Trump does not have a problem with immigrants

[Philosch]

I'm not an avid supporter of Trump but can everyone just please stop with the "Trump hates immigrants" rhetoric. He has come out very strongly against ILLEGAL immigrants and most of the country agrees with him. His ban on Muslim immigrants was poorly stated because his mouth engages before his brain is ready but he clarified he wanted a TEMPARARY ban from countries that harbor terrorists until we could improve the vetting process and that too most of the country agrees with. Both of those positions are perfectly reasonable positions. You can't maintain a nation if you leave the borders open, just look at the European problems related to these issues. You can have a compassionate and reasonable immigration policy but still use common sense.

Illegal immigration and immigration unfettered from Syria and other middle eastern country's are serious problems and people can continue to make jokes about it but these things need to be addressed. Sam Harris has a great podcast on how Trump got elected that might be well for anyone inclined to listen to. He is no Trump supporter either, he thinks Trump is a dangerous buffoon, but he nails this situation right on the nose when it comes to the immigration problems and how the politically correct liberal elites have refused to handle this issues due to a misguided sense of tolerance. As if asking people to follow our laws or undergo a stricter vetting process is somehow being a racist or intolerant. Until we get off this political correctness nonsense when it comes to these problems, we are doomed to get more of the same. People love to jump on the rhetoric but that's a big part of the problem.

[Dolphin42]

You may have a point. Do you think he has a problem with Muslim Americans who are not immigrants? He does seem to like to make up stories about them.

[Felix]

As if asking people to follow our laws or undergo a stricter vetting process is somehow being a racist or intolerant.

Trump has not been branded a racist due to his immigration proposals but because he acts like one: he has repeatedly made overt racist (and sexist) comments and he just hired a white supremicist as his chief strategist.

[Burning ghost]

Also you probably don't fully understand the relative difference between right wing and left wing view between the US and European nations. The difference in polarity is quite stark. It appears to me in the US there is politically only one "side". What you liberal is probably mre like a soft fascism to me! Haha

[Grunth]

As if asking people to follow our laws or undergo a stricter vetting process is somehow being a racist or intolerant.

Trump has not been branded a racist due to his immigration proposals but because he acts like one: he has repeatedly made overt racist (and sexist) comments and he just hired a white supremicist as his chief strategist.

Here is your 'white supremacist' chief strategist introducing one of his senior Breitbart News authors (yeah, someone Steve Bannon hired):

-- Updated November 15th, 2016, 9:44 pm to add the following --

Steve Brannon would like to cure the old Republican elite system. So he has enemies on both sides.

-- Updated November 15th, 2016, 9:45 pm to add the following --

You may have a point. Do you think he has a problem with Muslim Americans who are not immigrants? He does seem to like to make up stories about them.

Only thing is he doesn't make up the stories.

[Dolphin42]

The website cited in the link below appears, in previous instances, to have been as factual as possible.

factcheck.org/2015/11/trump-carson-on-9 ... ebrations/

-- Updated November 15th, 2016, 3:25 pm to add the following --

Here are some examples, from the same website, of Hilary Clinton's dishonesty being pointed out:

factcheck.org/2016/07/clintons-greatest ... test-hits/

-- Updated November 15th, 2016, 3:46 pm to add the following --

I've had a quick look to see if I can find something to refute the source that I cited above, or which might suggest that it paints a misleading picture.

Here is another account, from a different, source of the same alleged event ("Thousands and thousands" of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating on 9/11):

infowars.com/i-live-in-jersey-and-trump ... we-saw-it/

This article is by somebody who claims to be an eyewitness to the events. This person says that it wasn't "thousands and thousands", but "perhaps 100". They offer the opinion that this does not affect the veracity of Trump's claim.

Question to the reader:

If you were Judge Judy, what comments would you make as to the veracity of Mr Trump's claim? Would you say that it is, in essence, correct?

[Fooloso4]

First, it should also be noted that the ban on Muslim immigrants is not longer listed on Trump’s website.

Trump has certainly back peddled:

12/07/15:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on," a campaign press release said.
Trump, who has previously called for surveillance against mosques and said he was open to establishing a database for all Muslims living in the U.S

According to a CNN interview on 7/24/16:

Trump refused to rule out banning individuals from top US allies like France and Germany, agreeing that "they have totally been" compromised by terrorism.

On 10/07/16 Pence told the New York Times:

Donald J. Trump no longer wanted to impose a temporary ban on Muslim immigration to the United States.

At the beginning of the campaign, Trump said all 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country must go. In the closing months, he talked more about deporting immigrants with criminal records — "bad hombres" — and opened the possibility of finding a way for some to remain in the country.

The problem is not the:

"Trump hates immigrants" rhetoric.

He is being forced to wake up to reality. He is being forced to see that his incendiary rhetoric and easily solutions may work on the campaign trail but that in the real world of politics things are far more complex. If his positions now seem reasonable it is because he has been forced to change them.

On immigration and crime:

washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspira ... b93e3685bc

Trump claims that Clinton did not address the problem of immigration but this is simply false:

time.com/4441513/hillary-clinton-nabj-n ... ranscript/
http://www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-interview

In addition, it should be pointed out, as she did, that Obama tried to pass immigration reform but even though the Senate passed a bipartisan bill the House voted against it.

On Vetting:

whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/11/20/infograp ... ted-states

On Immigration and Welfare:

Undocumented immigrants do not qualify for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and most other public benefits. Most of these programs require proof of legal immigration status and under the 1996 welfare law, even legal immigrants cannot receive these benefits until they have been in the United States for more than five years.

money.cnn.com/2014/11/20/news/economy/i ... ion-myths/

This last link “5 immigration myths debunked” is a good source for other related issues.

Immigration is a problem, but by politicizing the issue Trump is doing more harm than good. He is fueling hatred of both immigrants and "liberals". If we are to address the problem we need to begin with facts. As should not come as a surprise he hasn’t. We must begin with a clear identification of the various problems and an examination of what is actually being done now, what needs to be done, and why more has not been done.

Does Trump hate immigrants? Based on his unedited, unscripted comments, he probably does. But really it doesn't matter much. What does matter is what he does. Will there be massive deportation and if so what will be the consequences? We will have to wait and see. Will he build a wall, what will it cost us, and how effective will it be? We will have to wait and see. Will he prevent Muslim terrorists from crossing our borders, will he persecute peace-loving, law-abiding Muslims in the process? We will have to wait and see. Will he do anything to prevent the escalating hate-crimes perpetuated by his emboldened followers? We will have to see.

[Philosch]

I don't really know if he is actually a racist or not. My point was that he didn't demonstrate a "hate immigrants" position. People keep spouting that but it just isn't true. My problem is with the tendency in debates and arguments to simply ignore qualifiers and context just to score points. Unfortunately the qualifiers and the context are critical to the discussion. Because I want to ban Muslim immigrants doesn't mean I have a problem with immigrants in general. Because I want to build a wall against a tide of ILLEGAL immigrants, doesn't mean I have a problem with immigrants no matter how ridiculous the wall idea is. I understand the purpose of political rhetoric and that all these politicians say whatever they need to in order to drum up passionate support, I'm just tired of this particular discussion about Trump hating immigrants....it's just not true or even helpful in trying to formulate a reasonable and safe immigration policy.

To whomever wants to try and say that Trump may be a so called "soft fascist", hell that may be true or not, we don't know yet. I don't really have an opinion about that, not enough information on what his policies will actually be. Just want people to quit with the "Trump hates immigrants" line because what it implies is that anyone who wants to restrict immigration for perfectly reasonable security concerns can be immediately labeled anti immigrant. It's just ridiculous. We have the same problem when it comes to criticizing any minority person in power. The criticism may be perfectly legit and reasonable but because the person is a minority or of a different gender or sexual preference, you are labeled a racist, a misogynist or a homophobe. I'm not defending Trump specifically because I don't know the man's real belief system. But I know I have issues and differences of opinion with people and yet I cannot express those concerns unless the person in question is from my category. If they are not then identity politics has me paralyzed and it's the reason Trump has gotten elected, because people are tired of this state of political correct identity politics.

[Fooloso4]

Philosch:

I don't really know if he is actually a racist or not. My point was that he didn't demonstrate a "hate immigrants" position.

While it is true that one can be in favor of stricter immigration policies and not be a racist, that does not mean that one he is not motivated by fear and hatred. We need to look at what he has said and one in order to decide whether he has demonstrated racial and religious fear and hatred.

Have you forgotten his accusation of Mexican immigrants “bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people”? See the links in my last post regarding his overstating the case.

Here are some other examples:

huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-r ... 60bf777e83

huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-t ... 18f618904b

One of the most telling is his appointment of Steve Bannon:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/opin ... house.html

Just want people to quit with the "Trump hates immigrants" line because what it implies is that anyone who wants to restrict immigration for perfectly reasonable security concerns can be immediately labeled anti immigrant.

Obama pushed for stricter immigration policies as did his predecessors. Some do associate his immigration policies with racism, but as is evident from his predecessors, that alone is not the reason he is called a racist.

[Grunth]

Philosch:

I don't really know if he is actually a racist or not. My point was that he didn't demonstrate a "hate immigrants" position.

While it is true that one can be in favor of stricter immigration policies and not be a racist, that does not mean that one he is not motivated by fear and hatred. We need to look at what he has said and one in order to decide whether he has demonstrated racial and religious fear and hatred.

Have you forgotten his accusation of Mexican immigrants “bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists, and some, I assume, are good people”? See the links in my last post regarding his overstating the case.

Here are some other examples:

huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-r ... 60bf777e83

huffingtonpost.com/entry/9-outrageous-t ... 18f618904b

One of the most telling is his appointment of Steve Bannon:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/opin ... house.html

Just want people to quit with the "Trump hates immigrants" line because what it implies is that anyone who wants to restrict immigration for perfectly reasonable security concerns can be immediately labeled anti immigrant.

Obama pushed for stricter immigration policies as did his predecessors. Some do associate his immigration policies with racism, but as is evident from his predecessors, that alone is not the reason he is called a racist.

Yes, illegal Mexican immigrants have been “bringing drugs, they’re bringing crime, they’re rapists".

And the nytimes article on Brannon is an opinion piece using also other opinion piece material from other publications.

[Fooloso4]

Grunth:

And the nytimes article on Brannon is an opinion piece using also other opinion piece material from other publications.

If you learn how to figure out the difference between a fact and an opinion we might be able to have an intelligent discussion, or at least a discussion. Also, although you may be of the opinion that it is Brannon, the fact is, its Bannon. (See how the distinction between fact and opinion works?)

[Grunth]

Grunth:

And the nytimes article on Brannon is an opinion piece using also other opinion piece material from other publications.

If you learn how to figure out the difference between a fact and an opinion we might be able to have an intelligent discussion, or at least a discussion. Also, although you may be of the opinion that it is Brannon, the fact is, its Bannon. (See how the distinction between fact and opinion works?)

Gee, what a take down. The accidental r made all the difference. Hope it went some way to alleviate a measure of butt hurt.

-- Updated November 18th, 2016, 1:44 am to add the following --

One of the most telling is his appointment of Steve Bannon:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/opin ... house.html

And the nytimes article on Brannon is an opinion piece using also other opinion piece material from other publications.

If you learn how to figure out the difference between a fact and an opinion we might be able to have an intelligent discussion, or at least a discussion. Also, although you may be of the opinion that it is Brannon, the fact is, its Bannon. (See how the distinction between fact and opinion works?)

This is from the nytimes link you posted:

'Mr. Bannon himself seems fine with that description, telling Mother Jones last summer that Breitbart was now “the platform for the alt-right,” a loosely organized group of mostly young men who believe in white supremacy; oppose immigration, feminism and multiculturalism; and delight in harassing Jews, Muslims and other vulnerable groups by spewing shocking insults on social media.'

As one can see, Bannon's opinion was, apparently, that Breitbart was now “the platform for the alt-right".

Point 1. Ok, so I could agree that it is a fact that he opined so (even though it is merely reported that he said this, I will just agree he may have).

Point 2. It is the nytimes opinion, not necessarily fact, that this 'alt-right' is "a loosely organized group of mostly young men who believe in white supremacy; oppose immigration, feminism and multiculturalism; and delight in harassing Jews, Muslims and other vulnerable groups by spewing shocking insults on social media."

Mr Bannon wasn't asked if he agreed with this nytimes description of the 'alt-right'.

Point 3. And here IS part of the Mother Jones piece they did with Bannon which is not necessarily on a par, as far as describing 'alt-right', to the OPINION of what the nytimes opine it to be:

'Bannon dismisses the alt-right's appeal to racists as happenstance. "Look, are there some people that are white nationalists that are attracted to some of the philosophies of the alt-right? Maybe," he says. "Are there some people that are anti-Semitic that are attracted? Maybe. Right? Maybe some people are attracted to the alt-right that are homophobes, right? But that's just like, there are certain elements of the progressive left and the hard left that attract certain elements."'

So what you have done to claim as a fact is what the 'alt-right' apparently is, but which is only the opinion of the nytimes article as to what the 'alt-right' is.

Opinions, not facts.

So as for this (from another thread):

We have members here who cannot distinguish between a fact and an opinion. This is in some cases related to certain philosophical misconceptions about knowledge and objectivity, but putting that aside, many people cannot distinguish between a legitimate news source and the politically motivated propagation of disinformation.

Why should the nytimes be regarded as "a legitimate news source" over any other news source? Surely each article from any news media organization can be looked at and critiqued/assessed based on the individual article's own merits or otherwise.

-- Updated November 18th, 2016, 2:08 am to add the following --

Further to this: none of these opinions even make it a fact that Breitbart IS some deliberate flagship of something called 'the alt-right'. Some who may want to identify themselves as 'alt-right' (or 'certain elements') maybe attracted to Breitbart news but then even this so-called 'alt-right' itself will be made up of 'certain elements' that may, in fact, not be in total agreement with each other about everything.

Other media organizations, competing ones of a particular and apposing political stance or narrative, have called Breitbart 'alt-right', but this may stem from a journalism piece by two of Breitbart's authors who were attempting to define what this so-called 'alt-right' could actually be or be made up of.

Here is that piece: http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2016/03/2 ... alt-right/

-- Updated November 18th, 2016, 10:48 am to add the following --

So Breitbart actually did journalism on some phenomena called 'alt-right'.

The New York Times merely made fear mongering 'politically motivated propagation of disinformation' accusatory, particularly generalized (for the effect of political propaganda), statements (OF opinion, not actual facts).

The only facts is that there were diverse opinions.