News Donald Trump Running for President

[phinds]

thread's open

Again? Sigh.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

Is it me or are post being deleted?

 

[Evo]

Is it me or are post being deleted?

Posts that do not meet guidelines will be deleted, which I recently reminded people of. Rules for posting in Current Events are here https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/must-read-current-events-guidelines.113181/

No one should post without first reading the rules, and remember that certain sub-forums have additional rules, these will be pinned at the top of that sub-forum.

 

[Finny]

I was banned for a week for using unacceptable sources. It seems others may have been also since this thread was closed? When you are banned, you get no access whatsoever, and without mention in warnings of what source was deemed unacceptable, its really tough to tell what's 'bad'. Can any mentor post which sources that have been used are deemed unacceptable?

Anyway, I wanted to link to Donald Trump's own website so interested participants can see for themselves his stated position on immigration: as who pays for a border fence, and Trump's stated reasons for a number of his positions. I think this position paper was posted over the weekend?? There is no date on it.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

As I understand it, this is Trump's first detailed position paper.

I decided to read Trump's paper myself because of what I thought was doubtful reporting in the Washington Post. The Post reports Trumps position as illegal immigrants money being sent back home would be 'seized'; Trump's paper states "... Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages...

So what Trump is proposing is temporarily cutting off a major source Mexican income and so putting pressure on the Mexican Government.

 

[WWGD]

< Snip>

I decided to read Trump's paper myself because of what I thought was doubtful reporting in the Washington Post. The Post reports Trumps position as illegal immigrants money being sent back home would be 'seized'; Trump's paper states "... Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages...

So what Trump is proposing is temporarily cutting off a major source Mexican income and so putting pressure on the Mexican Government.

Major source? Mexican GDP is $1.8 trillion (World Almanac & Book of Facts 2015, p. 804) . I doubt the remittances amount to much more than 1% of this :http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/11/14/2-remittance-trends/ Hardly a chokehold. Besides, I don't see how this is technically feasible. What Trump and others ignore is, first , net Mexican flow is negative, second, Mexicans crossing are win-win situation, providing workers when needed and returning when not. Trump also neglects the fact that the illegal criminals caught may have not have arrived at the U.S by coming illegally across the border; there are other ways of coming into the country, including legal ones. A weak , superficial case at best.

But hey, Trump is a keen strategist, uneducated Mexicans do not have a powerful lobby
so they do make for good scapegoats. Maybe Trump should do actual research instead of just
watching schlock TV like "Border Wars" --whatever gets Nat Geo ratings.

 

[Finny]

A weak , superficial case at best.

Oddly, for reasons I don't fully understand, Bernie Sanders,Trump and I agree on open borders...see my post #189.

 

[russ_watters]

What Trump and others ignore is, first , net Mexican flow is negative...

Please explain the relevance of that fact.

... Mexicans crossing are win-win situation, providing workers when needed and returning when not.

Surely, you don't think ALL of them fall into that category?

 

[mheslep]

Mexicans crossing are win-win situation,

In the larger picture, how can any sovereign nation exist with no borders, the implication of crossing is a "win-win"? In particular:

...The number of criminal aliens in federal prisons in fiscal year 2010 was about 55,000, and the number of SCAAP criminal alien incarcerations in state prison systems and local jails was about 296,000 in fiscal year 2009 (the most recent data available), ...

Based on our random sample, GAO estimates that the criminal aliens had an average of 7 arrests, ... and about 50 percent were arrested at least once for a drug offense. Immigration, drugs, and traffic violations accounted for about 50 percent of arrest offenses.
...
GAO estimates that costs to incarcerate criminal aliens in federal prisons and SCAAP reimbursements to states and localities ranged from about $1.5 billion to $1.6 billion annually from fiscal years 2005 through 2009

Blanket apologetics for the status quo are the reason a showman like Trump gains center stage in my opinion. The apologists dismiss all bad aspects of illegal immigration. Objective observation of some harm is met with condescension and labeled as attack of the proletariat on the poor and defenseless.

 

[WWGD]

In the larger picture, how can any sovereign nation exist with no borders, the implication of crossing is a "win-win"? In particular:
Blanket apologetics for the status quo are the reason a showman like Trump gains center stage in my opinion. The apologists dismiss all bad aspects of illegal immigration. Objective observation of some harm is met with condescension and labeled as attack of the proletariat on the poor and defenseless.

There is no evidence that those criminals came illegally through the borders. Many other ways to come in and commit crimes, many of those ways legal.

 

[WWGD]

Please explain the relevance of that fact.

Surely, you don't think ALL of them fall into that category?

No, of course not, what I mean is the situation, as a whole, is win-win: seasonal workers come in when in demand and return to Mexico otherwise. No reasons to believe that the criminals came in through the borders, since there are many other ways, many of them legal, to enter the country and commit crimes.

Net inflow is close to zero : http://www.propublica.org/article/the-new-border-illegal-immigrations-shifting-frontier and I don't see any reason to believe many of those coming in are criminals. Many are fleeing war zones resulting partly on gangs sent back home from the U.S to countries where police forces lack the resources to fight them, so the gangs have taken control of a good chunk of these countries. Now, I posted a link in a previous post to the effect that the murder rate in many of these countries is more than 20x the rate in the U.S. Why is this never mentioned by Trump and those denouncing illegal immigrants? Do you expect them to file petitions for asylum, wait a few years and see their families get killed? I don't suggest open borders, but there is plenty of wiggle room between open borders and a wall. My goal is to bring this issue into the discussion.

 

[russ_watters]

No, of course not, what I mean is the situation, as a whole, is win-win: seasonal workers come in when in demand and return to Mexico otherwise.

But as pointed-out, that isn't the "whole" of the immigration issue and you are ignoring known downsides by downplaying them to nothingness. There are about half a dozen separate issues in immigration, so this claim of yours that that one aspect makes the whole issue win-win is, frankly, bizarre.

No reasons to believe that the criminals came in through the borders, since there are many other ways, many of them legal, to enter the country and commit crimes.

What? By definition, isn't that the only way to enter/exit a country?

[snip]...I don't see any reason to believe many of those coming in are criminals.

mheslep provided statistics for you, to which you responded:

There is no evidence that those criminals came illegally through the borders.

1. There is no other way to enter but through the border.

2. Illegal and legal immigrants committing crimes (beyond the crime of entering illegally) can be regarded as separate issues, with potentially separate solutions. My short position is that our prisons should not contain any non-citizen, non-permanent resident immigrants: they should be deported. But I'm not sure if mheslep's statistics slice that.

Now, I posted a link in a previous post to the effect that the murder rate in many of these countries is more than 20x the rate in the U.S. Why is this never mentioned by Trump and those denouncing illegal immigrants?

Why do you find it relevant?

Do you expect them to file petitions for asylum, wait a few years and see their families get killed? I don't suggest open borders, but there is plenty of wiggle room between open borders and a wall. My goal is to bring this issue into the discussion.

It doesn't sound to me like you are suggesting wiggle room, but please specify what wiggle room, exactly, you see?

Net inflow is close to zero : http://www.propublica.org/article/the-new-border-illegal-immigrations-shifting-frontier

In my previous post, I asked you why you find that relevant. Please answer.

 

[WWGD]

What I mean is that someone may have come in by plane , over stayed , maybe arrived through Canada, arrive legally , and committed crimes etc. and did not necessarily arrive illegally through the Mexican border, which is what Trump seems to be implying. My issue with Trump is his bringing up only the negative aspects, however accurate and ignoring much of the context. Doing this tends to attract negative attention against a subgroup.

 

[WWGD]

But as pointed-out, that isn't the "whole" of the immigration issue and you are ignoring known downsides by downplaying them to nothingness. There are about half a dozen separate issues in immigration, so this claim of yours that that one aspect makes the whole issue win-win is, frankly, bizarre.

What? By definition, isn't that the only way to enter/exit a country?

mheslep provided statistics for you, to which you responded:

1. There is no other way to enter but through the border.

2. Illegal and legal immigrants committing crimes (beyond the crime of entering illegally) can be regarded as separate issues, with potentially separate solutions. My short position is that our prisons should not contain any non-citizen, non-permanent resident immigrants: they should be deported. But I'm not sure if mheslep's statistics slice that.

Why do you find it relevant?

It doesn't sound to me like you are suggesting wiggle room, but please specify what wiggle room, exactly, you see?

In my previous post, I asked you why you find that relevant. Please answer.

OK, This is a lot, let me address a few and the rest later.

For 1, I am referring to the Mexican border. Trump seems to be suggesting it is the main source of alien criminals. Alien criminals may arrive legally in many other ways and then commit their crimes. I think this deserves support by Trump.

What I am suggesting is that, when making accusations against a group , it may be a good idea to provide some context , that is all. I was trying to do just that , since I did not see anything other than misdeeds and unsupported statements attributed to people entering illegally.

 

[Finny]

Doing this tends to attract negative attention against a subgroup.

You mean like calling criminals, criminals.

Illegals are by definition breaking US laws

Trump seems to be suggesting it {southern border} is the main source of alien criminals.

I posted statistics from several sources showing that is the situation. You refuse to accept facts and are consequently befuddled.

We do let in over a million legal immigrants via green cards annually. Hopefully someone checks them for crimes in their home country first, but with this administration who knows?

.

 

[WWGD]

You mean like calling criminals, criminals.

Illegals are by definition breaking US laws
I posted statistics from several sources showing that is the situation. You refuse to accept facts and are consequently befuddled.

We do let in over a million legal immigrants via green cards annually. Hopefully someone checks them for crimes in their home country first, but with this administration who knows?

.

2 EDITS
No, I think you are misunderstanding me. The group in question is immigrants. If you lived in a war zone, would you wait for many years to go through the official channels, or would you do whatever it takes to survive? If someone tries to cross the border illegally running away from a murder rate of 677 per 6 million in El Salvador (this is in June 2015 alone. See last Time magazine for a source), are they criminals? I am trying to create some context here and not automatically endorse anything nor everything illegal border-crossers do. And Trump did not do that. Besides, Trump was referring to Mexicans coming in , when this is not accurate since, as a whole, Mexicans are returning to Mexico , i.e., the net flow to Mexico is negative (see my sources in a previous post). So he does not have his facts straight. And my claim is that the crimes were not _necessarily_ committed by those entering through the Mexican border illegally, which is what Trump stated.

 

[russ_watters]

OK, This is a lot, let me address a few and the rest later.

Please do not make me ask you this question again, for a fourth time:

In my previous post, I asked you why you find that relevant. Please answer.

 

[WWGD]

But as pointed-out, that isn't the "whole" of the immigration issue and you are ignoring known downsides by downplaying them to nothingness. There are about half a dozen separate issues in immigration, so this claim of yours that that one aspect makes the whole issue win-win is, frankly, bizarre.

What? By definition, isn't that the only way to enter/exit a country?

mheslep provided statistics for you, to which you responded:

1. There is no other way to enter but through the border.

2. Illegal and legal immigrants committing crimes (beyond the crime of entering illegally) can be regarded as separate issues, with potentially separate solutions. My short position is that our prisons should not contain any non-citizen, non-permanent resident immigrants: they should be deported. But I'm not sure if mheslep's statistics slice that.

Why do you find it relevant?

It doesn't sound to me like you are suggesting wiggle room, but please specify what wiggle room, exactly, you see?

In my previous post, I asked you why you find that relevant. Please answer.

Are you referring to the fact that the net inflow is negative? If so, the issue Trump is making about Mexicans illegally crossing becomes a nonissue unless there is good reason to believe that both a high amount and a high proportion of those crossing are committing crimes. I am suggesting that, as a whole, having people cross the border illegally benefits both sides, providing jobs for Mexicans and workers for employers in need. This is what I mean by a win-win.

 

[russ_watters]

Are you referring to the fact that the net inflow is negative?

Yes; Four.

 

[WWGD]

Well, then Trump's claim of Mexican's arriving here illegally is a non-issue because, as a whole, they are leaving instead of arriving in-mass as Trump claims. This is why it is relevant, Trump is making a non-issue into an issue.

 

[TurtleMeister]

I don't think I've seen this mentioned, but it's a long thread and I could have missed it. Could much of Trump's support be coming from older white Americans who fear that their race will become extinct in this country? It seems to make since considering the current immigration and birth rate demographics. I came across this opinion piece in the Washington Post: Stop laughing at Donald Trump, which lead me to think that this may be what's happening. Could the "silent majority", as it is referred to in the article, be enough to get Trump elected?

 

[russ_watters]

Well, then Trump's claim of Mexican's arriving here illegally is a non-issue because, as a whole, they are leaving instead of arriving in-mass as Trump claims. This is why it is relevant, Trump is making a non-issue into an issue.

Huh? If 10 people arrive illegally and 11 people leave legally, you still had 10 people arrive illegally (by the way: the factoid actually didn't even differentiate between legal and illegal). The net flow does not negate the fact that people arrived illegally and something should be done about it. I see no relevance whatsoever for this factoid.

If 10 people commit theft but a different 11 people do not commit theft, does that mean we don't need to enforce theft laws? Of course not: The two facts have nothing whatsoever to do with each other.

WWGD, you come into this issue with guns blazing and I don't think you're really paying attention to the issues (as noted last week, you aren't paying attention to what others are saying, but rather are just arguing with yourself a lot of the time), but rather just throwing out random, not necessarily relevant factoids to overwhelm the discussion. I don't understand why, but I do see what you are thinking:

Why is this never mentioned by Trump and those denouncing illegal immigrants?...

My goal is to bring this issue into the discussion.

I don't think you understand why this discussion is happening. People (politicians) discuss problems because problems need to be fixed. They don't discuss the benefits of a situation because benefits do not need to be fixed. Indeed, the fact that a person lists problems related to illegal immigration does not mean they do not recognize the benefits of immigration as a whole, it just means they want the problems fixed. So by focusing on benefits - many of which are not being questioned - you are totally ignoring the point of the discussion!

Some specifics:

If so, the issue Trump is making about Mexicans illegally crossing becomes a nonissue unless there is good reason to believe that both a high amount and a high proportion of those crossing are committing crimes.

Quite clearly, exactly 100% of people crossing illegally are committing a crime. If you are saying you want to decriminalize illegal immigration, that's a big change (note: that's you arguing to change the status quo/fix something you see as a "problem").

If you lived in a war zone, would you wait for many years to go through the official channels, or would you do whatever it takes to survive? If someone tries to cross the border illegally running away from a murder rate of 677 per 6 million in El Salvador (this is in June 2015 alone. See last Time magazine for a source), are they criminals?

Yes, as a matter of law, quite clearly someone who crosses the border illegally has committed a crime: they are a criminal. That you (or I) take pity on them for their situation is a separate issue. If you want to streamline asylum hearings/applications, that would probably be fine with me, but you cannot say that someone who has broken a law has not done something illegal. That's an at-face-value self-contradiction.

This bears repeating:

Blanket apologetics for the status quo are the reason a showman like Trump gains center stage in my opinion. The apologists dismiss all bad aspects of illegal immigration. Objective observation of some harm is met with condescension and labeled as attack of the proletariat on the poor and defenseless.

Trump is a blowhard, but that doesn't make blowhard responses to him OK. There are real issues here that many people believe should be addressed (even some you agree should be addressed, WWGD, even if you gloss-over them).

 

[Bystander]

Could the "silent majority", as it is referred to in the article, be enough to get Trump elected?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_majority
"The Silent Majority" as defined by Wiki, if taken in the "modern" context (Nixon's appeal/interpretation to/of an electoral mandate) probably does not exist, and has probably never existed. More broadly, the notion that the "spirit of the founding fathers" is resident in some "silent majority," and will express itself in some sort of "take charge/return to responsible/responsive government" movement is unlikely. No electorate with as long a record of non-participation as that of the current population of the U. S. is going to have the sense to distinguish the differences among the scoundrels currently seeking office (Trump et al) and a very unlikely possibility of competent leadership emerging, much less unite in support of such an alternative choice.

 

[DiracPool]

Illegals are by definition breaking US laws

This is the issue I have with the whole immigration debate. I don't like the fact that there are laws on the books that don't get enforced. It just looks bad. If the policy is that you can't enter the US legally by sneaking across the border, but that if you get away with it then you're OK, then write that into the law. Don't be a hypocrite and grant the border runners amnesty every decade or so. The law is the law, if you pick and choose which laws you enforce, then you make a mockery of your whole system; you set an example that any given citizen can also pick and choose which laws they want to adhere to and which they don't.

This isn't to say I support Trump's "8 point policy." I didn't read it. But I think it amounts to something like rounding up a good number of the illegal immigrants or "undocumented workers" as the euphemism goes, and sending their whole families back to Mexico/South America. I don't necessarily support that. Just make a decision on what you want the immigration policy to be, and then enforce those laws. That's it. And plus, call it what it is. Anyone who enters the United States illegally is an illegal alien, not an "undocumented worker." Well, they are undocumented workers too, I guess, if they're working. But they could also be an undocumented criminal. When I see people/organizations on news programs who use these euphemisms, it just smells of some kind of political deceit and in my mind makes their character less credible. Why? Because you rarely hear these organizations referring to illegal border crossers as potentially undocumented criminals. They are always undocumented "workers." Lol. "Undocumented workers," what's that supposed to mean? That's funny. They're undocumented only because they are illegal immigrants. Call it what it is.

 

[Finny]

Could the "silent majority", as it is referred to in the article, be enough to get Trump elected?

I think maybe so, but not for the reasons you state. You don't want to pay too much attention to most articles from elitist academia.

Pew surveys also must be taken with great care. Ask "Are there too many Mexicans being allowed in the US." I'd guess most would say 'yes' ; Ask "Are there too many Mexicans being legally admitted to the US" and I doubt most people care. Ask "Would you like more Asian immigrants?" you likely get one set of answers, ask "Would you like more Asian PHD's admitted who will start new companies and create high tech jobs." and I bet you get a very different answer.

The 'silent majority', as you put it, is fed up with lawlessness, not with the race,religion,color nor creed of illegals, despite mass media claims. I live in a township that used to be full of [primarily] white Americans, now 'older white Americans', and it is now growing due to an increasing proportion of Asians, Indians, and Muslims from various countries. Of those I know, some are Sikhs, some Hindu, nobody really cares.

I think there IS an underlying concern regarding mosques and the possibility of radical extremism of a few. But that has nothing to do with individuals nor their origins, it has to do with violence and religious intolerance of groups like ISIS.

One thing I never understood, is why we don't have an official language in the US. It's good for everybody. So everybody can communicate. I spoke with a local Indian yesterday: Guy grew up here but speaks five languages, including Hindi, excellent English, and Punjabi...his families home state. So I looked up languages in India. Turns out Wikipedia says Hindi and English are the official languages used by the Central Government...seems like there are at least 29 with a million or more as first language. Mention English as an official language here and liberals go nuts and call you racist. I'd like to see Trump bring up English as the official language.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

English is technically the official language, if you want a good paying job or education for that matter. Multiple languages are great. It is surprising that In other nations people at least know 2 languages. Three language is becoming the norm.

 

[phinds]

English is technically the official language, if you want a good paying job or education for that matter. Multiple languages are great. It is surprising that In other nations people at least know 2 languages. Three language is becoming the norm.

Other countries are not isolationist the way the US historically is. We have been so powerful that we can ignore the rest of the world for the most part (absent major events like Hitler) but other countries live cheek by jowl with lots of other countries so I disagree that it is surprising that people there know more than one language.

EDIT: Hm ... that's really not a good way for me phrase that. I don't get to decide what you find surprising. I should just say, I don't find it surprising at all, for the reasons I stated.

 

[MidgetDwarf]

Other countries are not isolationist the way the US historically is. We have been so powerful that we can ignore the rest of the world for the most part (absent major events like Hitler) but other countries live cheek by jowl with lots of other countries so I disagree that it is surprising that people there know more than one language.

I did not want to derail the tread talking about Us world presence. Imperialism for short.

 

[Astronuc]

Trump attracted more than 30000 to a rally in Mobile, Alabama.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/why-are-white-evangelicals-supporting-trump-it-127261597616.html

Ever since a mid-July Washington Post poll confirmed that Trump is the leading candidate among white evangelical Republicans (20 percent supported him at the time, compared to 14, 12 and 11 percent for Scott Walker, Mike Huckabee and Jeb Bush, respectively), political observers have been trying to sort out the puzzle of conservative evangelical support for Trump.

It will make for an interesting campaign season in 2016.

 

[lisab]

Trump attracted more than 30000 to a rally in Mobile, Alabama.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/why-are-white-evangelicals-supporting-trump-it-127261597616.html

It will make for an interesting campaign season in 2016.

We do live in interesting times, don't we. Les sighs.

 

[TurtleMeister]

I think maybe so, but not for the reasons you state. You don't want to pay too much attention to most articles from elitist academia.

I do not align myself with the left wing agenda of elite academia, but I do pay attention to what they say.

(All things stated in this post are personal opinion.)

Another reason I think Trump is seeing such popularity is that people are fed up with the status quo in politics and government. Older people have experienced the downward spiral of the American dream, which at this point no longer even exists. Being a child of the 50's and 60's, I remember a time when the children in the family could grow up, get an education, get a career and a home, and then help support their parents in their old age. Now the children grow up, get an education, and then, because they cannot find work that will pay the rent, they come back home to live with their parents, who are being supported by their savings and/or the government. The gap between the rich and poor is widening. The middle class (the backbone of America) is disappearing.

I think that some people who support Trump don't actually like him. He is after all an arrogant bully. A Trump presidency could be risky. But I think to many Americans, especially older Americans, the consequences of the country continuing on the path it is on warrants taking some risks. And even if Trump could accomplish nothing (probably the best we could hope for), it would send a strong message to future candidates. But for right now, Trump is all they have. Could it be that the "silent" majority have finally found a voice?