Really, This Is Why Trump Won

[EasyAce]

By Kevin D. Williamson
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/donald-trump-why-he-won/

“This is why Trump won” has become a kind of conservative in-joke, invoked when there is an episode of over-the-top political correctness — and, like a lot of in-jokes, it’s only half-joking.

But have a look at today’s headlines: A mob of would-be illegal immigrants trying to crash through U.S. border security; an illegal immigrant shooting at police while enjoying DACA protection courtesy of the Obama administration despite a history of arrests and criminal charges that had him already on ICE’s radar; Democrats complaining about Trump “politicizing” immigration reform — as though it could be anything other than political — etc.

With all that is going on, from economic concerns to fights over judicial appointments, it’s worth keeping in mind that that is almost certainly literally why Trump won — and why he ended up with the Republican nomination in the first place. There is a profound gulf — and it is not only a political gulf — between those Americans who think illegal immigration is no big deal and those who think it is a very big deal indeed.

Those who believe that illegal immigration is no big deal owe their more skeptical fellow countrymen a reasonable explanation of why it is that we should allow our laws to go unenforced and our borders uncontrolled even as we burden would-be legal immigrants with ever more officiously enforced regulation . . .

[Dexter]

I've said a dozen times that immigration is obviously why Trump won. If the Republicans can focus on the things that won Trump the election the Democrats will be in big trouble.

[Cyber Liberty]

Naw...it's hopeless. 

[EasyAce]

I've said a dozen times that immigration is obviously why Trump won. If the Republicans can focus on the things that won Trump the election the Democrats will be in big trouble.

As have I said, and probably more often, that we suffer our demagogues and mountebanks when more responsible men and women at all levels of government fail to address within proper bounds (constitutional and otherwise) real and legitimate issues.

[truth_seeker]

As have I said, and probably more often, that we suffer our demagogues and mountebanks when more responsible men and women at all levels of government fail to address within proper bounds (constitutional and otherwise) real and legitimate issues.

Illegal immigration IS the problem it has become, BECAUSE those "responsible men and women," failed to address the problem (over and over).

Starting BTW, with Reagan's 1986 Amnesty.

[txradioguy]

Illegal immigration IS the problem it has become, BECAUSE those "responsible men and women," failed to address the problem (over and over).

Starting BTW, with Reagan's 1986 Amnesty.

You're off by 21 years...go back to 1965...and Ted Kennedy.

[Fishrrman]

Both truth_seeker and txradio are correct, in posts above.

But... if I was to point out that before the immigration reform of 1965 American immigration policy was essentially DISCRIMINATORY in nature -- that it endeavoured to admit only whites, and deliberately excluded Asians, blacks, and people of non-European heritage -- you'll try to shrink away from that reality.

Yet... that's the way it was.
Our "immigration policy" was by and large limited to admitting.... WHITE PEOPLE.
With very few exceptions.

It's only because we STOPPED "discriminating" that we face the mess before us today.

Would you prefer that pre-1965 policy, to the ones we have today?

I would.

Does saying so make me a pariah...?

[txradioguy]

Both truth_seeker and txradio are correct, in posts above.

But... if I was to point out that before the immigration reform of 1965 American immigration policy was essentially DISCRIMINATORY in nature -- that it endeavoured to admit only whites, and deliberately excluded Asians, blacks, and people of non-European heritage -- you'll try to shrink away from that reality.

Yet... that's the way it was.
Our "immigration policy" was by and large limited to admitting.... WHITE PEOPLE.
With very few exceptions.

It's only because we STOPPED "discriminating" that we face the mess before us today.

Would you prefer that pre-1965 policy, to the ones we have today?

I would.

Does saying so make me a pariah...?

@Fishrrman

Yes in some ways a return to pre-1965 would be preferable.

Lost in your comment that it was mainly white Europeans that were coming in...was the fact that the people were coming wanted to work...wanted to be here legally.

Pre 1965 you had to have a sponsor and you and your sponsor were checked up on to make sure you weren't just being a leech on society.

Pre 1965 there had been pauses in allowing people into the country in order to allow them to assimilate into the American culture.

Pre 1965 there was more emphasis having a "purpose" for wanting to immigrate here.

Pre 1965 Caesar Chavez worked with the INS to keep farmers from hiring illegals.  Today he'd probably be called a traitor to his race.

There are a lot of advantages of going bcak to the pre 1965 immigration model.

It's just gonna take a congress and President strong enough to withstand the "racist" label that will be branded on them by the media and the Left.