Trump Adviser Makes Trump’s Immigration Plan Sound Entirely Reasonable

The Daily Caller sat down with Trump senior policy adviser Stephen Miller regarding a variety of questions, most of which seemed to revolve are Trump’s immigration plans. Here’s what we get

“There’s an overarching principle that covers all immigration policy — three principles to be exact,” Miller told TheDC in a phone interview.

“The first is that a nation without borders is not a nation. You’ve heard [Trump] say many times in many interviews either we’re a country or we’re not. It’s that simple. We’re either a country or we’re not. Similarly, the second principle is a nation without walls is not a nation, which is an extension of the first principle, but in other words. If you have laws, you enforce them,” he said.

“The last principle of the three is that a nation that does not serve its citizens is not a nation, which is to say that the social contract of the country is that the interest group that is served is not special interests, or lobbyists, or transnational corporations, or citizens of other countries. It is the citizens of this country, the United States,” he added.

Miller described the current immigration system as catering to everyone but the American citizens, and that the whole world will know that people can no longer come to American illegally if he’s elected. The plan encompasses those who overstay their visas, who make up roughly 40% of those here illegally. Trump plans on enforcing the existing laws on the books, including the use of biometric entrance/exit systems.

He wants to streamline immigration hearings while doing away with catch and release policies. Miller also stated that the Trump campaign believes that the 14th Amendment does not confer birthright citizenship to foreigners born in the United States (Ann Coulter, despite having turned into a buffoon in the past few years, and especially when it comes to people who do not support Trump, actually makes a good argument against birthright citizenship. She’s smart, but, still a wanker).

Trump would also reduce legal immigration. On this, I’d like to hear a bit more detail. Most of this part of the interview revolved around Trump’s proposed temporary ban on Muslims, but, I think we need to look at those who are coming over and getting paid less to take American’s jobs (see Disney, for one). How many other countries allow foreigners to come in and take their citizen’s jobs? We could certainly use more temporary migrant labor, which strong controls to make sure they leave when they’re supposed to, and companies who hire them should be responsible for providing health insurance to their workers.

Most of this can all be seen at Trump’s website, which lays out his plans and policies on immigration. Interestingly, one thing missing is his position on touch-back amnesty, something which I could swear appeared at that link just two weeks ago when someone on Twitter dared me to read his plan (something I had previously done months ago). Trump has seemingly been in favor of a pathway to citizenship for the “good ones”. Personally, I’m not opposed to some staying, as long as they pay fines and fees, have no criminal issues, and speak English. They would be banned from being eligible for social services such as welfare, food stamps, medicare, etc for a short period of, say, 5 years. These illegals must show that they are capable of providing for their lives, rather than relying on the government.

Numbers USA has given Trump’s plan a C+. They summarize his positions, including this

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.

I’m still not big fan of Trump, my Trust Factor for him is low overall, but, on this particular issue, my trust factor is high, unlike with most elected Republicans who seem to give lip service to building a wall and you know they would immediately go for amnesty.

Still not a Trump supporter, though. However, his immigration plan is pretty sound.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

7 Responses to “Trump Adviser Makes Trump’s Immigration Plan Sound Entirely Reasonable”

  1. Joan of Argghh! says:

    Immigration and economy. We can’t move forward without fixing the economy, no matter what our other scruples want us to uphold.

  2. John says:

    what about all those anchor babies ? Should we put them all into foster care at great expense and then jail any parents that come across the border to be with them? Those anchor babies would be virtual orphans?
    Any sympathy for them Teach being an orphan?
    The Christian Bible is rather explicit about strangers in our land. Isn’t the tightening always saying we are a nation based in Judeo Christian principals ? The Bjble says strangers must be weekend and treated as equals

  3. John says:

    I think the 2 biggest elephants in the room/not in the room are the facts that the poll leading nominee has finally said that Bush lied/people died and that he would give Israrl less support by being “fair”

  4. Hank_M says:

    Seems like a common sense plan to me.
    Better than what anyone else is saying.
    Others talk about “comprehensive” reform.
    Comprehensive reform usually means thousands of pages of unread rules and regulations. Trumps’ plan is simple and straight forward.

    And as with our host, my trust factor of Trump is also low. Problem is, it’s non-existent with the other candidates (Cruz excepted).

  5. gitarcarver says:

    The Christian Bible is rather explicit about strangers in our land.

    Yes it is, which is why it is surprising that you are mis-characterizing it. (Actually it is not surprising because you don’t read or believe in the Bible and so we read this applicable verse:

    “A fool has no delight in understanding, but in expressing his own heart.” Proverbs 18:2)

    While the Bible does say to welcome strangers into the land, it is up to the strangers to obey the law of the land or else leave. I guess you missed that part (see Numbers 15:15-16 as but one instance of the “same law for all’ principle.)

    Legal aliens are welcomed in the US john. The issue is those who come here contrary to the law and continue to break the law.

    The Bible does not support that at all.

    The odd thing is that we have gone down this path before with you. Instead of learning and or investigating what is actually being said, you repeat the same ol’ discredited lines.

    Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

  6. Jeffery says:

    Trump campaign believes that the 14th Amendment does not confer birthright citizenship to foreigners born in the United States

    So Republicans believe that citizens born in the US ARE NOT citizens but foreigners born in Canada ARE citizens?

    Curiouser and curiouser.

    The always entertaining Coulter makes the point that Congress could pass a law that precludes citizenship to those born in the US to non-citizen parents. And if that law passes muster with the Supreme Court, OK! Have at it.

  7. Jeffery says:

    The Christian Bible is similar to our body of law, in that you can find whatever you need to justify your opinion or your politics.

Pirate's Cove