Okay, I know he went too far this time. I am not going to attempt to defend Trump. Ultimately, he ran his mouth and there were about a million different ways he could have expressed himself that wouldn't have tasted like shoe. Regardless of context, he looks like an ass. My question is, What's new? If eloquence was the determining factor we were barking up the wrong tree. Being politically correct isn't exactly his speed.
I think we can all agree, our current immigration system has its fair share of flaws. It is high time we close the loop-holes, and give clear paths to citizenship. Even people who attempt to follow the legal path, from reports I have seen, fall between the cracks. This is what the meetings were intending to address. The meetings regarding immigration were intended to be bipartisan. To me, this means that there would be negotiations. Wouldn't it be great if this meant both sides come with good ideas and by melding these ideas you could manufacture a great idea. Now, because this is governmental politics, I have very low expectations and will settle for minor improvements.
Reports I have seen indicate that the Democrats were under the impression that proposing a mirror image of our current plan, particularly as it relates to TPS, was the same thing as fixing the problems. They seem to think that the quotation engraved on the plaque at the base of Statue of Liberty was an actual excerpt snipped from our codified current immigration law. They also seem to be a little fuzzy on the meaning of temporary. I can only guess that after seeing this issue get kicked down the road for the past administrations by many of the same politicians in attendance at today's meeting, frustrations were high. Given the track record of recent tax reform actually passing, wouldn't it seem reasonable for all involved to think that President Trump was serious about his intentions to stick to his campaign promises in this realm as well?
So the meetings hit an impasse of sorts. I believe it stemmed from basic philosophical differences. Trump makes no bones about where he bases his agenda. MAGA is its name. He sees immigration not only as a way for people around the world to take part in the American Dream but also as a way to increase the American brand. To actually, conscientiously attract the best from other countries, who want to help, well, for lack of a better term, make America great again. Being a safe-haven to the huddled masses is wonderful, but it shouldn't be the pillar of our immigration policy. Democrats, whether intended or not, have seemed to swing in a direction that favors an approach that focuses only on Hb-1 visas to help the Silicon Valley crowd or the entirely opposite end of the spectrum. I can see some crossover here between their ideas and those of our current President. Unfortunate for them, I also see that they have ulterior motives as was discovered yesterday in the memo concerning the dreamers. The memo clearly states that they want to keep them in the states because losing this constituency would have a negative impact "on the Democratic Party's future electoral success". One could look at that and say that it is no mystery that, historically, a large number of immigrants vote Democratic. Okay, I can buy that. A bigger question appears. We are talking about people who have, by definition, no clear path to citizenship? And citizenship is a crucial component to be eligible to vote? Hmmm. Gotta wonder. You mean to tell me that the DNC would engage in questionable activities where voting is concerned? If you still consider yourself a supporter of the DNC at this point, believe me, you have far bigger problems than Donald Trump. Your problems could be honestly described as HUGE.
This is where the real difference becomes evident. Trump has made no bones about his stance. Where there is a possible safety concern, as in the issue of the controversial travel ban, or even in the case of DACA, he always comes back to law and order. He draws a clear line between legal and illegal immigration. In the case of the travel ban, which as you may recall was the same travel ban promoted by past presidents dating back to Clinton, at least, the Supreme Court was in agreement.
The democrats, not so much. Sorry but it is true. The fact that you may identify as a Democrat and don't share that view is beside the point. I am talking about the politicians here. They have an agenda and if you disagree or fail to see it, it doesn't change the fact that the DNC, just like the GOP, haven't been working for you for a long, long time. Why do you think they have just kicked this can down the road for so long? Or Tax reform for that matter? At the behest of the guy or gal you voted in, you shamingly point your finger at your chosen opposition party and blame them. Both sides do. Do you really think it is just the politicians from the other side of the aisle who walk away from their political careers far wealthier than when they entered the game. Pick any of them who can be considered career politicians, multiply their years of service by the respective Congressional salary, and then justify the millions of dollars of difference. Try it for someone on your side. Obviously, there are some good ones. Unfortunately, they have far less impact than the bad.
They say you can judge a man by his enemies. Who has more political enemies than Donald Trump. Any idiot can explain the Dems hating Trump. It is also the same reason the Never-Trumpers in his own party have no love. Not for some political reason based, in part, on a moral value structure. It is because he is cutting off their gravy train. There is no money for them in actually solving the problems.
I felt it necessary to set the table by getting that out in the open. Trump has stated something in an distasteful manner. I am disappointed that he used the words that he did. He should apologize. Whether he pays a political price is unclear. Many things have seemed to bounce off of him. The next few days are going to be filled with speculation on how this will destroy him and, as we are beginning to see, the normal -ists and phobes are going to be shouted from the roof tops. And this is why, I believe, he is going to be able to come out on the other side, and this, too will pass.
He is going to come out just fine because his detractors are mind-numbingly predictable. They will call him racist this time. They already have. They will conflate the fact that, because the racial make-up of Haiti, for instance, is Haitian and inherently, not white, and he called their country a shit-hole that he has labelled them as......, what? Shit-holers? He said people from shit-hole countries. He called Haiti a shit-hole because Haiti is, wait for it, A SHIT-HOLE. Why do you think the people from Haiti want out of there so bad, and come here, and qualify for TPS status? Remember the earthquakes? Or worse yet, how the Clintons treated Haiti in the after-math? Search Youtube for reactions of Haitians to the Clintons. And yeah. Whether you like it or not, I am making this, in part, about Hillary. Donald Trump calls their country a shit-hole and gets labelled a racist. Bill and Hillary steal money they raised to help the earthquake victims of Haiti, go down there and give construction contracts to Hillary's brother to rebuild, and very little construction outside of industrial parks and some upscale hotels ever happened. Then there is their tie to Laura Silsby who was convicted of kidnapping 33 children for reason of child trafficking. Bill had to go down and bail her out. Now why would he go and do a thing like that?Doesn't he know that Child trafficking is synonomous for modern day slavery. Slavery, as you all know is highly linked to racism. So I am going to go out on a limb here and say that unless you can say you were, at least, as enraged by the actions of the Clintons as you are by Donald stating a fact about an impoverished third world country being an impoverished third world country, you are pretty much a fucking hypocrite. Or at the very least, your definition of racism could use a little fine-tuning. I'm not sure about you, but, for me, actions tend to speak a little louder than words. (You weren't aware of those things? Ignore much or just don't care? Curiosity may kill cats but it keeps people from being useful idiots.)
Haiti is in the shape it's in, not because of the citizens of Haiti, but because it has been raped and pillaged and kept in a continuous state of a Banana Republic. Letting a portion of their population enter the U.S. should be a part of our program. Believing that our immigration policy is the cure for all that ails Haiti, although very warm and fuzzy, won't make a dent in the overall problem. There is an argument that pulling the best out of their population might only help to maintain the status quo.
Our immigration system is in the shape it is in because for far too many years, political parties have avoided it for various reasons. Cheap labor is often offered as the motivation of the GOP. Recent evidence pins election fraud on the Democrats. Together they make horrible music and sell it to a divided audience. Since many of the same corporations and organizations donate to both parties and have had a strangle hold on our governmental institutions for a long time, I don't think it matters who gets labelled with what. Actually fixing a broken immigration system is where this stupid mouth opening event happened. I hope we can get past it. A bunch of good people are waiting for some clear answers on how to start their lives in this amazing land we are fortunate enough to call home.
Comentarios