Thread: DONALD TRUMP: ‘HUMANE’ DEPORTATION PLAN FOR ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS ‘WILL WORK’

If Trump keeps running his mouth about a big door and expedited re importation of illegal aliens squatter scum, he is going to loose my vote.

W. Gheen, if you have access to trump's campaign managers please tell them Trump is going to massively hemorrhage voter support if he does not stop the let them back in crap.

I supported him because I thought he was fighter who would do what he says. Now I am getting more and more distrustful of him and if I feel that way so will the great majority of his supporters. What the hell is it with the political hacks, every last one of them feels they have to worry incessantly about the poor little alien invaders. We dare not be tough with them.

Millions of Americans like me are sick of this crap. I want those alien invader squatters to get the hell out of my country! I am sick of the poor Jose crap. I am sick of the, if we enforce our laws it is being cruel crap. I am sick of being told we do not have a right to defend our existence as a nation.

Everybody with a brain should know that the massive migration of aliens into our country is being protected and facilitated by the government and its mega rich allies. And that the alien invasion is an intentional government strategy to destroying the USA. A people are the culture, change the people and you change the culture. Ingrained in the traditional American culture is freedom. And freedom is anathema to those who want absolute government tyranny.

This is not immigration; it the intentional forced destruction of our country by our own government because America's enemies have now become the government.

The New York Times, Senate Republicans, and Obama once supported part of Trump’s immigration plan

By Ryan Girdusky |
August 31, 2015 |

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump waves to the crowd after speaking at the National Federation of Republican Assemblies on Saturday, Aug. 29, 2015, in Nashville, Tenn. (AP Photo/Mark Humphrey)

Republican frontrunner Donald Trump’s immigration plan involves deporting all illegal immigrants and then having the “good ones” — those employed and without a criminal record — be allowed back into the U.S. legally.

The mainstream media and political establishment of both parties have called this plan “unrealistic” and accused the billionaire of wreaking “havoc” on the U.S.

But many of those same people were singing a different tune in 2007, when former Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson proposed that exact plan.

At that time, it was supported by the New York Times and nearly captured a majority in the U.S. Senate, including the votes of five Democrats. The only reason in failed in the Senate was because nine Republicans didn’t vote for it.

Hutchinson’s amendment to the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill of 2007 demanded all illegal immigrants “touch-back” or go back to their native countries and then apply for legal residency under a “Z visa,” which would cost the immigrant $5,000 over the following eight years.

The New York Times described the “touch-back” provision as an “area of compromise.”

“It’s not ideal, but if a touchback provision is manageable and reassures people that illegal immigrants are indeed going to the back of the line, then it will be defensible,” the Times editorial page read.

“Touch-back” became such a popular idea that Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.) added it to his own amnesty plan, known as the Strive Act.
Gutierrez wasn’t the only Democrat to support “touch-back.” President Obama endorsed the policy at a 2009 Hispanic prayer breakfast.

The main difference Trump’s proposed plan is the perception that he may seriously enforce the law and not allow lawbreakers to re-enter the country. Past “touch-back” proposals were offered by politicians who were never really serious about using it as a mechanism to remove criminals and dependents.

Read more at http://redalertpolitics.com/2015/08/...sssm3x4qEI4.99

From 2007. One has to ask; What has really been done in 7 years? - How many more have been admitted to be supported on welfare and take jobs from US citizens by undercutting wages?
Good news: Pro-, anti-amnesty Republicans determined to pass bill; Update: Kyl under siege from constituents

POSTED AT 6:41 PM ON MAY 28, 2007 BY ALLAHPUNDIT

Goldarnit, there’s a compromise to be had here. Why, just imagine what concessions our side might extract. More fencing? Harsher penalties on employers? Cooperation from Mexico in policing their side of the border?

Even better, my friends: retention of the meaningless, purely symbolic touchback requirement!

The compromise, backed by President Bush, won support from conservative Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) but was criticized by another GOP conservative from a border state, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas…

Hutchison said Republican opponents’ primary objection was what she described as an “amnesty portion” that would grant legal status to illegal immigrants who had arrived in the U.S. before Jan. 1, 2007, and who paid $5,000 over the next eight years for a temporary “Z visa.”
Immigrants with the visas would be required to return to their home countries — “touch back,” in immigration parlance — only if they wanted to apply for green cards, which signify legal permanent residence.

Hutchison said she and other opponents wanted illegal immigrants to touch back before they were granted the visas.

“That is what is causing the amnesty outcry — that you can stay here, you will never have to go home, as long as you don’t want the permanent green card,” she said.

Specter said he was “prepared to negotiate” that provision, and he called Hutchison’s concession that the legislation was necessary “a breakthrough.”

Two-part exit question: Is there even a single opponent of this bill among our readers who (a) doesn’t think the border enforcement provisions are at least as important as the amnesty provisions and (b) gives a squat about the touchback requirement?

Update: To think — if Kyl was up for reelection this year instead of last, the bill might never have happened.

Angry calls poured into Senator Jon Kyl’s office this week by the thousands, expressing outrage beyond anything he said he had witnessed in his 20-year political career. The callers were inflamed by Mr. Kyl’s role in shaping the bipartisan immigration compromise announced May 17, which lawmakers continue to debate.

“Yes, I have learned some new words from some of my constituents,” Mr. Kyl, an Arizona Republican, said at a news conference on Thursday, drawing titters from those in the room…
The day after the proposal was announced, the eight phone lines at the [state Republican] party headquarters were so jammed that staff members almost decided to close the office.
“Every single line was literally off the hook most of the day,” said Sean McCaffrey, the state party’s executive director. “None of these were happy calls. Truly, from our headquarters to the 15 county parties, the ratio was 100 to zero. Not a single county chairman, not a single legislative district chairman reported having a single call from a grass-roots individual saying, ‘Please pass this immigration bill.’ ”

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/05/2...-to-pass-bill/

TRUMP WALKING BACK SOME AMNESTY COMMENTS AND FILLING IN SOME BLANKS (AND WE RAISE HIS GRADE)


Tue, AUG 11th 2015 @ 11:35 am EDT by Roy Beck

After a lot of criticism over the weekend of his recent remarks about letting the "good" illegal aliens stay, Donald Trump has gone on national media to clarify his remarks about amnesty -- a bit. There is still a lot of confusion about the details of his stance, and it is likely that he has not yet thought about those policy details.

On the basis of the new details he has provided in the last two days, NumbersUSA is changing his amnesty rating from HARMFUL to MIXED on our Worker-Protection Immigration Grade Cards. (See all ratings and grades for 21 Presidential Hopefuls at: www. NumbersUSA.com/2016

With that change and the ratings he has on the other nine immigration categories, Trump has raised his overall grade to a C+, which again puts him in the No. 3 spot among all 21 Presidential Hopefuls of both Parties.

(Rick Santorum earns an A grade, and Scott Walker earns a B-minus as the only Hopefuls whose policy stances on 10 immigration issues are more positive toward American workers and their families.)

Many thanks to all of you Trump supporters who sent messages in one way or another to the Trump campaign to improve what he was saying about legalizing illegal aliens. This is what supporters of every candidate ought to be doing. We provide contact information on each candidate. Just click on the photos on www.NumbersUSA.com/2016.

WHAT TRUMP IS SAYING NOW ABOUT AMNESTY

I'm going to start here by giving you direct quotes from two interviews. Then I'll suggest what these quotes may mean about policy and what questions remain.This is from the CNN interview with Jake Tapper: (I have edited out parts that don't deal with the question of what Trump's plan would do with illegal aliens who are in this country.)

(TAPPER) Would you be open-minded about a path to citizenship? Is that a nonstarter with you? Where are you on that issue?
(TRUMP) . . . First of all -- and you said it -- you have to stop it (illegal immigration). You have to stop it fast. And we can do that. We can do that with combinations of walls and Border Patrol . . . and fencing.
Once that's done, we have a situation that is going to be done immediately, before that's done. We're going to get the bad ones out. We have some really bad dudes right here in this country, and we're getting them out, and we're sending them back to where they came from. And I don't mean Mexico. I mean, it's -- they come from all over. . . .
(TAPPER) There obviously will be -- will remain, after you get rid of the bad ones, millions and millions of undocumented workers who are not bad ones. And they're women and they're children and they're men who are here who came here for a better life, and -- but you're not going to yet take a position on whether or not you would favor a path to citizenship?
(TRUMP) I will say, from a moral standpoint, from a physical standpoint, you're talking about at least 11 million people. I have heard the number is much higher than that, because that number has been bandied about for years. . . . But we're going to take the high ground. We're going to do what's right. Some (illegal aliens) are going to have to go. And some, we're just going to see what happens. It's a very, very big subject, and a very complicated subject. . . ."

This is from the Fox interview with Hannity: (Also edited for the pertinent content.)

(TRUMP) . . . these (illegal aliens) can be some great people-- but, you either have laws or you don't have laws. I would get them back, I would get them back where they are, and I would try to work out a process where they can come in legally. But, they have to come in legally, it's about laws, it's about borders. If we don't have a border, we don't have a country. So, I get them out, and if they were really outstanding, because some of these people have been here for a long period of time, I'd let them back legally. They have to come through a legal system, and I'd make that system much faster, much quicker. I want people to come into the country. I love the fact that people come into the country, but they have to come in legally. Not only them, other people. We welcome people, I mean, my parents and my grandparents, they came from different parts of the world, too. We all sort of did when you get right down to it. . . .
I would expedite [the process], because some of these people (illegal aliens) are fantastic people. I've been to the border, I was there a few days ago. I met some people, these are fantastic people and they have great reputations within the community. So what I'd do is that I would expedite it. You have to have laws. If you don't have laws, you don't have a country. I would get them out, and I would try, the good ones -- the bad ones, they're gone, they never come back. They'll never get back into this country. But, the good ones, of which there are many, I want to expedite it so they can come back in legally.

WHAT DOES TRUMP MEAN?

This is more difficult. I was talking today with somebody who has spent some time with Trump who emphasized that he does not have real experience with policy and doesn't think in terms of detailed policy. The likelihood is that these comments from him on national TV are things he has thought about but not things that have been worked out in policymaking meetings with staffers and others.

Note that Trump largely sidestepped questions about citizenship. But these two interviews over the last two days -- combined with interviews granted last week about wanting to keep hard-working illegal aliens in the country -- seem to suggest a policy like this:

1. Illegal aliens would not be rewarded with legal status (work permits, benefits, Social Security cards, citizenship, etc.) without at least first leaving the country.

2. No legal status would be granted to those illegal aliens until illegal immigration is brought under control. At a minimum, that includes a fence and adequate Border Patrol activity. He still hasn't said if he would take away the jobs magnet nor has he commented on a number of interior enforcement tools.

3. He would start giving legal status to illegal aliens who have gone home ONLY after the "bad" illegal aliens have been deported from the U.S.

4. Once the prerequisites have been met, he would move quickly to get deserving illegal aliens back into the United States. But who are the deserving ones? Some previous comments suggest that it might be only people who have worked hard (illegally) at U.S. jobs and not used taxpayer assistance. Some people think his comments suggest that only illegal aliens with highly valued skills would be allowed back in. Or maybe it is just anybody who didn't build a criminal record while in the U.S. Depending on the answer to this question, the number allowed back in might be as high as nine million or as low as just tens of thousands, by my estimate.

5. He wants the deserving illegal aliens back in the United States in an expedited fashion. Does that mean there will be additional green cards made available, in which case legal immigration will rise considerably for some time? Or does he want to make the currently available green cards in the current numbers to be given first to the illegal aliens, causing other foreign citizens who are in line to wait more years, in which case the level of legal immigration would remain the same at around 1 million annually?

In general, Trump has described a Touchback Amnesty which was pushed a few years ago by Rep. Mike Pence (now governor of Indiana). At the time, he was one of the hottest rising stars of the conservative movement. Pence's star immediately plummeted upon his championing the Touchback Amnesty, and it took him years to recover political stature.

The difference between Trump's Touchback and Pence's seems to be that Trump has put a lot of "have-to" steps before the amnesty would be given. Those steps might take years.

We may be being generous in giving Trump a Mixed rating on amnesty right now. We will be watching very closely for more signals. We know that he is very, very serious about protecting the American people from tragic violence from illegal aliens. We haven't seen corresponding signs yet that he is thinking about protecting American workers and their families from harmful job and wage competition.

ROY BECK is Founder & President of NumbersUSA
NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted. The views expressed in blogs do not necessarily reflect the official position of NumbersUSA.

https://www.numbersusa.com/blog/trum...aise-his-grade

http://www.alipac.us/f9/donald-trump...ealthy-323795/

9/27/15
Trump answered, “If they’ve done well, they’re going out and they’re coming back in legally.”

So who is paying for them to return to their home country

and who is paying for them to "Return Legally"?

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

9/27/15
Trump answered, “If they’ve done well, they’re going out and they’re coming back in legally.”

So who is paying for them to return to their home country

and who is paying for them to "Return Legally"?

There's a reason our candidates who really want to stop illegal immigration use this language, even when they know that under US law, they can't come back and even when as in Trump's case their immigration proposals don't allow it. I think I know why they do it, but I'm not publishing it. Everyone just needs to think about why they make these statements. You need to think about who it is they're talking to in these messages.