Correcting the Media: Trump Didn’t Say Mass Deportations, You Did

Immediately after GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump released his plan, Immigration Reform that Makes America Great Again, on Sunday, August 16, the media – along with the illegal alien special interests groups – launched a misinformation campaign labeling it as “mass deportation.”

Dara Lind of Vox appears to be the first out of the gate just hours later when she editorialized, “it’s important to stress that Trump has not explicitly called for deporting the children of unauthorized immigrants, even if those children are US citizens, en masse. But that’s the logical conclusion of his plan.”

12998712375_dfb042dbed_oBy Monday, most of the media were parroting the prepared statements made by special interests railing against the plan. “Trump has reignited the GOP’s longstanding obsession with mass deportation,” said Pablo Manriquez, Democratic National Committee director of Hispanic media, in a statement appearing in the Boston Herald.

Throughout the following week, “Trump” and “mass deportation” were interchangeably acceptable headlines for all the major syndicated news outlets, including a widely distributed wire story by the Associated Press, “Donald Trump calls for mass deportations faces realities of nation’s messy immigration system,” and Bloomberg with, “Trump deflects questions about high cost of mass deportation plan.”

Even FOX News took the bait. In a highly charged question to the candidate, Bill O’Reilly asked, “Do you envision federal police kicking in the door in barrios around the country, dragging families out?”

But aside from the spin – even that heard in the so-called No Spin Zone – neither the phrase “mass deportation” nor the word “deportation” appear anywhere the four-page, 1,899-word document. “Deport” is used once to refer to the recommendation that, “all illegal aliens in gangs should be apprehended and deported.” The plan does call for the “mandatory return” of criminal aliens and further suggests that all illegal aliens caught crossing the border be “sent home.”

Incidentally, under current law, all those categories of individuals are supposed to be removed.

In regard to automatic birthright citizenship, yes the Trump plan does support the end of that.  No, it does not suggest that if the practice were ended that it would apply retroactively and result in massive deportations.

The remainder of Trump’s plan calls for securing the border, enforcing the law, drying up the incentives that attract illegal aliens and infuses the principle that “real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first,” and that “any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.”

For most Americans, there is nothing neither radical, nor even much new about Trump’s plan because it primarily calls for enforcing laws already on the books.

Despite that, don’t expect the media to stop hyperventilating over Trump’s plan. For six and a half years, they have championed the Obama administration’s systematic whittling away of immigration enforcement and they don’t want to see it rebuilt.  The canard of “mass deportation” will continue to be used in order to inflict “mass destruction” on any candidate who dares to defy the non-enforcement status quo.


This blog post was written by Bob Dane and Anna Giaritelli.

Trump Plan Puts Horse Before the Cart

Donald Trump

“Whatever anyone might think of Donald Trump, his recently unveiled blueprint for immigration reform is a serious plan, worthy of serious consideration. It fundamentally changes the terms of a long-simmering debate that has consistently failed to reach any sort of resolution by establishing a public interest objective, coupled with meaningful deterrence and enforcement,” says Dan Stein in a new opinion article for the American Spectator. Click here to read more.

How Immigration is Shaping Up as a 2016 Campaign Issue

Microphones at the podiumMany Republican candidates in Thursday night’s debates have shifted positions markedly to the “better controls” position on immigration of late – although John Kasich is still hard to pin down. Bush has moved toward a “border security” first position. Rubio mentioned E-verify prominently and an entry-exit system, along with the tough sounding remark that “we are being taken advantage of….” His positions are markedly different than when he was a lead sponsor of the “Gang of 8” bill in 2013. Walker explained his position as an evolution toward border security – he “heard America” – and a professed concern for making U.S. working families a priority. Cruz is always tough, though he confined his comments primarily to discussing the need to outlaw so-called “sanctuary cities” and he still misses the issue of labor displacement in his analysis. (Cruz admonished that the United States does “not want to enforce the law” because of special interest pressure and this provided an unusually candid analysis of why it’s so hard to get things done.)

In contrast to Cruz, Santorum earlier in the day also made a robust defense of the American worker and the need to cut immigration. Both he and Scott Walker are invoking the national interest in labor integrity with greater frequency.

Bush continues to insist more immigration is an essential component in job creation. And here is the emerging divide that bears watching. Can Bush continue to traffic in the age-old bromide that without mass immigration there will be no job creation? In 1980, Ronald Reagan said “We always with normal growth and increase in population increase the number of jobs.” But what we are doing is not normal. The always conservative Census Bureau projects we will have 90 million more people in just 45 years. Population growth will happen even with steep reductions in annual immigration owing to natural increase and the impact of four decades of historic highs. Can Bush sustain his position that more immigration is essential and make it through the primaries?

Why so much attention to immigration – one of the big issues in these debates? Is all this due to Donald Trump’s role in the race? He wants to “build a wall” but make a big, open door in the wall. He doesn’t tell us what that means. Credit Trump for elevating an issue that the Bush-wing of the Party wanted to minimize this election cycle. They might be talking about it without Trump, but Trump has certainly forced the rest of the field to stake out more concrete positions that they might otherwise have avoided; he brought it out front. But is something deeper happening?

Are we beginning to see a wholesale rethinking of immigration’s role in America’s future? The answer is yes. It is rooted in concern about labor competition, overcrowding, water, assimilation and related a well-placed fear that the Obama Administration has let the borders spin out of control at a time when America faces growing external threats.

Missing from the campaign discourse, however, is still a real understanding of how, at its core, the United States has let lapse its ability to manage, control and choose the levels and criteria governing overall immigration. The Obama Administration has refused to reduce immigration to match the actual labor and financial conditions of the country. No future chief executive can succeed unless immigration limits and controls are properly restored. Deep down, the American people are beginning to recognize the lack of any definable public interest in our immigration policies. All that is needed now is a messenger who can articulate the vision.

Bernie Speaks Out on Immigration

Bernie Sanders gave an interview to Vox published July 28th describing himself as a “democratic socialist” and detailing what that means in contemporary American politics. Among the topics he discusses is immigration. Below is the exchange:


Ezra Klein: You said being a democratic socialist means a more international view. I think if you take global poverty that seriously, it leads you to conclusions that in the US are considered out of political bounds. Things like sharply raising the level of immigration we permit, even up to a level of open borders. About sharply increasing…

Bernie Sanders: Open borders? No, that’s a Koch brothers proposal.

Ezra Klein: Really?

Bernie Sanders: Of course. That’s a right-wing proposal, which says essentially there is no United States….It would make everybody in America poorer —you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state, and I don’t think there’s any country in the world that believes in that. If you believe in a nation state or in a country called the United States or UK or Denmark or any other country, you have an obligation in my view to do everything we can to help poor people. What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? If you’re a white high school graduate, it’s 33 percent, Hispanic 36 percent, African American 51 percent. You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?

I think from a moral responsibility we’ve got to work with the rest of the industrialized world to address the problems of international poverty, but you don’t do that by making people in this country even poorer.

Ezra Klein: Then what are the responsibilities that we have? Someone who is poor by US standards is quite well off by, say, Malaysian standards, so if the calculation goes so easily to the benefit of the person in the US, how do we think about that responsibility?

We have a nation-state structure. I agree on that. But philosophically, the question is how do you weight it? How do you think about what the foreign aid budget should be? How do you think about poverty abroad?

Bernie Sanders: …What you do is understand there’s been a huge redistribution of wealth in the last 30 years from the middle class to the top tenth of 1 percent. The other thing that you understand globally is a horrendous imbalance in terms of wealth in the world. As I mentioned earlier, the top 1 percent will own more than the bottom 99 percent in a year or so. That’s absurd. That takes you to programs like the IMF and so forth and so on.

But I think what we need to be doing as a global economy is making sure that people in poor countries have decent-paying jobs, have education, have health care, have nutrition for their people. That is a moral responsibility, but you don’t do that, as some would suggest, by lowering the standard of American workers, which has already gone down very significantly.

While the commitment to open borders is far from a “right-wing proposal,” being endorsed as it is by the sitting President and leading members of the Democratic Party, Sanders does get a lot of things right. Sanders has often been called a populist, usually in connection with Donald Trump and usually as a pejorative by those who want increases in immigration. But maybe Sanders (and Trump in his own inimitable way) is popular with voters because he speaks to their concerns, including their opposition to increases in legal immigration. A better way to look at the positions of politicians when it comes to immigration policy isn’t to label them far-right or far-left, but to determine whether they are based on the premise that immigration should broadly benefit the American people.

Illegal Aliens Backstab Their Biggest GOP Advocate

Jeb_Bush_at_CPAC_2015,_National_Harbor,_MD_08Former Florida governor Jeb Bush stepped out in front of 3,000 eager Miami supporters on Monday to make the biggest announcement of his career, but what happened next was appalling but not entirely surprising.

In the midst of Bush’s declaring his intentions to pursue the Oval Office in 2016, a group of 25 protestors in the bleachers stood up, stripping their plain cloth tops to reveal neon green shirts that read “Legal status is not enough!”

Each person had one letter or space on his or her shirt, stretching the literal political statement across a considerable section of the auditorium.

Upon standing, the group immediately began chanting in disfavor of Bush’s stances, unapologetically interrupting the politician as he officially launched his presidential campaign.

The verbal and written messages were intended to publicly bash Bush for his refusal to support 100 percent of their agenda, as if they forget that in 2011, Bush said he supported a pathway to citizenship.

Ironically, these full-blown amnesty advocates publicly humiliated the Republican candidate who has repeatedly promised to pass some of the immigration reforms that illegal aliens want. But despite Bush’s significant promise making, protestors want more, a lot more, and there’s no end in sight.