary who is held guilty until proven innocent with all these never ending investigations that have cost the taxpayers million of dollars. Just like Joseph McCarthy did with the Witch Hunts of Communists where innocent people where accused of being Communists. He had no shame, just like Trump.
  
  You may call my posts and alternative primes posts hysterical, but they involve critical thinking. That is something I don't think you and the Trump voting base are capable of doing.
  
  Good luck to you and people like you if Trump is elected. I can just see him giving a State of the Union Speech, looking and acting just like Hitler and Mussolini. If you don't believe me, just google both of those characters and see and hear what they looked like.
  
  I don't think you would do it so here are the links. Watch Mussolini puff out his chest and lift his chin, just like Trump does. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOv-Ncs7vQk
  
  Listen to Hitler say his is going to make his country great again. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFNUdCtMXWE
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  You're running right unto the "Never Trump " hysteria of mass naiveté- of a people much younger and inexperienced voter than you and I , good luck with that lack of wisdom ! And yes I watched your low quality video .
  reply report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback: You call it naivete. I call it critical thinking.
  reply report
  83
  GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Do you really think your comparisons to Hitler and Mussolini are indicative of critical thinking?
  
  Do you really think your blanket condemnations, without any nod to the reasons for the actions you are condemning, are a result of critical thinking?
  
  Do you really think your comments are any less partisan than ahorseback's?
  
  I don't think your responses have earned the laurels you have assumed.
  
  If you wish to own the mantle of a critical thinker, then be one.
  
  GA
  reply report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  GA ANDERSON: Yes, I made a statement and I backed it up with you tube presentations. It is not just an empty accusation. That's called research and analysis. Unlike Trump who lies, insults, and makes accusatory statements without backing them up. Other than he says "believe me." I did the research and analysis of Trumps lies that were presented by FactCheck, with their sources for every statement they made Unlike Trump supporters who just accept what he says on blind faith, because they have been told Hillary is a criminal. If she is a criminal, why don't they arrest her instead of holding these useless investigations? I wish they would arrest her so that they can stop spending our tax payers money on these investigations that are nothing more than Witch Hunts.
  
  It's very simplistic for ahorseback to blame the liberals for all the countries woes. I know our congress on both sides has been bought out by big corporations, and big moneyed interest. I don't just blatantly blame republicans for all the countries ills. I know that fox news has spread fear and propaganda for years and they are the mouth piece for the republican party. I know the difference between the national debt and the deficit. I know that Trump constantly talks about Obama's national debt. I know that he probably doesn't know that each president inherits the debt of the previous president. So that means he will start with a national debt of around 22 trillion if he is elected. More than likely, his supporters don't even have a clue. if they did, they would call him on it.
  
  You don't know me and you don't know what I am capable of. I have written many hubs on politics and they have all required research and analysis to get to the root cause of the issues. Trump doesn't want critical thinkers, because they can see right through his smoke screen of bullying, insults, and incompetence. Trump, the republican party, and fox news have created an audience of Hillary Haters that are not critical thinkers, but react to sound bites and dog whistle politics. That's the way they want it.
  reply report
3. 0
  Hxprofposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I only heard pieces of Trump's speech, and I haven't looked at any of the links provided here.....and I'm not a Trump supporter. However, one thing he's been very consistent about is the policy of deporting illegal immigrants. That's US law. So, regardless of the lies he told during his speech (and no doubt he did lie), his determination to build a wall and deport illegals fits in with the constitutional requirements of our government to enforce the law.
  reply report
4. 85
  RJ Schwartzposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  The only thing I heard was American First, American Interests Frist, Obey American Law, Enforce the Law, America is a nation not held to any other standards but our own, lawbreakers and illegals will be punished.....
  reply report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  RJ SCHWART: What you chose to hear and what the truth is are two different things. I bet you didn't even look at the link. It's amazing how we can filter out what we don't want to hear and see.
  reply report
58
Alternative Primeposted 8 years ago
"PATHOLOGICAL Liar" is an Under-Statement to DESCRIBE "Delusional Donald" & FACT-Check WEB-Sites Prove this POINT in SPADEs ~

P.S. ~ Where's Donald's NEW "PRETEND Advisor" Sickly Lookin' Racist Kelly-Anne? If she's unable to give Trump Proper Relevant Critique I guess I'll have to and here it is ~

Hey Donald, if your gonna' CONTINUE to ACT like Mussolini U need to STOP Lookin' like HOWDY Doody" ~
reply report
80
Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years ago
"Interior enforcement activity, including arrests and removals of criminal aliens, which are ICE’s highest priority, has declined significantly. More than 870,000 aliens who have been ordered removed are still living here in defiance of our laws. This dysfunction must be addressed before consideration of more mass amnesties or expansions in admissions of any kind. Until we achieve better control of illegal immigration, and the laws we have are taken seriously and enforced, there is no point in passing new ones."

http://cis.org/ICE-Illegal-Immigrant-Deportations
reply report
80
Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years ago
"The data collected by the Center during the past quarter-century has led many of our researchers to conclude that current, high levels of immigration are making it harder to achieve such important national objectives as better public schools, a cleaner environment, homeland security, and a living wage for every native-born and immigrant worker. These data may support criticism of US immigration policies, but they do not justify ill feelings toward our immigrant community. In fact, many of us at the Center are animated by a "low-immigration, pro-immigrant" vision of an America that admits fewer immigrants but affords a warmer welcome for those who are admitted."

http://cis.org/About
(Center for Immigration Studies)
reply report
58
Alternative Primeposted 8 years ago
FYI ~ Statistics FLASHED Across my Monitor a FEW Minutes ago which Demonsrtated the FACT that Between 2009 - 2014, the U.S. Realized a "Net LOSS" of 140,000 Mexican Immigrants ~ Stats Courtesy of 'PEW Research" not Random BABBLINGs Spewed from "Delusional Donald's" HATE Filled BIG Racist Mouth ~

Still believe "Delusional Donald's" FACTLESS LIE about "IMPENDING Doom" Lurking just over the BORDER ?? ~ Everyone understands the Common Sense FACT that the Vast Majority of Immigrants DO NOT Migrate to the United States with Explicit Intent to Commit a Crime, WHY would they when that could be ACCOMPLISHED in their OWN Country? In REALITY, they come here for Opportunity & Documented or NOT, they CONTRIBUTE MORE to the Well Being of this Nation than any BACKWARD Congressional Republican I can think of, Papers or NOT ~
reply report
1. 88
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Hmm. A net loss of 1%, at a time when many illegals leave to go home each year.
  
  Yes, there is impending doom (probably overstated) lurking over our southern border. It is unfortunate that liberals see it primarily as a source of votes to maintain their personal power, but that's not surprising in a politician.
  reply report
  58
  Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  No wilderness, we "Progressive Liberals" View Hispanics, Mexicans, Cubans et al Immigrants Documented or otherwise, as a "Vital & Integral Flesh and BLOOD COMPONENT" of the U.S. FABRIC ~ 99.999 Percent of these HARD Working Individuals have EARNED their RIGHT to Citizenship ~ NEVER Forget, they are "HUMAN Beings" FIRST & Foremost ABOVE ALL Else ~
  
  WE as DEMOCRATs Appreciate their CONTRIBUTIONs to this ALREADY Great Nation, Contributions which are CLEARLY Evident here in California and NO, we do NOT Consider them to be IN-HUMAN "Rapists & Criminals" who must be "ROUNDED Up, PUNISHED & Inhumanely TORN Apart" from their FAMILIES at all cost as ""Delusional RACIST Donald" is SALIVATING to do ~ But FORTUNATELY, he'll NEVER get that CHANCE from OUR Oval Office due to OBVIOUS Reasons ~
  
  The VAST Majority of AMERICANs would rather see "Drumpf the SWINDLER" DEPORTED back to whatever LAND he came from, along with SEVERAL CONservative Congressional Republicans who have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the United States in 8 Years aside from OBSTRUCT & File FRIVOLOUS Law Suits ~ ~
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  why the caps? AP?
  reply report
  58
  Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  lol @ Kathryn ~ I find when CONservatives are "Decisively DEFEATED" with FACTs, they RESORT to Petty Little Frivolous Personal Attacks ~
  
  I'll simply RESPOND by ASKING the FOLLOWING Question ~
  
  What's with the "LACK of CREATIVITY" ?? I see the SAME Old Boring FONT & Writing STYLE EVERYWHERE ~ I prefer to EXPAND My Horizons all the TIME & NOT Stagnate ~ ~
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  well, it is it is as irritating as seeing this emoji: ~> <~ I 'm sure you know it.
  
  reply report
2. 0
  Hxprofposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  If they're undocumented, that means they're here illegally, and thus are referred to by many as illegal aliens. They have no business being here.
  reply report
80
Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years ago
BLOOD COMPONENT FABRIC HARD EARNED RIGHT
NEVER HUMAN FIRST ABOVE
WE DEMOCRAT CONTRIBUTION ALREADY CLEARLY
NO NOT IN-HUMAN ROUNDED
PUNISHED TORN FAMILIES RACIST SALIVATING FORTUNATELY
NEVER CHANGE OUR OBVIOUS VAST MAJORITY
AMERICAN SWINDLER DEPORTED LAND SEVERAL CON ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OBSTRUCT FRIVOLOUS
( looking for secret message. )
reply report
1. 58
  Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  ~ U ALMOST Got It ~ ~ "HUMAN FABRIC" is the UNDERLYING Theme of my COMMENT ~
  reply report
80
Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years ago
I suppose y o u r HUMAN FABRIC = "OBVIOUS VAST MAJORITY"

Well, I disagree.
reply report
1. 80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  maybe you meant this: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING should OBSTRUCT the FRIVOLOUS.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 8 years ago
It's very ,very telling that ultra- Liberals cannot see beyond their usual professional entitle-ist thought process' ! America has given - GIVEN -Mexico at least fifty million dollars a year - for years !
50,000,000 in foreign aid , and for what ?!!!!

What has Mexico given America ?------15- 20 million ILLEGAL immigrants , some of the worst perpetrators of crimes to live within our midst ! Not to be included with LEGAL immigrants.

Nice Trade deal there ! Vote TRUMP

In my "closed minded "opinion , Fifty Million dollars a year will continue to finance a nice wall !
reply report
1. 58
  Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  lol ~ Yup ~ As USUAL, "Delusional Donald" is LATE by about 2,221 YEARs when the AGE of Building GREAT BiG USELESS Concrete WALLs ENDED with that Ridiculous Monstrosity that was Erected in CHINA, a Communist Place where by the way, your LOSER Candidate OWEs MILLIONs to ~
  
  BIG Useless CONCRETE Walls SLAPPED Shoddily together by an INEPT Money Grubbing Individual along with his "Demented DREAM" of DIGGING Up the BONES of Patton & MacArthur, two ANTIQUATED 1940's Soldiers "Drumpf" would Commission to Engage in a 21st CENTURY Conflict of today ~
  
  Yup, I guess if your waiting Patiently for NAPOLEON or Genghis Khan to MOUNT an ARMY and "COME Git us" his ideas might be useful, but I ain't seen SIGNs of either one lately ~ HAVE U ? I'm willing to bet Donald Probably has ~
  
  Anyway ahorseback, Undocumented Immigrant Human Beings will NEVER Harm U, they are here for OPPORTUNITY just like your ANCESTORs came here for, but "Drumpfy TRUMP's" SCHEME to "CUT your Paycheck" Certainly will HARM U & YOUR Entire Family ~
  
  NO, "Delusional Donald" will NEVER be Allowed to OCCUPY OUR White House nor get his Petite Little Handz on OUR Nuclear BOMBs, and that should give U & ALL HUMANs some COMFORT ~
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "Anyway ahorseback, Undocumented Immigrant Human Beings will NEVER Harm U"
  
  Fascinating opinion, although a little lacking in depth or honesty.
  
  Illegal aliens don't take opportunities such as jobs? They don't use health care without paying? They don't drive illegally without insurance? They don't take room in jails? They don't send children to school at someone else's expense? They don't ignore the law, providing an excuse for others to do so?
  
  But of course they hurt no one, do they? The liberal mind is a fascinating thing with it's ability to ignore reality and fabricate opinions on nothing but thin air.
  reply report
  0
  Hxprofposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  They do all of these things wilderness, and the other pertinent fact is that we (as a nation) get to decide who can come here and who can't, it's that simple. There are laws in place to ensure that this happens, but recent presidents have ignored them.
  reply report
  58
  Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  lol ~ This KIND of "DERANGED & Delusional" Thinking is one of the Primary REASONs WHY "Drumpf" will be DECIMATED in November along with many of his BACKWARD CONservative Congressional Republicans who are just as IGNORANT ~
  
  What some Un-Educated individuals Fail to REALIZE is the FACT that the VAST Majority of Undocumented Immigrants are "Hard Working & LAW Abiding" Human Beings unlike CON-Man Trump who has a SIGNIFICANT "Rap Sheet" of UNLAWFUL Activity which includes DE-FRAUDING Our Elderly AMERICANs ~
  
  So, I guess if "Violation or NON-Violation" of the LAW is the Primary MEASURE by which an individual is HUNTED Down, Cuffed, then TORN Away from his / her Family ONLY to be EXILED to another COUNTRY against his / her will , I guess Donald should be at the TOP of that LIST ~
  reply report
  0
  Hxprofposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  LOL (many times) - IF individuals are HUNTED DOWN LIKE DOGS, separated from their families and EXILED TO ANOTHER COUNTRY AGAINST THEIR FREKIN' WILL, then do you think, just maybe, that it's because they have come into the country illegally and BROUGHT IT UPON THEMSELVES??? OH MY GOSH, THAT'S IT!!!!!!
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Does being hard working negate any of the things mentioned? Of course not - it's just another false trail to divert from the question - the insinuation that illegal aliens harm no one. They certainly do, and being hard working doesn't change that.
  reply report
  58
  Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  lol ~ The "FALSE Trail" is the DEULSION that we have an "IMPENDING Doom" at OUR Border ~ Just like "DELUSIONAL Donald's" BIRTHER NONSENSE or his "Grand DELUSION" that Ted Cruz' Father was in on some sort of CONSPIRACY to Assassinate JFK ~ RIDICULOUS Nonsense & VOTERs Understand this ~
  
  The REALITY is we've EXPERIENCED a NET Outflow of Undocumented WORKERs as CLEARLY Illustrated by the FACTs Presented by Pew RESEARCH & sure, we ALL Understand that a Tiny Minority of Un-Documented Human Beings do indeed commit CRIMEs here in the United States, and they of course should be REMOVED from the COUNTRY and or Penalized, but to my KNOWLEDGE, None have SET Up a FAKE University to SWINDLE Thousands of AMERICANs, nor have any to my Knowledge ENCOURAGED the Russians to BREACH OUR National Security, both Incidents do however have Trump's FINGER-Prints ~
  
  Today, I watched two Gentlemen I presumed to be Un-Documented Individuals TRIM Massive 70 Foot Trees Adjacent to my Property, a Difficult & DANGEROUS JOB very few other Individuals that I know of who would either ACCEPT or Perform ~
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  This just in: America NEEDS brave illegal aliens for our Difficult & DANGEROUS tree trimming.
  reply report
  58
  Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe EVERYONE should try Climbing a 70 FOOT Tree then Proceed to SLICE the Branches aroung them ~ I believe a GREATER Appreciation for this "Labor Intensive & DANGEROUS" JOB might be a Take-Away from the Experience ~
  
  BTW ~ U can INCLUDE Car Washing, Hotel ROOM "Cleaning & Maintenance", Crop Harvesting, Landscaping, Restaurant Kitchen WORK, Porcelain TILE Floor Installation etc to that LIST ~
  
  There are VERY "Good & Valid" REASONs WHY these "Labor Intensive JOBs" are Performed Primarily by Minorities who are Un-Documented or otherwise, and DESPITE the FOX Loser Network "CIRCUS of LIEs & Ridiculous IGNORANCE Based SPIN" the VAST Majority of Hispanics / Latinos / Cubans who happen to be "Paperless" are NOT EMPLOYED at Hughes AIRCRAFT or Skunkworks or the LOCAL Manufacturing PLANT, to the CONTRARY, they do Work which Maintains the Underlying FABRIC of the Community & That's simply an Undisputed HARD-Core FACT ~
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I assume you've never been involved in manual labor as you don't know a single individual that would do such a dangerous job.
  
  I've personally ridden one of those lifts (that I assume they were using) 80 feet in the air during a construction project. All of my crew did - some 50 people. All of the other trades did - likely around 1,000 people at one time or another were 80 feet in the air on a snorkel lift. I was there when one drove off the edge, catching the snorkel on surrounding steel - the people were rescued, the machine put back on it's wheels and work continued. Use of such machinery is common practice in the construction industry, and it isn't just done by illegal aliens.
  
  Your pathetic attempt to glorify illegals as doing dangerous work no one else will do is worthless and degrading.
  reply report
  58
  Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I'm VERY Familiar with "MANUAL Labor" & Perhaps many of the "Immigrant BASHERs" around here and everywhere should PERSONALLY spend some time in a "BORDER State" for a Hefty "DOSE of REALITY" ~
  
  Un-Documented WORKERs Typically LACK the "Discretionary FUNDs" for "CUSHY" Job Enhancing "MACHINERY", not that it's an UNPREFERED Method, so I would QUESTION which one of us is actually EDUCATED on the SUBJECT & which one of us ACTUALLY MEETs, Interacts & Talks to Un-Documented WORKERs on an almost DAILY Basis ~ I do, and given your locale, I would ASSUME "Personal Contact" is a RARITY, unless of course we're TALKING "BIGFOOTs or Leprechauns", who to my knowledge, are indeed PAPERLESS as well ~
  
  The Tree Trimmers CLIMBED the TREEs, tied off a Rope as "FALL Protection" and then used a CHAIN Saw & Manual SAW to do the JOB ~ ZERO HIGH Tech Machinery was involved ~
  
  At his AGE of 70, and Considering his Obvious BREATHING & Neck Problems, not to mention his Obesity, Petite Handz, Unhealthy DIET, Lack of Exercise & Limited Mental Capacity, we would have to assume "Drumpfy Trump" would be Extremely LUCKY to MUSTER the PHYSICAL Ability & Strength to merely UN-Pack the TREE-Trimming GEAR.......
  reply report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness: I find it interesting that you compare manual labor to only what you experienced. That's called a false equivalence. How about all the other menial tasks that undocumented labor is willing to do? Making beds, cleaning hotels, picking fruits and vegetables, washing cars, and construction work to name a few. How many white folks do you know who are willing to do those jobs for the same pay as those workers?
  
  When Trump gets rid of those workers, is he taking them out all at once or one at a time as they are replaced by loving American citizens as he calls them? If he takes them out all at once, our economy and all the goods and services that those people contributed to will go down the tubes. And the price of those goods will increase, because nobody is going to work for what their labor costs were. Those costs will be passed on to the consumer.
  
  If he takes them out one at a time, it will take forever to replace them. Will he have job fairs for citizens that want to replace those he deported. These are just a few things have to be thought out before, before he starts pledging concepts as policy. He is working from the big picture and leaving out the details. Maybe that's how it is done in the real estate world, but not in government policy, You start with the details and feasibility studies and then summarize what the concept is, not the other way around. He is doing nothing more than providing false hope for his supporters and those who think they have been disenfranchise by the system. The big elephant in the room is congress. If they don't approve his policies, none of it gets done. He is not a king, as he likes to think of himself. That's why we have the balance of power and the president is supposed to have very little power. He claims he won't use executive orders. But he also states that he is the only one that can fix a rigged system.
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "How many white folks do you know who are willing to do those jobs for the same pay as those workers?"
  
  *shrug* I've dug ditches (with a shovel, not a backhoe) and shoveled manure for a living. I've collect rat pellets with a hand broom. I've moved irrigation pipe by hand, picking it up and carrying it 40' through freezing mud. Yeah, I understand manual labor.
  
  And yes, most Americans will do what is necessary to live - give them a living wage and take away the charity and they'll work. They are, after all, as able as the illegals are.
  
  No, I haven't seen anything from Trump that will work. But the only thing I've seen from Clinton is a return to the policies that have put us in the mess we're in - while it's a favorite tactic to claim the results of a failed action will be different this time I'm smart enough to understand the only result will be to pad the pockets of business and politicians while I pick up the cost. Are you?
  reply report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness: It's not about you understanding manual labor. It is about creating a work force that replace the existing cheap labor force that has been in existence for decades. Is the government going to advertise these open jobs to go work in the fields to pick strawberries or is it going to be the farmers. They work with families in the fields. How many families are going to be willing to do that?
  
  Again you are using a false equivalence to compare Trump's lack of planning with Obama's alleged failure of policies and that Hillary is going to do the same thing. Where are the facts to back that up? Obama's policies have only had trouble getting through a republican roadblock congress.
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Not particularly concerned about "cheap" labor. If we as a country doesn't want a product enough (strawberries in your case, but could just as well be houses), then we don't need them badly enough. But your cheap labor only benefits the businesses hiring them; the rest of us pay the rest of that cost, and you know and understand that as well as I do.
  
  I don't recall mentioning Obama's failed policies. I refer to the idea from years ago that a one time amnesty would solve the illegal alien problem without any further effort on our part. It didn't work, did it, and here's Clinton wanting to do the same thing all over again.
  reply report
  58
  Alternative Primeposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  lol ~ The "MESS" We're IN???? Any President would give their RIGHT Arm to be in CURRENT Position of 95% EMPLOYMENT ~ AND That's a FACT According to the DEPT. of LABOR, not some FANTASY Number Contrived by FOX Loser NETWORK or the "Delusional Donald" Circus of WEIRDOs ~
  
  NOT Perfect but we are CERTAINLY on the Correct Trajectory COMPARED to the last Disasterous REPUBLICAN President GEORGE W Bush who CRASHED us into the WORST Recession in HISTORY while BLEEDING Jobs MONTHLY until his Departure ~ HOW Soon CONservatives FORGET ~
  report
2. 84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  ahorseback: Trumps said his will wall will cost 8 billion to 12 billion. At 8 billion, 50 million is 0.625% of 8 billion. At 12 billion 50 million is 0.416% of 12 billion. I'm sure that will go a long way to build his wall.
  
  Let's do some critical thinking here. He is going to build a wall at cheap price. That means he is going to use cheap labor. Cheap construction labor comes from undocumented labor. Is he going to deport them before he builds the wall or after he builds the wall? His wall is going to have a beautiful door.. There are currently 48 legal border crossings. Is he going to close all of them except for the door. Does he build the wall first with the one door and then push everybody through the door or is he going to deport everybody and then build the wall with one door?
  
  You just don't deport 11 million people in one day. They have to be detained and processed. Where is he going to detain and process these people or is he just going to put them in buses and drive them back across the border? How long is that going to take? In his last speech, he says he is going to send them far into mexico. How many airplanes is that going to take?
  
  Here is a link that will give everybody some realty about Trump and his wall.
  
  http://www.attn.com/stories/8502/donald … -wall-cost
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "You just don't deport 11 million people in one day."
  
  You're absolutely right. But you CAN make a great start by merely enforcing labor laws already in place, giving them a teeth to bite those that disregard them, and increase the labor enforcing them. No deportation necessary, no detaining and no processing.
  reply report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Wilderness: That's not what Trump wants. He want's to deport 11 million illegal aliens. If you want to play nice, then you first have to be deported and then if you want to enter in the U.S. again, you have to comply with point 10 of his 10 point policy:
  
  "-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."
  
  You might as well put a cloak over the statue of liberty, it will no longer serve for which it stands.:
  
  "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
  
  Ah... not so much anymore. Sorry, you have been locked out of the "Golden Door" by the Trump Master. You now have to enter through his big, beautiful door and jump through his hoops.
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Obviously disagree with the deportation as it can't be done so easily.
  
  As far as the others: ALL citizens are equal, including immigrants. But yes, jobs should be first offered to citizens before those legally here to work. And not at all to illegal aliens, citizens of another country that are here illegally.
  
  Yes, the days of inviting anyone and everyone into the country are gone. We are already supporting too many, citizens and not, for that to be a viable option any more. The Golden Door is gone, likely forever, and I do not support inviting anyone that wants to feed at the American trough on American generosity.
  reply report
  85
  RJ Schwartzposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I'd disagree - American police forces nationwide arrested 12 million people last year, a large percentage were illegals. So if all police were instructed to bring illegals in for deportation over a period of a year or two. Add in the fact of those who self-deport instead of getting arrested first. Of course, make severe Federal penalties for employing or renting property to an illegal to help the process. Deny all illegals from any hospital or ER and all public buildings.
  Not too tough now is it? Deportation is more about WILL rather than money or emotions.
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  If our cops are charged with arresting illegals, it will require a great many more cops. Don't forget that the mere arrest requires hours of time and that finding those illegals is the hard and time consuming part of the equation. It was tried in Arizona, you know, and now the sheriff is under indictment for doing it.
  reply report
  61
  Live to Learnposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  What's wrong with not searching for illegal aliens but if someone is arrested and determined to be an illegal alien they are simply turned over to INS? Don't need extra cops for that. Only extra INS agents, though.
  reply report
  88
  wildernessposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  What's wrong is Obama's executive order for police not to detain based on illegal entry and INS not to accept illegals from cops.
  
  But it should be done, notwithstanding Obama's desire to simply grant amnesty to all of them. While it would not make a huge difference in the numbers, every little bit helps.
  reply report
  83
  GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  When you read Trump's plan, did you consider our immigration laws already on the books - just to see how savagely Trump was going to butcher them? It looks like they are pretty close to Trump's list.
  
  It appears the first, and most used category for application to immigrate is based on family ties to U.S. citizens, but the next largest application criteria is employment based, and here is our current desired immigrant priorities:
  
  Job or Employment Based:
  
  People who want to become immigrants based on employment or a job offer may apply for permanent residence or an immigrant visa abroad, when an immigrant visa number becomes available according to the following employment based preferences:
  
  First Preference: Priority Workers, including aliens with extraordinary abilities, outstanding professors and researchers, and certain multinational executives and managers
  Second Preference: Members of professions holding an advanced degree or persons of exceptional ability (including individuals seeking a National Interest Waiver)
  Third Preference: Skilled Workers, professionals and other qualified workers
  Fourth Preference: Certain special immigrants including those in religious vocations
  Fifth Preference: Employment creation immigrants (investors or entrepreneurs)
  
  Here is a summary from a research paper comparing U.S. and Australian immigration policies.
  
  Apparently our current U.S. immigration laws threw that cloak over Lady Liberty long before Trump came along.
  
  ps. I also found a "Critical Thinking" link that included this summary:
  
  A well-cultivated critical thinker:
  
  Raises vital questions and problems, formulating them clearly and precisely
  Gathers and assesses relevant information, using abstract ideas to interpret it effectively
  Comes to well-reasoned conclusions and solutions, testing them against relevant criteria and standards
  Thinks open-mindedly within alternative systems of thought, recognizing and assessing, as needs be, their assumptions, implications, and practical consequences
  Communicates effectively with others in figuring out solutions to complex problems
  
  So it is more than just researching a topic, anybody can do that.
  
  GA
  reply report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  GA Anderson: What you have cited is an academic, intellectual definition of critical thinking. So if I don't meet the criteria of "The Critical Thinking Foundation" then I'm not a critical thinker? To me critical thinking is the difference between having blind faith and accepting information on its face value or to question it and do research and analysis to come to the root cause of issues. There are many people on both sides of the fence that accept what politicians say based on blind faith or because of there circumstances do not have the time or the inclination to research and analyze issues. Accepting Trump's lies that are recorded for all the world to see and hear is a good example of non-critical thinking. His lies and contradictions are recorded as hard evidence and yet people just over look them.
  
  You can say that people who support Hillary do the same thing. But the difference is she is guilty until proven innocent. There is no hard evidence that she acted with criminal intent. If there were, she would be prosecuted as a criminal. The excuse for why she hasn't been prosecuted is that she is so well connected with people in high places in the criminal justice system.
  
  That is nothing more than a ploy that doesn't use critical thinking or even common sense logic. It is nothing more than the propaganda of the right wing because they see her as threat to their agenda. Further, if she were tried in a court of law, the constitution says you are innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The congressional investigations and Trump accusations that she has been under are nothing more than political theater to demean her character, so that she won't be elected.
  
  "Trump calls her a bigot.because she only sees black people as a vote, not as humans worthy of a better future." There are people out there who believe she is a bigot because of that statement. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you look at the the support she has given to black people. Trump doesn't even know how to reach out to blacks. He holds a rally with white people and talks about how he is going to help the blacks. Isn't he just looking for their vote, because his poll numbers are so low? After severely insulting them, he says: "Vote for me what the hell do you have to lose?" There are people out there that think that is really great. My critical thought processes tells me that is B.S. Oh I could go on and on, but I'm going to end it here.
  reply report
  83
  GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I understand your political positions, and your emotional investment in them. Most of us are probably emotionally supportive of our opinions too.
  
  Although I think there is room for discussion concerning most your Trump issues, my first effort was to point out the shakiness of your footing regarding your opinion of other folk's opinions.
  
  There is a tone in your comments that yours is the only intelligent and informed position. And that contrary opinions can only be knuckled-headed. Your most recent string was your use of "Critical Thinking" as a club to call an opposing comment idiotic. You stood on the footing of an educated and researched opinion, that you ascribed to "Critical Thinking." You were mistaken.
  
  Critical Thinking is a recognized school of processes. It is defined by a specific set of efforts. My thought is that most folks hearing the use of critical thinking - think of that critical thinking. That you consider your research and analysis methods as "critical thinking," is not just a semantics point; informed, or intelligent, or even cautious thinking are not synonyms for critical thinking.
  
  You might easily call your research and considerations to be called informed or intelligent thinking. And they may or may not be well founded, but they are not the results of critical thinking. You may call it so, but you would still be wrong.
  
  This probably shouldn't be a big deal, but, your use of it as a club to berate other opinions made it so. If you were wrong about the footing for your superior position, then maybe you are wrong about other things too. Like your opinion concerning Trump's immigration points and that cloak?
  
  GA
  reply report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  GA Anderson: You can call it whatever you want. It is just a matter of semantics. Do you think someone who accepts information on blind faith is a critical thinker? I think you are trying to make a big deal about what I said about critical thinking.
  
  I have heard many people describe the acceptance of propaganda that is being spewed today and not using critical thinking. Which in layman's terms means accepting information on its face value without question. Critical thinking in my case is a matter of seeking the truth, not accepting propaganda as truth without further investigation. You are right, research and analysis is very easy to do with today's technology, but there are those out there that don't do it for whatever reason.
  
  I can go to fact check. org and see what Trump says in speeches or Hillary for that matter and find the truth. Because, they do the critical thinking that you are espousing: Read this about the Annenberg Foundation:
  
  "We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.
  FactCheck.org is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels."
  
  I know that is just one example, but there are many sources out there like this. In my view, one doesn't have to use a scholarly process to find the truth to be a critical thinker. If you want to devalue my efforts, that's your choice.
  
  What is your definition for people who accept information on blind faith and how do you define the opposite of that? Here is an example: Bernie Sanders is a Communist, because he calls himself a social democrat. People who believe that are not using critical thinking, they are accepting it on blind faith from its source. And believe me, there are many people out there who believe that.
  reply report
  83
  GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  No, it is not just semantics, and I was not trying to devalue your efforts. I was trying to politely point out that your repeated use of "Critical Thinking" as the reason your superior reasoning was right, and others were just mindless parrots, did not pass muster. If your why you are right is wrong, then maybe you aren't so right after all.
  
  For instance, your claim that Trump's immigration plan would be the same as tossing a cloak over Lady Liberty's message. I believe that had you compared Trump's plan to our current immigration polices, you would have discovered that although there is much in what Trump says that deserves your criticism, the bulk of his plan is already part our immigration laws and policies.
  
  Instead, it appears you latched onto the hot-buttons of "the wall" and mass deportations, as explained by the pundits, as sufficient to condemn him as the man who shot Lady Liberty.
  
  Take a look at Trump's core immigration policies and compare them to our current immigration laws. I think that you will find more similarities than you expected. (or at least more than the pundits you listen to talk about)
  
  I think the wall idea is dumb, no matter who is proposing it. I think this mass deportation force idea is even more dumb, but neither effect our legal immigration policies. They only apply to the enforcement of policy.
  
  You made this point in a previous post:
  "... If you want to play nice, then you first have to be deported and then if you want to enter in the U.S. again, you have to comply with point 10 of his 10 point policy:
  
  "-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."
  
  You might as well put a cloak over the statue of liberty, it will no longer serve for which it stands..."
  
  But... all three of those points you claimed are so outrageously Trump, are already part of our immigration selection criteria. Did you know that, or did you just blindly and mindlessly accept the word of some pundit that said it was so?
  
  GA
  reply report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  GA Anderson:
  
  You wrote:
  No, it is not just semantics, and I was not trying to devalue your efforts. I was trying to politely point out that your repeated use of "Critical Thinking" as the reason your superior reasoning was right, and others were just mindless parrots, did not pass muster. If your why you are right is wrong, then maybe you aren't so right after all.
  
  My reply: I never said I had superior reasoning and that I was always right and I never called anyone "mindless parrots." I said they do not question because of blind faith. You last sentence is part of the what if game that conservative like to use. What if I'm right?
  
  Your wrote:
  "For instance, your claim that Trump's immigration plan would be the same as tossing a cloak over Lady Liberty's message. I believe that had you compared Trump's plan to our current immigration polices, you would have discovered that although there is much in what Trump says that deserves your criticism, the bulk of his plan is already part our immigration laws and policies. "
  
  My reply:
  I never said Trump's plan would be the same as tossing a cloak over the Lady Liberty's message. I said you might as well put a cloak over the statue of liberty and then I quoted the message. Tell me what would you call your thought process for comparing Trump's plan to the current immigration policies? I went to that site and yes they are part of the policies, but how are the resources going to funded and how does he get approval past congress?
  
  You wrote:
  "I think the wall idea is dumb, no matter who is proposing it. I think this mass deportation force idea is even more dumb, but neither effect our legal immigration policies. They only apply to the enforcement of policy."
  
  My reply:
  Well at least we agree on something!
  
  I think I told you in a previous reply, you don't really know who I am. I get wrapped up in this political B.S. and forget how I came to this point. Please indulge me for a moment. I joined the Air Force in 1956, right out of high school. I went through nine months of electronic fundamentals and three months of radar maintenance training. I have spent most of my life in high tech computer fields, trouble shooting very complex problems. I also was a technical writer and instructor for many years. In order to do these jobs, you have to use research and analysis and critical thinking processes. As a technical writer and trainer, I had to research source data,interview engineers and programmers and then translate that information into the various manuals and courses that were required by determining the comprehension level of my audience and users. I am also certified in six sigma quality control processes. This is the process that is used to bring the error rate of a manufacturing process down to 1 part in a million. It is called (DMAIC), Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, and Control. Those phases are used to get to the root cause of problems and fix them.
  
  I would like to think that I have carried over some of these qualities into my my political writings. All you have to do is look at my hub page topics. Am I always right?, no, but I do try to learn from my mistakes. I now understand that Trump's plan is very similar to the existing plan, but he wants more enforcement. Why do I understand, this is because I checked out your link and compared it to the U.S. Immigration Council site. See that is all part of whatever process you want to call it. But in comparison to others that accept statements on blind faith, I try not to. You tell me what that process should be called. And tell me what the name of the process is called that you use.
  reply report
  83
  GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I would call it informed, cautious, and intelligent thinking. Look at the change in your Trump immigration policy comment since it was used.
  
  I do understand your point about blind acceptance of perspectives, and I have had conversations with multiple choir-member types that don't appear to be concerned with facts. I have also had a fair share of humble pie slices, so I try to check my facts before donning the robes.
  
  Let's get back on the neutral ground of Trump... there are already Trump surrogates paving the way for a 'softening" of Trump's mass deportation plan... should we hopefully await a more realistic position on "the Wall," and Mexico picking up the tab too?
  
  GA
  reply report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  GA: "Informed, cautious, and intelligent thinking." How do you apply that to someone you are trying to describe that accepts information on blind faith? "I'm sorry, you need to be more informed, cautious, and an intelligent thinker before you believe this B.S." As opposed to you need to exercise critical thinking before accepting this B.S. or the people who watch and listen to Fox news, need to be informed, cautious, and an intelligent thinker before accepting what fox news has to say. as opposed to people who listen to fox news are not critical thinkers.
  
  The words informed, cautious and intelligent all modify the word thinker. A critical thinker implies that one is not willing to accept without critiquing and questioning the information and seeking to find the truth. Critical thinking is what one has to do to become informed, cautious, and intelligent about a given subject, not the other way around. Just because you found one formal definition does not mean it can't be used in other ways.
  
  I'm sorry it may not fit your definition and usage, but you are the only person that I found that has issues with that terminology. So if it is O.K. with you. I'm going to continue to use it.
  
  Back to Trump, don't you see what he is doing? He makes hard statements about his policies and then realizes that in order to get the votes, he is going to have to modify his policies. In a sense, he is bargaining with his voters and the GOP base that is trying to control him. Oh I'll present a hard line on this issues, Oh that didn't work so I'll soften it up.
  
  In his speech, he said "I don't know and nobody knows how many illegal people there are. It could be 5 million, 10 million, or maybe 50 million, who knows? But there are some who will quote 5, others 10 and others 50... and then there are those who simply don't care. His speeches give his listeners a menu to draw from. In other words, he is trying to cover his bases. But does not give specific information. It is up to the listener to accept his many options...and then he will come back and say, I didn't say that.
  
  Just as a matter of note, I'm not just replying to you but for all the participants in the forum. So there may be some who agree or disagree and others who are enlightened by our comments.
  reply report
  83
  GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Sure thing peoplepower73, have it your way. Critical thinking can be what you say it is. Those other folks that claim the definition can have it their way too.
  
  As to what I would tell those other folks? Well, maybe that is the point that started our exchange. In most cases I probably wouldn't "tell" them anything. You, on the other hand, seem to insist on "telling" others they are wrong, because you used critical thinking.
  
  I might provide what I think is information they lacked or misunderstood, or that may alter or disprove their point - and then suggest they take another look at their position. As I noted to you. If I hit an obstinate wall, then I might be a bit more forthcoming. As I am now.
  
  You have made the point multiple times, that unlike some folks, you know more about the facts of an issue because you apply "critical thinking." Each time you used "critical thinking," specifically, as the validator of your opinion. If this time is the indicator I think it is, then you may have been as wrong then as you were this time.
  
  Folks are welcome to see your comment about Trump's immigration policies.
  
  It sure looks like a blast against his plan, him, and his supporters, to me. You even added the observation that "You might as well put a cloak over the statue of liberty, it will no longer serve for which it stands.:" Maybe folks will see it differently.
  
  Yet now, after a couple exchanges, you see that the plan points you declared to be outrageously Trump, were actually just spin-offs of our current immigration policies. It's good that you noted my prodding and came to a more informed and intelligent view. Better would have been earlier.
  
  GA
  report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  GA Anderson: I don't tell people they should use critical thinking. I used that as an example to show you that your words do not lend themselves in a common usage context. I only use it while talking to others with similar values and beliefs. We use it when describing others who we think should not be accepting issues on blind faith. You may believe me or maybe not, but that is the truth. I am extremely frustrated by the right wing propaganda that is spewed by Fox News and how it is regurgitated by those who accept everything they say on blind faith.
  
  I still stand behind what I said about the statue of liberty. This is what Trump said and for all intents and purposes, it is similar to what the current U.S. Immigration policy states:
  
  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."
  
  This is what it says on the statue of liberty:
  
  "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
  
  Maybe it should be deleted because that is not in accordance with Trump's Policy or the U.S policy . By the way thank you for the link back to what I said. It makes it much easier to copy and paste.
  
  I'm first generation Italian. When my father came here, he worked in the Los Angeles brick yards until he could find better employment. He finally became the owner of a truking company. Think of all of those people that came here and sailed past the statue of liberty looking for a better opportunity that did not meet the criteria of today's policies and yet found ways to become success in this country...not any more folks.
  
  I know we are not supposed to promote are own hubs, but here is one that I wrote on recognizing propaganda techniques. Based on the comments and traffic I have received, I believe it is a useful tool to aid critical thinking. (There is that term again.) I have used it many times to see through Trump's smoke screens It is now on a niche site called Soap Boxie.
  
  https://soapboxie.com/misc/The-Anatomy-of-Propaganda
  report
  83
  GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  "I still stand behind what I said about the statue of liberty. This is what Trump said and for all intents and purposes, it is similar to what the current U.S. Immigration policy states:.. "
  
  ... and here is my perspective of that... you are so anti-Trump that even when presented with information that displaced your assertion that it would be Trump's fault, (his "plan" has mostly been U.S. policy since the 50s), you still hold your opinion. Isn't that the same as what you accuse others of? Believing something regardless of facts?
  
  Your vision of the teeming masses of the statue's message ended in the early 20th century. And even when those early masses were coming, there were still selection criteria. I recall reading that every immigrant needed to have a job waiting, or a relative to put them up. In reality, the rules were not routinely enforced, and as long as an immigrant just said they had a job waiting, or had an address written down, they were passed on to the medical table. The law was there even then - enforcement wasn't.
  
  Since then, the U.S. immigration laws have included similar versions of the very same points in the Trump plan that you blasted. So if there are no facts to support your stand against Trump, then it must be an emotional one. Once again, the same fault you attribute to others.
  
  GA
  report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  GA Anderson: Yes there was selection criteria, but not as astringent as it is today. Below are the five categories of preferences for immigration from the American Immigration Council. The number at the end is the annual allocation. You tell me that is the same as it was in 1920, when my father came to this country and the only difference those laws were not enforced?
  
  1.Persons of extraordinary ability” in the arts, science, education, business, or athletics; outstanding professors and researchers, multinational executives and managers. 40,000
  
  2 Members of the professions holding advanced degrees, or persons of exceptional abilities in the arts, science, or business. 40,000
  
  3 Skilled workers with at least two years of training or experience, professionals with college degrees, or “other” workers for unskilled labor that is not temporary or seasonal. 40,000
  “Other” unskilled laborers restricted to 5,000
  
  4. Certain “special immigrants” including religious workers, employees of U.S. foreign service posts, former U.S. government employees and other classes of aliens.10,000
  
  5 Persons who will invest $500,000 to $1 million in a job-creating enterprise that employs at least 10 full time U.S. workers.10,000
  
  This is from the Pew Research Center on Immigration:
  
  The 1965 Law Brings Major Change
  
  "It was not until 1965, when amendments were passed to the Immigration and Naturalization Act, that the old national origins system was abolished.
  
  Instead, the new law emphasized visas for family and employment categories, but exempted spouses, parents and minor children of U.S. citizens from those visa limits. That exemption, and other priority given to family members of U.S. residents, meant that about three-quarters of visas were set aside for relatives of those already in the U.S.—putting the emphasis in U.S. immigration policy on family reunification.
  
  Most remaining visas were for employment purposes, given to people with certain job skills and their family members. The Labor Department was required to certify that an American worker was not available to fill the job of the visa seeker and that U.S. workers would not be harmed if the visa were issued (Martin, 2011).
  
  The 1965 law also included a quota for refugees, who were granted 6% of annual visas, compared with 74% for families; 10% for professionals, scientists and artists; and 10% for workers in short supply in the country (Kritz and Gurak, 2005). Later, the Refugee Act of 1980 separated refugee admissions from the overall quota system, expanded the definition of a refugee and set up comprehensive procedures for handling refugees.
  
  Although the 1920s-era national origins quotas were abolished, the new 1965 law did include total hemisphere and country quotas. Though the hemisphere quotas were dropped in the following decade (Martin, 2011). Importantly, the law imposed the first limits on immigration from Western Hemisphere countries, including Mexico. Those limits, combined with the end of the Bracero program in 1964, are associated with a rise in unauthorized immigration, mostly from Mexico."
  
  Thank you for motivating me to do the research and analysis. Do you call 1965, the early 20th Century? I don't, I think 1920 was the early 20th century. So according to you, those were the same laws in 1920, the only difference is they were not enforced and those are the same laws that Trump is going to enforce today.
  
  Mike Russo
  report
  83
  GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I have frequently experienced the pleasure of learning something new after being prodded by one of these forum discussions, so I can appreciate your thankfulness. You are welcome.
  
  Just to wrap up this "selection criteria" part, I think we are now talking about the same thing. Ellis Island was pretty much done as a mass immigration center by 1917, and was closed as an immigration center around 1921. (ha! I knew the "early 20th century" part, but I do admit to Googling the dates). Up to that time, and even though unenforced, there were selection criteria based on employment and contributing value. Much like a simplified version of today's standards.
  
  It was the time frame you noted, 1964, (I would argue the first major redo that fits our conversation was 1952), that the selection criteria was stated very similar as what we read today. As a nod to your PEW data, I did mention earlier, that the family and relatives immigration applications were a larger segment than the jobs-in-hand applications.
  
  So we both got a little history lesson showing that disregarding various tweeks and modifications, the points in Trump's new immigration plan are not that different than what is in place now.
  
  How does that change your initial perspective that it would be Trump's plan that threw the cloak over Lady Liberty? Even if your heart is for more open immigration policies, it has been, at the least, shown that it is our own, (50+/- years), U.S. immigration policies that are responsible for that cloak - Not Trump's plan.
  
  My perspective is that we cannot be a nation of open borders. We must control legal immigration to match our nation's economic, and social, and... humanitarian needs. Can you argue otherwise?
  
  Looking at the five points of your list... and thinking of the last twenty years as the reality those points must consider; how would you modify them and still ensure our national interests were protected? I looked at them, and concerning our economic and social interests in immigration, I think both of us would end up returning similar lists.
  
  But I think it is the humanitarian aspect of our national needs and interests that cloud the picture. Put that part aside for a minute... would your revised selection list, addressing only the economic and social interests, be very different?
  
  We do have humanitarian immigration categories too, a bunch of them, so let's consider that our immigration policy might be a dual path; Economic & Social, and, Humanitarian. Do you really think our current selection process is horrible for Economic & Social reasons? Isn't it the Humanitarian aspect that is the arena for the your disagreement?
  
  And if it is, wouldn't you agree that it is the more subjective of the two?
  
  ... and here we are... Your blast against Trump's immigration plan was an emotional response. You did not know what Trump's plan would change, you just knew it sounded bad, and if it was Trump's, then it must be bad.
  
  And when that failed, you noted disagreement with the policy even if it was U.S. policy. Isn't that blindly following something you heard?
  
  ... right where we started... with the note of my first "critical thinking" response to you.
  
  But it has been an enjoyable trip, and those are getting hard to find around here.
  
  GA
  report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  GA; But don't you see, I did not accept your assertions on blind faith. I did the research and analysis and comparisons to come to my own conclusions. That is what I'm talking about, as far as critical thinking in common usage.
  
  As far as throwing a cloak over the statue of liberty, that is a metaphor and is not to be taken literally. However, the inscription on the statue of liberty is now just history to be never experienced again, but it still stands as a national monument to another time. I'm glad we both learned from this dialog without getting too vitriolic.
  
  Let me make one thing clear: Trump did say what I quoted: "He want's to deport 11 million illegal aliens. If you want to play nice, then you first have to be deported and then if you want to enter in the U.S. again, you have to comply with point 10 of his 10 point policy."
  
  The problem with Trump is that he says one thing one day and then changes and even contradicts himself the next day. I watched a CNN special last night called the "Essential Donald Trump." There was one thing that really impressed me. It was the term that he used to express his behavior: "Truthful Hyperbole." This is a rhetorical tool that he has used throughout his career in business and is now using it in his campaign. This is why it makes it so difficult to keep track of what he is saying. Please read this link for now.
  
  I have to run now, but there is more to come. Stay tuned GA.
  
  http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=9080
  report
  83
  GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Geesh peoplepower73 ... There aren't any pet doors in this conversation.
  
  I understand that you did not blindly accept the points I presented. And I think it was your research and considerations that led you to believe that my contentions concerning U.S. immigration policies were correct. - "...I went to that site and yes they are part of the policies, but how are the resources going to funded and how does he get approval past congress?"
  
  Which would mean that your blast against Trump's plan as a disaster that would metaphorically cloak the statue of Liberty and its message to the world's would-be U.S. immigrants was at best misdirected, and at worse, uninformed. And you did thank me for prompting you to take a deeper look at the issue;
  "...Thank you for motivating me to do the research and analysis...."
  
  Can this mean anything other than your first comment regarding Trump's immigration plan was uninformed by any method of critical thinking?
  
  GA
  report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  GA: If you want to take credit, please go ahead. I guess you skipped over this in my last reply.
  
  "Let me make one thing clear: Trump did say what I quoted: "He want's to deport 11 million illegal aliens. If you want to play nice, then you first have to be deported and then if you want to enter in the U.S. again, you have to comply with point 10 of his 10 point policy."
  
  Right after he said that, he changed his mind and softened his rhetoric. That is the genius of Trump, no one will be able to pin him down on anything he says. Did you read my link on how he uses what he calls "Truthful Hyperbole?" It will explain a lot about his behavior and his game plan. I'm planning on writing a hub about it. To me, this is as big as finding the Rosetta Stone and cracking he enigma code. (Please don't take it literally.)
  
  In reference to how he gets funding and gets is passed congress, I don't know and I'm certain at this point he doesn't care. However, I believe in his mind, he will figure out a way to negotiate with congress. You have to be careful with Trump, I now know that he rationalize things in his mind that makes it seem like the truth to him when in fact it is not.
  
  Here is an example: In an interview with Larry King, he was asked about his claim that he was paid a million dollars for a speech he gave. But Larry said all the records show that you were only paid 400K. Trump says, "well, you don't take into account all the costs of preparation and promotions, that would bring it to a million."
  
  When he says, he is going to make Mexico pay for the wall. In his mind, the term "pay" may mean something other than money. It there are a lot of different was to use the word pay. It could mean that they are going to be so upset with the wall that, that they will pay for it in misery. In every decision there is a price we pay, because of the trade-off. It is like how he defined Hillary as a bigot. "Hillary Clinton is a bigot who sees people of color only as votes, not as human beings worthy of a better future," That is Trump's definition of a bigot.. Which there is no way of proving or disproving it. It's pure brilliance.
  report
  83
  GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  It's not about getting credit bud, it's about right and wrong. ... and maybe totems, (hm... is that the word?)
  
  For me, Trump provides all the ammunition anyone needs, without resorting to hyperbole. Which is what your Trump immigration plan criticism was. The facts, and your responses in our conversation clearly show it to be so. The point of your comment was wrong, and your presentation of it was exactly what you frequently lament about others contributions. That was why I stopped by.
  
  If this discussion was expanded to include some of Trump's solutions to our immigration problem, as in how to stop illegal entry, and what to do about those already here, then we could sound like two drunk buddies toasting our own good sense. And my opinion would be that Trump deserves every jab, but using hyperbole when it isn't needed just seems like a low-blow, or cheap shot.
  
  I bet a Google image search of examples of Trump's wall would find some really sci-fi type prototypes. Imaginative, but not realistic. And that big golden door, (as you called it), would it have a yellow brick road leading to it? Just think of the meme potential.
  
  Remember how wild the Republicans went with Obamacare's "death panels?" It is almost hallucinogenic to think of what the Democrats could do with "deportation squads." I can just see the covered faces topped by berets, and soled with black jack boots marching to a front door in a quiet neighborhood now. Or maybe a half dozen big black SUVs roaring to a sliding stop spanning the width of a residential front yard with a couple young kids playing on the grass. Or how about a dark rainy nighttime streetscape as an olive drab military-type bus rolls along with the faces and arms of small crying children, sullen-faced fathers, and blank stoic faces of the elderly staring and reaching through the windows as it passes into a rain-clouded endscape. .
  
  As for making Mexico pay for his wall... as if that tossed-around figure of $50 million were one big check that could just be voided or redirected... pffsstt!
  
  See that? Not a bit of hyperbole anywhere. ;-)
  
  GA
  report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  GA; I'm not saying he uses truthful hyperbole. That is from his book on the art of the deal. Those are his words, not mine. This is from a book review on the Art of the Deal.
  
  “I play to people’s fantasies. People may not always think big themselves, but they can still get very excited by those who do. That’s why a little hyperbole never hurts. People want to believe that something is the biggest and the greatest and the most spectacular. I call it truthful hyperbole.” (pg. 58) - Perhaps my favorite quote in the entire book, Trump’s “truthful hyperbole” line is largely what gives him so many Pinocchios and Pants on Fires from the fact checkers, but what allows him to claim he’s basically telling the truth. But more interesting is the idea that he’s setting out to play to people’s fantasies. He can be their cipher, voters can live and affect change vicariously through him. It’s what most politicians aim to convey, and the most effective ones — like “hope and change” Barack Obama in 2008 — are quite successful using that method.
  
  I think you are being a little self-righteous GA. Right and wrong is relative. Be careful, you may be jumping to conclusions.
  report
  83
  GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I hope I am not being self-righteous because I seldom see that as a good thing. And I hope I am not making crazy assumptions because folks that do seldom land on their feet.
  
  But... I am not sure where you got the idea that I thought Trump was using truthful hyperbole. I think it is a stretch to add truth as a descriptor of hyperbole. The hyperbole I spoke of was yours, in your blast of his immigration policy
  
  I do agree with your truthful hyperbole excerpt concerning Trump. He certainly masters hyperbole, and many times there is a kernel of truth at the root of his declarations, but to say that even partially validates his claims is offering more tolerance than I think he deserves.
  
  Regarding your thought that right and wrong is relative ... we must be talking about different things. I think that our core values of right and wrong never change. There may be times when an honest state of necessity demands that an honest man must do a dishonest act, but that doesn't mean that the rightness of doing the wrong act made the wrong act a right one. (ha! figure that one out)
  
  When I think of core right and wrong values, I am thinking of the type of values mentioned in the Ten Commandments - Hold On! - I am not bringing religion into this - just using a well-known example as an easily understood description!
  
  What societal change would make stealing right? Or adultery? Or any of those other eight, or so, examples? Those are the core-type values that I say never change, and are only relative to one's character.
  
  On the other hand, lesser core values may be relative. Lying for instance. I bet we can agree that lying is wrong, but that there could exist a set of circumstances where lying is the right thing to do, even if in itself it is a wrong act.
  
  I would also add that legality has nothing to do with the values of right and wrong I am talking about.
  
  And on this third hand I keep in my pocket... I will go back and look for my examples of self-righteousness. It is not an attractive trait, and if your perception of that isn't due to a misconstrued comment, then I need to revisit the comment.
  
  But look at the silver lining of our conversation, it appears we both hold Trump to be something other than a great choice.
  
  GA
  report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  GA: Thank you for your condescension. I'm not even going to try to argue about the relative values of right and wrong. I think we both know what we mean.
  
  Hooray for our side about Trump. I find him fascinating for all the wrong reasons. I'm buying his book on the Art of the Deal. I want to see what makes this man tick. Here is the link to the article in the New Yorker, that was written by Trump's ghost writer. I think you will find this intriguing to say the least.
  
  As you can see, I become involved and engaged in my undertakings. Perhaps that is a better description of what I do to seek the truth, instead of the formal definition of critical thinking. The process may be different, but the end result I'm seeking may be the same. I think that may be the difference between those who accept information on blind faith and those who question it. Those who accept information on blind faith are not involved or engaged enough to learn anything new for whatever, their reasons.
  
  http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/ … -tells-all
  report
  83
  GA Andersonposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  I am sorry for your perception of condensation. That was not my intent. At worst I might have to admit to it being a bit of a lecture, (the right and wrong part), but it obviously struck you differently.
  
  Perhaps I do get a little strident when considering the basics that I don't think any detail of discussion can or should change. But I never intend for that force of conviction to come across as condescending. I will work on that, just as I see from your closing comment that our perceptions of hyperbole and informed thinking are still a work in progress too.
  
  GA
  report
80
Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years ago
"There is no hard evidence that she (Hillary) acted with criminal intent. If there were, she would be prosecuted as a criminal." Peoplepower 73

And why did she step down as Secretary of State?
reply report
1. 84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Kathryn: So your logic is she stepped down from Secretary of State; therefore, she is a guilty criminal of all the things she is accused of. I don't know why she stepped down, maybe you should ask her. She is the only one that can tell you why. Everything else is conjecture and conspiracy theory.
  
  Maybe it was because of all the accusations and investigations, her job as Secretary of State was jeopardized, because she had to prepare for all the investigations. When you have years of investigations, one of which lasted 11 grueling hours, how does one do their job? This includes the congressmen who are conducting the investigation. Why don't they go back to work and do something productive? They are supposed to write laws, instead of 8 years of blocking Obama's initiatives to try to make him a one term president and to try to accuse Hillary of acts with criminal intent? This is not only a waste of time but also costs the tax payers megabucks.
  
  Why do they do that? It's because they want a republican back in office with a republican congress and Trump is just a faulty manifestation of all the right wing propaganda spewed by the Tea Party, Fox News, and Britebart. The GOP has no one to blame but themselves for this loose cannon, that cannot follow the party line and has to be coached as to how to speak in a presidential manner. He even criticized people who use teleprompters and now he is using one.
  reply report
  80
  Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Your attitude is cavalier. Talk to the mothers of the service men who died because of her negligence. Apparently, she hid the evidence pointing to her as the one responsible.
  
  … State Department officials were criticized for denying requests for additional security at the consulate prior to the attack. In her role as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton subsequently took responsibility for the security lapses." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Benghazi_attack
  reply report
  84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Kathryn: Prove that she had criminal intent. Talk to the mother's of the people including civilians that died in Iraq and Afghanistan, because of George, W, Cheny, and Rumsfeld invading a country under false pretenses.
  reply report
80
Kathryn L Hillposted 8 years ago
"This includes the congressmen who are conducting the investigation. Why don't they go back to work and do something productive? They are supposed to write laws, instead of 8 years of blocking Obama's initiatives to try to make him a one term president and to try to accuse Hillary of acts with criminal intent? This is not only a waste of time but also costs the tax payers megabucks." peoplepower73

What if it had been Romney who did what she did? You would want our congressmen to conduct an investigation and accuse HIM of acts with criminal intent… no matter what the cost.

Right? ?
reply report
1. 84
  peoplepower73posted 8 years agoin reply to this
  Kathryn: Cost is only part of it. First off there has to be criminal intent. Then he should be tried in a court of law with lawyers, a judge, and a jury and supporting evidence, not a congressional investigation. And he would be innocent until the evidence showed that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of his peers. That is the right that is afforded to all citizens. Why is Hillary accused of first being guilty and then she has to prove her own innocence to a court of congressmen who have an agenda to begin with? That is unconstitutional, as far as I know.
  reply report
88
wildernessposted 8 years ago
A part of Trumps plan is "The Wall" - something that liberals love to make fun of.

Now Britain is building a wall to keep illegals out. Maybe Trump isn't alone in the desire for secure borders? It also seems that the French are getting upset at illegals, and citizens are demanding the removal of a camp of some 9,000 of them.

How is it that other countries, when confronted will illegal aliens, do something about it while the US just plods along, happy to increase profits to those hiring illegally and paying off the legislators to allow it to continue?
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Donald Trump on Immigration (Deportation)

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Donald Trump on Immigration (Deportation)

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies