The Immigration Speech Is Getting Praised

[Kathianne]

Of course from Trump supporters, but also from many that are considered, '#neverTrump.' Why? Between the Mexico appearance and the following speech, there was coherence. His points were pretty well thought out. Scroll through here (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner) and you'll see what I mean.

I watched the speech, mostly I was impressed. The only part I was confused by, (which actually is the first time that it didn't happen repeatedly during one of his speeches), was how to deal with those already here. Sounds like he's going with a 'touch back' at minimum, perhaps not. He mentioned 'no going to the head of the line,' but also brought up the ties already in place. The problem with the 'no going to the head of the line,' is that people will just stay illegally. The other side of the problem, it's not 'fair' to those who want to come in legally from the start, especially if the 'legal entry numbers' are going to be cut-drastically from the sound of his plan.

[Kathianne]

My point of confusion seems to be shared, by at least one person, who actually supports Trump and was fully praising his Mexico visit in another column.
(http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-mexico-gamble-a-huge-win-for-trump/article/2600692)
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2600742


Byron York: In fiery speech, a hard-to-spot change in Trump immigration plan



By BYRON YORK (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/author/byron-york)(@BYRONYORK (http://twitter.com/ByronYork))
•
9/1/16 1:11 AM

<cnt style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 30px; word-spacing: 2px;">Donald Trump and his top aides have spent the last two weeks sowing confusion about what the status of the country's 12 million illegal immigrants would be under a Trump administration. Would they all be deported, as Trump argued last year? Or would some have to go while others would be allowed to stay, as Trump has hinted in the "softening" of his position in recent days?

</cnt><cnt style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 30px; word-spacing: 2px;">In his immigration speech in Phoenix Wednesday night, Trump gave his answer, but it will do nothing to lessen the criticism he has received over the issue.

</cnt><cnt style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 30px; word-spacing: 2px;">First, Trump announced that he will aggressively move to deport criminal illegal immigrants — that is, immigrants who have committed crimes beyond the act of entering the country illegally. "We will begin moving them out day one, in joint operations with local, state and federal law enforcement," Trump said.

</cnt>Then Trump got to the rest of the 12 million, the large majority of the 12 million, who have not committed crimes in the U.S. Here is what Trump said, from the prepared text of his speech:

<cnt style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 30px; word-spacing: 2px;">For those here today illegally who are seeking legal status, they will have one route and only one route: to return home and apply for re-entry under the rules of the new legal immigration system that I have outlined above. Those who have left to seek entry under this new system will not be awarded surplus visas, but will have to enter under the immigration caps or limits that will be established.

We will break the cycle of amnesty and illegal immigration. There will be no amnesty.

Our message to the world will be this: you cannot obtain legal status, or become a citizen of the United States, by illegally entering our country.

This declaration alone will help stop the crisis of illegal crossings and illegal overstays.

People will know that you can't just smuggle in, hunker down, and wait to be legalized. Those days are over.

In several years, when we have accomplished all of our enforcement goals – and truly ended illegal immigration for good, including the construction of a great wall, and the establishment of our new lawful immigration system – then and only then will we be in a position to consider the appropriate disposition of those who remain. That discussion can only take place in an atmosphere in which illegal immigration is a memory of the past, allowing us to weigh the different options available based on the new circumstances at the time.

</cnt><cnt style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 30px; word-spacing: 2px;">What did that mean? First, Trump's statement that those here illegally would have "one route and only one route" to legal status seems clear. Everybody seeking legalization would have to leave and then return.

</cnt><cnt style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Georgia, serif; font-size: 22px; line-height: 30px; word-spacing: 2px;">But then, a few short paragraphs later, Trump said that "in several years," when tough enforcement measures are fully in place — not contemplated, not in the planning stage, but actually up and running — then "we will be in a position to consider the appropriate disposition of those who remain."

</cnt>Trump was addressing the illegal immigrants who would choose to stay in this country — that is, non-criminals and those who chose not to return to their home countries and get in line to return to the United States. If those people stayed here, Trump said, then their situation would be debated after all the enforcement measures are in effect. At that time, there would be "different options" available for them.

...

[Abbey Marie]

Of course from Trump supporters, but also from many that are considered, '#neverTrump.' Why? Between the Mexico appearance and the following speech, there was coherence. His points were pretty well thought out. Scroll through here (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner) and you'll see what I mean.

I watched the speech, mostly I was impressed. The only part I was confused by, (which actually is the first time that it didn't happen repeatedly during one of his speeches), was how to deal with those already here. Sounds like he's going with a 'touch back' at minimum, perhaps not. He mentioned 'no going to the head of the line,' but also brought up the ties already in place. The problem with the 'no going to the head of the line,' is that people will just stay illegally. The other side of the problem, it's not 'fair' to those who want to come in legally from the start, especially if the 'legal entry numbers' are going to be cut-drastically from the sound of his plan.


The bolded could be due to the addition of Steve Bannon to team Trump.

[Trigg]

I would read that as.

Deport criminal illegals.

Leave and come back the right way.

After a few years, those that have refused to leave and come back legally will be deported.

But, I could be wrong.

[DLT]

Of course from Trump supporters, but also from many that are considered, '#neverTrump.' Why? Between the Mexico appearance and the following speech, there was coherence. His points were pretty well thought out. Scroll through here (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner) and you'll see what I mean.

I watched the speech, mostly I was impressed. The only part I was confused by, (which actually is the first time that it didn't happen repeatedly during one of his speeches), was how to deal with those already here. Sounds like he's going with a 'touch back' at minimum, perhaps not. He mentioned 'no going to the head of the line,' but also brought up the ties already in place. The problem with the 'no going to the head of the line,' is that people will just stay illegally. The other side of the problem, it's not 'fair' to those who want to come in legally from the start, especially if the 'legal entry numbers' are going to be cut-drastically from the sound of his plan.

It was a great speech. Wonderful, in fact. All sounded perfectly sound and reasonable.... and Trump read the teleprompter masterfully.

Only problem is....I still don't believe he intends to do what he says he would do. And I still don't believe he intends to or wants to win.

If he really did intend to win....he would be following the "plan" set forth in order to do so.



To those present, the plan was persuasive — and seemed to offer a coherent blueprint for the campaign to allocate resources. Yet, two weeks later and 20 days from the start of early voting, it’s not clear the plan is being implemented. In recent days, Trump has campaigned in Mississippi and Washington state — neither of which are seen as remotely competitive.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-campaign-turmoil-227652#ixzz4J3sFu74B

[Kathianne]

It was a great speech. Wonderful, in fact. All sounded perfectly sound and reasonable.... and Trump read the teleprompter masterfully.

Only problem is....I still don't believe he intends to do what he says he would do. And I still don't believe he intends to or wants to win.

If he really did intend to win....he would be following the "plan" set forth in order to do so.

Yep, but it seems that many now are seeing the 'problem' I heard in the speech. Not looking so great anymore, can't play it both ways. Amnesty in the future-unstated planned amnesty-is still a problem. There are no incentives to those here illegally to go back to home country's back of the line, while basically saying to block any unskilled workers from anywhere.

He is anti-immigrant, legal or not.