Trump’s “softening”on immigration: why is this considered news?
I repeat: why is this considered news?:
Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump said Tuesday he is open to “softening” laws dealing with illegal immigrants in a “Hannity” town hall with Fox News’ Sean Hannity.
His remarks were the latest sign he is considering softening a position he has taken since the onset of his campaign.
Hannity asked Trump if he would change current parts of the law to accommodate law-abiding citizens or longtime residents who have raised children in the U.S.
“There could certainly be a softening because we’re not looking to hurt people,” Trump answered. “We want people — we have some great people in this country.”
He also said he wanted to follow the laws on immigration policy instead of creating new ones.
Anyone who has followed Trump knows that he’s been all over the place on immigration, both historically (pro-amnesty, pro-Dreamers) and even recently (touchback immigration, letting the “good ones” back in). I documented much of the phenomenon on this very blog, and I was hardly the only one (just a few examples: on the visa program, on how deportation is “negotiable,” on amnesty).
Anyone who has paid attention to what Trump has actually said on the subject ought to know that he is a shape-shifter, and that all his positions are mutable. He said whatever needed to be said to win the nomination, and now he’s saying what he thinks needs to be said to win the election. All politicians do that to a certain extent, but the difference between Trump and them is that he does it more often and on more topics, and (unlike them) he has no political record to let us know what he’s more likely to do.
There have been many myths told about Trump and immigration, but they all seem to ignore that simple fact. Another myth about Trump and immigration is one I wrote about extensively back in the fall, which was the assertion that Trump was “the only one talking about immigration” or “the only one talking tough on it.” No, and no. But hey, it helped get him nominated, right?
My vote for the dumbest book title of 2016 is Ann Coulter’s “In Trump We Trust”
I mean, wasn’t immigration pretty much the most compelling argument for him (other than the “he’s not Hillary” and “SCOTUS!” arguments)?
Is he still building that wall and going to make Mexico pay for it?
It’s all a con. And it actually might still work. But I won’t vote for a con man.
Why, Bill, if only someone had warned us.
Oh, wait…
Big mistake.
Instead clarify by doubling down; go after the employers. End the benefits. Create conditions that lead to self-deportation. Insist that our open borders are now a national security threat and a clear & present danger because ISIS sees them as an open door and invitation to mayhem. Trumpet every attack, no matter how small as confirmation. Ridicule ‘loan wolf – mentally disturbed explanations’ as the evasion they are and insist that denial of a mortal threat by government officials and politicians amounts to betrayal.
“I repeat: why is this considered news?:”
1) Anything Trump does or say is news.
2) Any news about anything Trump does or says is news.
Q.E.D.
Suggested You Tube Watching
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1Gi_YuE9yw
forgot to add
This dramatic film was nominated for an Academy Award as the Best Documentary of the year
So djt now wants to attract Hispanics. I guess the trump train has figured out it was not a great YUGE idea to tell conservatives he ddin’t need their votes and must now back track on his signature issue in the primaries. Sad! It was going to be a beautiful wall paid for by Mexico.
I sometimes wish I understood what point Artfldgr was making; then I move on to something else.
Surprise! Trump does not mean what he says. It will be interesting to observe the reaction when his faithful awaken to that. If they ever do. Or if they admit to doing so.
The troubling aspect is trying to figure out what he does mean–if anything.
Not a problem with Hillary. We know what she means. I read this morning that HRC is not campaigning. Not accurate, because I saw clips of her on Jimmy Kimmel. That is known as campaigning in a “safe place”. You can joke about your problems to a sympathetic host and audience with no push back. No problem.
vanderleun:
My question actually wasn’t about why it was reported on.
It was about why it’s considered “news,” as in “something NEW.” Most of the reports I’ve seen about it treat it is something rather different, a change. It’s not a change.
I think it’s part of Trump’s latest “pivot”. Although the old Donald still pushes through frequently, such as the morning a day or two ago where he spent all his time banging away on the Morning Joe hosts on Twitter.
It goes a little further than what neoneocon says: The difference between Trump and other politicians is that he has not, in fact, spent much time thinking about public policy issues, and therefore has no strongly-held positions on public policy issues. (Maybe he has strongly-held positions on the existence of God, or the hereditability of IQ, or something, I don’t know.) Even politicians who are not policy wonks have been forced over the years to formulate positions on a variety of issues, and therefore tend to give consistent answers, but Trump has never undergone that process. And although there are private citizens (e.g., neo) who have thought a good bit about public policy issues and therefore have positions, it’s clear that Trump isn’t one of them.
When Trump first entered the race, I was “Trump-curious” as they say. I can certainly imagine–indeed, I have known–successful businessmen who had a strong interest in public policy, read current books on political topics, and had well-reasoned and consistently-held beliefs. But that is not Trump.
y81, a credible analysis. Then, the question that must be asked is, “why elect such a man as President?” And the corollary would be, “why would such a man consider himself suitable for the Presidency?”.
GB –
“Create conditions that lead to self-deportation.”
That was Romney’s plan in 2012. But he was attacked from one side because it was supposedly so absurd. And he was attacked from the other for being “heartless”.
On a side note, the Perry vs Cruz poll has generated a bit of black humor for me. Many of Trump’s supporters are trumpeting the results of the poll because it showed that Perry would beat Cruz. And many of Trump’s supporters want to “punish” Cruz for his traitorous disloyalty (in their eyes). Of course, many of them are only supporting Trump because of his comments regarding illegal immigration. And Perry was the one that called Romney “heartless” in 2012 over Romney’s “self-deport” solution to illegal immigration.
I don’t know which is worse: being proven right that Trump will lose to Hillary, or being proven right that he’ll sell out his base.
Oh BTW, I just heard a radio ad for John McCain today where Trump UNEQUIVOCALLY endorses him. John McCain, original member of the Gang of Eight.
Super.
Matt_SE,
The donald endorsing McCain tells the entire story of why the GOPe did nothing to stop the rise of djt. Rice bowels must be filled, not broken.
Same as Hussein Obola. The Left and Democrats fell for that empty suit, shapeshifting deceiver. Now it’s time for the rest of America to Get On the Same Band Wagon.
Only then, will you see an entire nation Fall into Hell. That’ll be interesting to see, at least.
Oh BTW, I just heard a radio ad for John McCain today where Trump UNEQUIVOCALLY endorses him. John McCain, original member of the Gang of Eight.
But Trum’s “incorruptible”, right. People who want the power of DC so bad, even the Alt Right, have horrible educations on human nature. Power corrupts, not because of absolute power, but because of the absolute evil and weakness in the human heart. If ever you could find a saint like Jean De Arc, George Washington, or divine avatar like Jesus Christ, then you wouldn’t have to worry about that.
If ever you could find a saint like Jean De Arc, George Washington, or divine avatar like Jesus Christ, then you wouldn’t have to worry about that.
——————
Real saints don’t want the job. That’s one of the reasons why they’re saints – they recognize the massive burden that the job is if you’re not there for the power.
For instance, Washington probably wouldn’t have taken the job if it wasn’t pretty much understood by anyone and everyone that he was going to be the very first president, and people agreed to the whole “Constitution thing” largely with that understanding. And after he served his two terms, he fled back home.
junior:
And to top it all off, guess what? Romney’s “self-deportation” scheme was also attacked by DONALD TRUMP for being heartless and mean.
It seems he was on the “other side” back then.
You can’t make this stuff up.
“All politicians do that to a certain extent, but the difference between Trump and them is that he does it more often and on more topics” – Neo
He also does it more easily and on a much wider scale.
Other politicians only shift when it suits a more measured strategic aim, and they will rarely shift back.
They also usually have a more nuanced and reasoned take on their shift – e.g. pointing to some other overriding principle – which is usually “telegraphed” and anticipated, rather than be a surprise.
Pietro Orseolo came from one of the wealthiest families in Venice. He became a military hero, then was elected Doge (king for life). He built hospitals, negotiated peace between families after the last uprising, and began reconstruction of St. Mark’s. After two years in the office, he snuck away in the middle of the night and joined a monastery.
Real saints don’t want the job. That’s one of the reasons why they’re saints — they recognize the massive burden that the job is if you’re not there for the power.
For instance, Washington probably wouldn’t have taken the job if it wasn’t pretty much understood by anyone and everyone that he was going to be the very first president
Washington refused the job of King.
The reason why they are saints is because they are vassals and servants of God, and in turn that means they are servants of humanity at large. They do not oppose humanity, nor do they seek to enslave or destroy humanity. They are, in turn, destroyed by human poison and evils usually. Which would have happened to Washington at Long Island without the divine miracle at work that saved him.
The reason why servants refuse power, is because too much power is a kind of scapegoat. Instead of doing things for themselves, the people will rely too much on their king and savior. And in that path lies vice and decadence. However, not enough power means somebody evil will become king, because the people will always “want a king” due to their personal weakness.
A person cannot serve God, and through God, pursue the kingdom of god and the salvation of human souls, if people believe that salvation comes from power over fellow human beings (i.e. the government or politics).
Kings are not always wise and just, nor do they use and make wise and just laws all the time. If they did, then mankind would always need kings, they would always be commanded to have a king on earth, by God, for the salvation of human souls. To save human souls, requires them to work on their own problems first. If they push all their problems and responsibilities on a single individual, a king, then they won’t fix their own problems. A person that wishes to serve humanity to the best, would eventually notice this problem and refuse power given to them by others, not because of the burden it puts on them as servants, but because of the harm it does to the people they serve.
That is the problem of giving or having too much power, it’s not the amount of power itself that is the problem. Power merely comes from the origins of power, which tends to be human renewable resources. The corruption it has on those giving the power, is even greater than the corruption effect it has on the person receiving the power.
If Washington could figure this out as well as others, why are the rest of humanity broken? (Including the militia and colonists that wanted to depose the Congress and install Washington as the first King) We are not all equal. Equality under God means the attitude one directs towards others is equal, because we are all subordinates of the same liege lord.
In the end, so long as a person wants to become a subordinate of human power or they wish for dominion over humanity, they cannot become saints. Thus the issue isn’t the lack of saints, the issue is that human nature falls to evil so often it is almost automatic. It takes a great amount of wisdom and willpower to resist evil, and get on the righteous path to becoming a better or saintly human being. The excuse people might use at this time is that because we have so few good humans, we have to settle for the viceful and evil to be in power. But that is, of course, the same argument for kings as before. It’s not going to improve humans.
It seems he was on the “other side” back then.
As expected of a 70 yo New York Democrat.
I love reading the rationalizations going on at Trump Love Fest blogs.
For all those insisting that SCOTUS is a reason for trump – so sure, any concerns now?
…when you’ve lost Coulter …
…etc.
Neo said:
My question actually wasn’t about why it was reported on.
It was about why it’s considered “news,” as in “something NEW.” Most of the reports I’ve seen about it treat it is something rather different, a change. It’s not a change.
~~
By reporting it as news, and a big change, they are trying to instill doubt into LIVs that are considering voting for Trump. Trump loyalists may not be too thrilled, but will think it’s strategy (maybe).
IMO, Trump just does what politicians do (flip on the issues), but he doesn’t wait to get into office to do it.
Neo –
And to top it all off, guess what? Romney’s “self-deportation” scheme was also attacked by DONALD TRUMP for being heartless and mean.
——————–
Yes, but Trump has seen the light and converted!
(unlike that flip-flopper Romney)
😛
Speaking of Romney, it appears that “Fear of Romney” is still a very real thing. Instapundit had a link the other day speculating about why some guy that no one had ever heard of before. And an update was added mentioning a theory that someone had suggested – namely, that the intent was to dilute the votes to the point that no one would get a clear majority, meaning that the House would be asked to pick the new president, and Romney would be chosen. Ergo, a serious belief that the entire reason why that guy is running is to throw the election to Romney.