This year is an interesting election year for sure. The two parties have handed us two of the least popular candidates in history, and many are looking for other options. First, there are 4 candidates on the ballot in the state of NY, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Gary Johnson, and Jill Stein. Now, full disclosure, I am supporting Gary Johnson, and while I hope you will consider doing so as well, I also want you to understand all of your options. If you are also considering Chris Keniston, Darrell Castle, or Evan McMullin, among others, you can still vote for them, and it is quite simple to do so.
The above is a sample ballot for Madison County. If you reside in another county in NY, your ballot should be fairly similar. Go all the way to the very bottom, on the very left line (Presidential Electors for President and Vice President) to the last line that says write in. In the box for that line, write your chosen candidate (you can find a list of NYS write in candidates for 2016 president here) If your write in candidate is not on this list, you can still write them in, but it won't be counted. When writing in your candidate, ensure it is spelled correctly, and as legible as possible, and ensure you are writing it in the correct box.
A candidate certified with the state board of elections has electors appointed should they actually win, that is why their individual votes are counted, and those not certified are not recorded by name, or tracked.
So if you wish to vote for Chris Keniston, Evan McMullin, Darrell Castle, or any of the others on the above list, that is how you do so. If you have any issues, the elections staff are there to help you make sure your ballot is properly recorded, don't be afraid to ask.
Also don't forget to vote for the other offices running!
You don't have to accept the terrible two on Tuesday the 8th!
This is the sixth and final section of the debate held on 10/19 at the University of Nevada between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Discussed in this segment are the national debt and the candidates closing statements.
3rd party responses:
Bill Weld and I promise to submit a balanced budget to Congress in the first 100 days in office #debate
First, before I really get into the discussion here, I want to point out that in this debate, we spend nearly 20 minutes arguing about scandals and not even 10 minutes on the national debt...this is telling...
Now, here's what each candidates plan would do to the debt: massively increase it!
Trump's response: "Well I say they are wrong" but he alludes to magically creating jobs and other indefinite answers to address real economic concerns, and does not acknowledge that his trade protectionism would in fact harm, not help the economy. Trump failed to even address the question at all with anything but continued rhetoric and no actual substance.
Clinton says, amazingly, she won't "add a penny" to the national debt.This is downright false, and if she really believes that her economics actually make sense, that's very concerning. If she doesn't...then she is ok with outright lying.
Trump avoided actually answering the question on entitlements, other than blasting Obamacare (rightly so) but avoided answering on medicare, medicaid, social security, et al, other than saying that his wonderful plan would make it a non issue, even though as noted repeatedly, the data shows that his plan would increase spending, increase the debt, and exacerbate, not fix, the problem.
Clinton would increase taxes and spending, but would not consider any cuts. This would have been a conversation greatly enhanced by third party voices. Neither candidate here seems interested in cutting entitlement spending or even really addressing the problem.
I want to point out again, that in this debate, we spent nearly 20 minutes arguing about scandals, and not even 9 minutes discussing (if you want to call it that...) the national debt and entitlement programs. The problem wasn't even really addressed or discussed, and Trump outright dodged it, while Hillary continued more of the same. This is a vital issue that should not be ignored, and yet, we ignore it and hope it goes away.
As to their closing statements...I don't have anything to say that hasn't been said, but this and the other debates would have been far better with third party voices involved. Trump and Clinton have managed to avoid substantial discussion of the issues, and have bickered and fought rather than presented actual discussion. They have both lied, twisted facts, misrepresented data and statistics. I think Chris Wallace did try to ask some hard questions, but was presented with candidates who fundamentally did not want to discuss policy or answer questions. This debate only confirmed that the two parties are both substantially flawed, and we need to move outside the duopoly and seek better ideas, better policy, and stop accepting the status quo.
Part five of the debate held 10/19 at the University of Foreign policy. In this segment, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton debate foreign policy including Iraq, Syria, daesh, etcetera.
3rd Party responses:
We do have boots on the ground in Mosul (special forces) #debate
First, it's worth mentioning that US forces are actively engaged in combat operations in at least six nations (Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, and Afghanistan) with no formal declaration of war. Also, as Johnson points out, and Hillary does acknowledge, we already have "boots on the ground" in Iraq.
Here's a good overview of the discussion on Mosul and the inaccuracies from both candidates
Hillary mentions the civil war in Syria, "Aided and abetted by Russia and the Iranians", but doesn't mention our own involvement in "aiding and abetting" the conflict, how much of a total mess it is, or our actual funding of daesh. Here's an interesting article on the topic from Reason, and here's another op-ed from the Guardian.
Hillary fails to acknowledge that it is our very foreign policy that she would continue that created daesh.
Trump's foreign policy is not much better, it's basically a mix of the same aggressive interventionism mixed with isolationist protectionism.
Trump also claims he opposed the war in Iraq, which is simply untrue.
The reality of this debate is both candidates support and would continue further intervention, continue the so called war on terror, and neither would represent any real major change in foreign policy.
Trump is right to point out the issue with funding the rebels and not really knowing who they are, but is inaccurate, and terribly so, with his fear tactics regarding refugees. (Here's an interesting article about the first Syrian refugee in Idaho, and her perspective) On the refugee situation, Clinton helped cause the problem, and Trump is using fear rhetoric and lies in response to the problem. The data simply does not support his fears.
On Hillary's no fly zone, this would be a swipe and confrontation with Russian and Syrian forces, not daesh. Russian and Syrian forces are using air power, not daesh. She didn't really address these concerns in the debate, other than to acknowledge they exist.
The reality of our foreign policy in the Middle East is that we have created the problem, we are fueling the problem, we don't even really understand the problem, and it is highly likely that either Clinton or Trump will only get us into a further mess, likely including a pissing match with Russia in their backyard.
I honestly don't have much to say here that hasn't been said over and over. I think focusing on these scandals, while they shouldn't be dismissed entirely, diminishes from discussions on policy. The fact that nearly 20 minutes of a debate between future leaders of our country was spent arguing and "I know you are but what am I" antics is a sad statement in and of itself. I will fact check a few of the statements made, but I'm not going to spend much time here.
Also, Hillary talks about Trump deflecting and denying controversies, which is quite true, but she doesn't have much ground to stand on, as she does the very same thing (for reference, see earlier where she deflects wikileaks by talking about Russia, or in this segment where she deflects allegations that her campaign paid for people to disrupt Trump rallies by...talking about violence at Trump rallies...)
I'm not really going to dive into the spats about their respective charities, except to say that there is evidence that both candidates have misused charity funds. There is certainly cause for concern here, but it should not be a major focus when it takes time away from discussion on the economy, foreign policy, taxes, and so on. Both candidates are terrible, and both are very happy to fight over scandals because it allows them to avoid any actual discussion of the issues.
As to the system being rigged and not accepting the results of the election, Trump is right, the system is rigged, but not necessarily at the polls. It is rigged to favor the two parties, and to present and favor a system which gives us these very two candidates.
If you want to actually talk about a rigged system, I encourage you to take an hour to watch Rigged 2016, and to consider the fact that over 70% of the population wanted to see third party voices in the debates, and yet here we are, talking about a debate between two of the most unpopular choices we have seen.
This is part three of the final debate that occurred 10/19 at the University of Nevada. I have included 3rd party responses posted live during the debate via twitter, as well as some fact checks and commentary from me. In this segment they discuss economic policy, trade, and experience.
3rd Party responses on the economy and Trade:
When you bring certainty that taxes will not go up, that rules and regs won't become worse, #jobs will increase. #debate
First, neither candidates plan is all that great, both will increase spending, and both will grow the national debt. Neither addresses out of control entitlement spending, and neither is really willing to take any action on military spending or on pork projects. The phrase rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic comes to mind. Here is an analysis of each candidates tax plans from the tax foundation. Evan McMullin shared a graphic above, also from the tax foundation, this is a more detailed breakdown. Basically, Trump will cut taxes, Hillary will raise taxes, but primarily on "higher earners". Neither plan really addresses actual tax reform, just adds some tweaks to the already complex tax code we currently have. As the tax foundation breakdown states, we must also consider these plans in conjunction with other policies, such as trade. For Trumps plan to be even the marginally successful numbers estimated in this review, it relies on an open economy and trade, however, as Trump has made clear, he will pursue the opposite. It's also worth noting that neither candidate has shown any intention of addressing the growing debt or reducing spending. Also of note, Johnson would completely rewrite the tax code, simplify it, remove the IRS, and implement either a consumption tax or a flat tax. McMullin also mentions addressing and simplifying the tax code drastically, as he links above. Castle would drastically change the tax environment (select tax policy) as well, proposing that the states fund the federal government and each state tax (or not) as they need to. Jill Stein mentions a "green new deal", but from the looks of it, her plan will drastically increase taxes and spending. Unfortunately, none of these other views were mentioned in the debate, and two very important issues are left untouched, actually reforming or replacing the tax code, and addressing out of control spending.
As both Johnson and Castle point out, regarding Clinton's statement to help small business and raise the minimum wage, these two are not really compatible. Here's an interesting and accurate take on the minimum wage discussion from 1960.
Essentially, Hillary's plan increases spending,increases regulation, will raise the cost of education, and increases taxes. Here is a look at Bernie's college plan, which Hillary's is based off of.
Now, Trump talks a good game on cutting taxes, but still won't touch entitlement spending, adds to government spending, and seem intent on making up the difference by restricting trade and starting trade wars, which actually harms the economy. As Cato put's it, Trump's plan is "deserving ridicule".
Basically, the two are arguing about who should be taxed less or more, without addressing spending, both growing the debt, and neither actually seeking to reform the tax code. On the economy, both candidates are terrible, and we the people would have been better served to actually hear some alternate ideas.
Both candidates are arguing about who will protect the economy more, but neither candidate has addressed or seems to understand the benefits of free trade and the importance of trade on the economy.
Essentially, for the economy and trade portion of the debate, we see two candidates who are quibbling over two plans that will grow the debt, grow spending, and not really fix taxes, while Johnson would have interjected discussion on actually fixing the tax code, free trade, and cutting spending, as to a degree would McMullin, Castle would be going further to the right of Trump on protectionism, but would have interjected some interesting views on taxes and spending, and Stein would have gone to the left of Clinton, but would have again interjected an interesting debate on free trade, and it is too bad that we are limited to these two voices who, overall, neither has a good plan, and who, in view of substance and results, don't differ all that much in the end.
I will give Trump credit for pointing out one thing, Hillary has been in positions of impact for decades, and her plans haven't been good ones. However, that doesn't make his terrible plans good either.
Trump has been mentioning the "lost $6 Billion" However, this is an inaccurate statement. While it is concerning regarding the bureaucracy of the state department and trouble properly keeping track of paperwork, reality seems to show that no actually money was "lost". Cause for concern? yes, but not the inaccurate way Trump is spinning it.
Finally, on experience, Johnson is a two term governor of New Mexico, with a proven record of reducing government and cutting spending. McMullin has extensive foreign policy experience.
This segment was a display of bad economic policy, misinformation, and pandering to emotion.
Part two of last nights debate, with concurrent twitter responses from Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Evan McMullin, and Darrell Castle, as well as some commentary and fact checking from me. This segment is on Immigration, border security, and cyberattacks
Debate part 2: Immigration, Border Security, Cyberattacks
Immigration and border security, 3rd party responses:
Don't build a wall across the border. It's insanity. #debate
Immigration and Border Security, fact checks and commentary:
First of all, Trump loves to talk about immigrants and crime, there's a nice element of fear there to energize his base, but the numbers simply don't support his position. Also, Trump is claiming that ICE has endorsed him, they have not, a Union representing ICE employees has, but that is a different matter than a government agency endorsing a candidate, and an important distinction.
In reference to his comments on Drugs, Stein mentioned it in her twitter responses, and Johnson has discussed it at great length before, the greatest cause for much of the violence surrounding drugs is the drug war itself. Legalization of marijuana and changing the way we address harder drugs will substantially reduce the violence and crime surrounding them. Just as alcohol prohibition created the gangster and the mob, so to does drug prohibition strengthen the cartels. As an example, Portugal.
As both Johnson and Stein have pointed out, better walls make bigger ladders and better tunnels. This isn't to say that we shouldn't have any border security, but that we need to look at policies as a whole, regarding immigration, drug policies, and foreign interventions that create refugee situations.
Now, Hillary rightly points out, as have others, that Trumps plan to deport 11 million undocumented immigrants is...well, nuts...with a large amount of logistical flaws that he has never really answered.
Now, Hillary has kinda been all over the place on immigration, and Trump sorta rightfully points that out. Here's data from the Daily Kos of all sources on how before Trump went full wall, it was Hillary who wanted a fence.
She does correctly reference illegal immigrants used to build the Trump Tower, however, whether Trump knew of their status at the time is another question. As to Obama's deportation rates, Trump is correct, on the numbers anyway, he's incorrect when he says no one is talking about it however.
Now, before we move on to Wikileaks, Russia, and Cyber attacks, I want to point out one more thing that hasn't been addressed much. Hillary's immigration stance has certainly been inconsistent.. However, Trump has also been inconsistent on immigration. In 2012 he criticized Romney and the GOP for being "mean spirited" on immigration and called Romney's immigration policy "crazy" and "maniacal". And in 2013, Trump had a very different opinion on borders and trade than he has now:
"My concern is that the negligence of a few will adversely affect the majority. I've long been a believer in the "look at the solution, not the problem" theory. In this case, the solution is clear. We will have to leave borders behind and go for global unity when it comes to financial stability."
Wikileaks, Russia, Cyber-attacks, 3rd party responses:
Hillary says that 17 intelligence agencies have confirmed that Russia is behind the Wikileaks information, which is simply not true, but she also uses this is if it makes the information itself untrue. Yes, as I've talked about before, if Russia is actively hacking us and manipulating the election, it is a concern. But it doesn't let her off the hook for information revealed, and the fact that rather than categorically denying or defending it, but trying to ignore it bu shifting focus, is a problem.
Next, "we've never had anything like this happen" is a downright lie, it happens all the time, we do it to other countries all the time.
Now, within this topic, Trump brings up refugees and terrorists. As is the case with his stats on immigration and crime, his stats on refugees are off the wall as well.
Also of note, Trump mentions how Hillary and Obama "won't even mention...Islamic Terrorism" which is quite false actually.
Next. they wander into Russia and nuclear weapons, and Hillary states that Trump has been rather flippant about nuclear weapons. Trump says "wrong", but the record shows otherwise.
I won't really get into the "who's a puppet" spat, you can come to your own conclusions there...
An interesting deflection from Clinton to avoid wikileaks, and Trump allowed her to do it.
So last night was the final debate before the election. For those that are interested, I am posting segments of it here, along with responses from third party candidates as the debate occurred.(Included are Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, Evan Mcmullin, and Darrell Castle, as they had concurrent responses on twitter as the debate occurred) I will try to keep most of my commentary to a minimum in this post, but will do some relevant fact checking so you don't have to.
Part 1: SCOTUS and the constitution, Second Amendment, Abortion
SCOTUS and Constitutional interpretation, 3rd party responses:
Trump is using fear tactics regarding the 2nd amendment here, yet has made several anti 2A statements in the past, including recent and continued support of "no fly no buy", a violation of the 2nd and 5th amendments. He talks a decent game on constitutional issues, but it doesn't stand up to scrutiny. See my previous discussion Donald Trump vs the Constitution.
Second Amendment and Gun Rights, 3rd party responses
.@HillaryClinton supports #2A...except with respect to gun registries, private transfers, when the government doesn't want u 2 have a gun...
Hillary loves to throw around that 33,000 a year statistic. But it's a misrepresentation, and it's a deceptive use of statistics.
Comprehensive background checks...so, kinda a system like this?
But those loopholes! I can go online and just buy a gun and avoid all that! No...no you can't. And the gun show loophole? Again, it's not quite what Clinton and others would have you think it is.
Would have also liked to see the moderator ask Trump about his change of mind regarding an assault weapons ban, which before running for office he supported.
As to Trump's comment regarding judges and the second amendment, if you appoint strict constitutionalist judges, does that point need to be clarified? Isn't it included?
Evan McMullin actually made one of my points for me above, that Donald Trump is not consistently pro life and is not dependable on the issue.
My main takeaway from this portion was how little discussion there was of the implications of the 10th amendment here, and of state laws on the matter. Trump did mention that if Roe vs Wade were overturned it would go to the states, but that was the extent of the conversation. However, coming at it from a constitutional perspective, it is in fact a state issue.
Also, as Johnson pointed out above, Roe vs Wade is not the law of the land regarding abortion, but Casey vs Planned Parenthood. Under Casey vs Planned Parenthood, Hillary's justifications for late term abortions are invalid.
Final note, on the issue of abortion rights, Clinton is rabidly all about individual rights and how the government shouldn't be involved, an argument I can to a degree understand, if she consistently applied it on other positions. But she doesn't, and in this instance, it still doesn't apply, because under the 10th amendment, states can still regulate it, the federal government cannot.
Final comment from me, I have a breakdown of each candidates positions and backgrounds on my blog already if you'd like to check it out
Immigration is perhaps one of the issues that has received more attention than others in this election cycle, but still not to the full extent that it perhaps should, and it has still been sidelined by the personality politics and nonsense scandals. When it has received attention, it's mostly been an argument over whether or not Trump's policy ideas are racist or not, without much actual discussion of the issues themselves. So first, my view in the interest of full disclosure. I would consider myself a moderate in regards to immigration. We definitely need to reform our current system, but I am not firmly decided what the best answer is. I think it's an issue we as a nation need to take a serious look at and discuss as a whole.
Gary Johnson
Of note, Gary Johnson was a two term governor of a border state, and arguably in regards to immigration issues, has perhaps the most practical experience.
From his campaign website:
"Governors Johnson and Weld believe that, instead of appealing to emotions and demonizing immigrants, we should focus on creating a more efficient system of providing work visas, conducting background checks, and incentivizing non-citizens to pay their taxes, obtain proof of employment, and otherwise assimilate with our diverse society. Making it simpler and more efficient to enter the United States legally will provide greater security than a wall by allowing law enforcement to focus on those who threaten our country, not those who want to be a part of it."
From looking further on ontheissues, he advocates a 2 year period for illegal immigrants to go through the process of becoming legal, and a "1 strike, you're out" rule, essentially, if the terms of their process are violated, they are done. I think his focus on reforming the broken process is a good step towards a reasonable and fair immigration policy. I also think it is good to see he is not advocating total open borders, as some of my fellow libertarians do indeed advocate, but reasonable security checks. In my view this is a sound middle of the road plan to address concerns from all sides and develop a fair process, and rates an A.
Chris Keniston
In his personal platform, he references the VPA platform on the issue. The party platform has a 10 point plan to address immigration:
1. We must secure all borders and international ports of entry to properly protect our nation from potential threats foreign and domestic.
2. We must enforce immigration laws, by supporting legislation that will provide for Border State agencies to coordinate the implementation and enforcement of national immigration laws, including directing resources to the Border States to fund the National Guard or Militia to work with National Border Security Agencies.
3. All illegal and undocumented immigrants must report to a local immigration center and get registered with a firm deadline for compliance.
a. Any illegal or undocumented immigrants that fail to register are subject to immediate and permanent deportation.
b. All registered immigrants with any felony or State level misdemeanor conviction, even if later cleared or expunged by any method, shall immediately face permanent deportation.
c. All illegal or undocumented immigrants found trying to illegally enter the United States after the registration deadline is subject to immediate and permanent deportation.
d. Any illegal immigrant under the age of 18 may be represented by an attorney prior to facing deportation, paid for by country of origin, including withholding funds from foreign aid.
4. The Veterans Party of America supports the hiring of ICE Agents at an accelerated rate to meet the National and Border State demands of at least 60,000 Border Patrol agents. This increase in Border security shall be paid for by exact budget stipulations in the Home Land Security funding.
5. All illegal or undocumented immigrants will be treated humanely, respectfully, with critical medical care as required and then returned to country of origin. The country of origin shall be responsible for all expenses, medical or otherwise. These funds shall be deducted from any foreign aid those countries of origin may receive.
6. Any immigrants properly documented by the end of the registration deadline, but are not prepared for filing for permanent residency status must acquire a sponsor, learn a sufficient level of the English language for public safety, becoming proficient in the common language, and shall be given a grace period to complete the application process, based on each individual applicant’s needs, not to exceed 5 years, without extensions.
7. All documented immigrants between the ages of 6 & 18, depending on State law, must be registered in and regularly attend school.
8. No illegal immigrants under this provision will be eligible for permanent status ahead of legal immigrants already engaged in the application process.
9. All documented immigrants over 18, residing in the United States, seeking permanent status must be employed with a tax identification number, or be a full time student.
10. Any corporations, conducting business in the United States found to hire illegal immigrants, upon conviction shall be fined 1 million dollars or 51% of their business holding, whichever is less. We need to make it easier for businesses to block sponsor immigrant workers (VISA) from countries of origin, through US Embassies and Consulates, provided the corporation can document an insufficient labor source already existing in the particular area.
He also calls for a permanent moratorium on deportation of any law abiding immigrant awaiting citizenship by marriage, immediate citizenship for completion of military service, and for the involvement of state governments in approaching the issue, as well as the possibility of employers "sponsoring" immigrants, which could be an interesting approach to a middle ground on labor needs vs immigration policy.
Overall an interesting and thought provoking approach. Some concerns I have include the possible use of National Guard in border security, while I understand the idea, I'm not sure that it is one I agree entirely with. Also, the criminal conviction one, felony I get, even most misdemeanors I get, but even if it is cleared or expunged? Does this include minor traffic violations? I'd say, overall, a novel and interesting approach, I'd give it an A.
"The path to reform begins with securing our borders. Once they are secured, there should be a process of earned legalization for the illegal immigrants who are already here. There is simply no efficient way to deport 11 million individuals; doing so would break apart families and likely cost $100 billion. Furthermore, legalization is not amnesty. While addressing illegal immigration, it is vital to remember that legal immigration is one of America’s greatest strengths. Immigrants and their children have a long record of hard work, starting businesses, and creating jobs. Still, we need to reform the legal immigration system so that it prioritizes American interests and security, including the protection of workers from low-wage, low-skill competition."
"Deporting 11 million illegal immigrants is simply not practical. It would likely cost more than $100 billion and force the federal government to act in an intrusive manner that would violate the privacy of both citizens and legal residents. Deportation would also break up families, hurting children who are not responsible for their parents’ actions. Criminals, however, would still be subject to deportation.
The first step toward earning legal status is for all those who are here illegally to come forward and register themselves. Next they would pay an application fee and a fine, undergo a background check, and demonstrate competence in English. If they do those things, they would get a temporary work and residence permit, but would not be eligible for welfare or entitlement programs. If they obey the law and pay their taxes for several years, they could apply for permanent residency."
Again, a good middle of the road approach that seeks to fix our current broken system, yet still encourage those who want to work to come work. My only issue here is the low wage competition bit, a "taking our jobs" toss I guess, but an inaccurate one. And here's another source. Overall, good, but some issues, B+
Support immigrants’ rights. Create a welcoming path to citizenship for immigrants.
Halt deportations and detentions of law-abiding undocumented immigrants., including the shameful practice of night raids being used to terrorize refugee families.
Improve economic and social conditions abroad to reduce the flow of immigrant refugees, in part by repealing NAFTA, ending the failed drug wars, and halting CIA and military interventions against democratically elected governments.
Demilitarize border crossings throughout North America.
Basically, as I understand it, criminals are bad and have to go, the rest can stay, as citizens. Also, trade is bad, not really sure how that relates to immigration...but sure. I do agree with her on ending the drug war, and ending meddling that creates refugee situations, although I think we would still have an immigration issue without those causes. As to demilitarizing our borders...well, I wouldn't say they are "militarized" currently, and am curious what she would have in their place regarding border security. Some good ideas and thoughts, and I like her statement about treating people like human beings. However, I think we need to take a stronger stance on border security and immigration than she is suggesting. Yes these are human beings and our immigration system definitely needs to be reformed, but flinging the doors open isn't the answer either. I'm going with a C here
"America’s best interests are not being put first in immigration reform debates. Castle also observed, “There is a current pathway to citizenship, it is called ‘legal immigration.’ The Constitution Party supports a sensible legal immigration system in the United States. However, this support should not be piggybacked, combined or confused with illegal immigration. We support and demand legislation–a legal immigration system that complements and promotes the best for the United States of America and its citizenry, one that denies a pathway for those who have successfully, many with full pre-meditation, ignored our rule of law.” Frank Fluckiger, Chairman of the Constitution Party National Committee added, “The Constitution Party supports lawful solutions, including initiatives, such as ‘attrition thru enforcement’ programs, as a means to address illegal immigration — not a free pass to reward criminal behavior. We support programs, such as E-Verify, to put millions of Americans back to work. We must have strict enforcement and compliance of any and all common sense visa programs, and we demand security of our borders and ports to ensure that illegal immigration is a diminishing problem for the future.”
And from a September 2016 interview with "The New American"
"I believe that immigration in all its forms should be stopped until we can vet immigrants properly and our borders are under control. We can’t be allowing people with terrorist ties, or who are carrying dangerous communicable diseases, to enter our country unchecked. But once we have regained control of our borders and the flow of immigrants, we can admit as many as we choose, in a controlled and lawful manner."
So basically, stop all immigration entirely, for an undefined period of time, and then figure things out as we go along....sure...because terrorism....D
Donald J. Trump’s 10 Point Plan to Put America First
1. Begin working on an impenetrable physical wall on the southern border, on day one. Mexico will pay for the wall.
2. End catch-and-release. Under a Trump administration, anyone who illegally crosses the border will be detained until they are removed out of our country.
3. Move criminal aliens out day one, in joint operations with local, state, and federal law enforcement. We will terminate the Obama administration’s deadly, non-enforcement policies that allow thousands of criminal aliens to freely roam our streets.
4. End sanctuary cities.
5. Immediately terminate President Obama’s two illegal executive amnesties. All immigration laws will be enforced - we will triple the number of ICE agents. Anyone who enters the U.S. illegally is subject to deportation. That is what it means to have laws and to have a country.
6. Suspend the issuance of visas to any place where adequate screening cannot occur, until proven and effective vetting mechanisms can be put into place.
7. Ensure that other countries take their people back when we order them deported.
8. Ensure that a biometric entry-exit visa tracking system is fully implemented at all land, air, and sea ports.
9. Turn off the jobs and benefits magnet. Many immigrants come to the U.S. illegally in search of jobs, even though federal law prohibits the employment of illegal immigrants.
10. Reform legal immigration to serve the best interests of America and its workers, keeping immigration levels within historic norms.
There's really a ton I could put here, let's be honest, this is one of the foundations of his campaign. The biggest issues, the wall, it's impractical, it's an exaggerated response, and Mexico certainly isn't going to pay for it. I could go on and on, but I'm going to let The Donald grade himself on this one. F
Introduce comprehensive immigration reform. Hillary will introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship within her first 100 days in office. It will treat every person with dignity, fix the family visa backlog, uphold the rule of law, protect our borders and national security, and bring millions of hardworking people into the formal economy.
End the three- and 10-year bars. The three- and 10-year bars force families—especially those whose members have different citizenship or immigration statuses—into a heartbreaking dilemma: remain in the shadows, or pursue a green card by leaving the country and loved ones behind.
Defend President Obama’s executive actions—known as DACA and DAPA—against partisan attacks. The Supreme Court’s deadlocked decision on DAPA was a heartbreaking reminder of how high the stakes are in this election. Hillary believes DAPA is squarely within the president’s authority and won’t stop fighting until we see it through. The estimated 5 million people eligible for DAPA—including DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful residents—should be protected under the executive actions.
Do everything possible under the law to protect families. If Congress keeps failing to act on comprehensive immigration reform, Hillary will enact a simple system for those with sympathetic cases—such as parents of DREAMers, those with a history of service and contribution to their communities, or those who experience extreme labor violations—to make their case and be eligible for deferred action.
Enforce immigration laws humanely. Immigration enforcement must be humane, targeted, and effective. Hillary will focus resources on detaining and deporting those individuals who pose a violent threat to public safety, and ensure refugees who seek asylum in the U.S. have a fair chance to tell their stories.
End family detention and close private immigration detention centers. Hillary will end family detention for parents and children who arrive at our border in desperate situations and close private immigrant detention centers.
Expand access to affordable health care to all families. We should let families—regardless of immigration status—buy into the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Families who want to purchase health insurance should be able to do so.
Promote naturalization. Hillary will work to expand fee waivers to alleviate naturalization costs, increase access to language programs to encourage English proficiency, and increase outreach and education to help more people navigate the process. Support immigrant integration. Hillary will create a national Office of Immigrant Affairs, support affordable integration services through $15 million in new grant funding for community navigators and similar organizations, and significantly increase federal resources for adult English language education and citizenship education.
As seems to be a trend here...Hillary is rather inconsistent however:
As to her current positions...the continued willingness to abuse executive orders is concerning, she clearly has little respect for constitutional separation of powers...the rest of what she currently has to say, I can at least semi get behind, or, to put it more accurately, I think is a workable starting place. But she's been on the record multiple times, as FLOTUS and as Senator, with very different positions. She's inconsistent and seems to hope that if she panders to emotion, the people will forget. For that pandering and inconsistency, solid F
