Interesting policy that just came out will apply to Gay parents(Original post by macromicro)
Of course it's not a priority, and I care very little about the LGBT debate. I made a simple, objective statement that Trump is against same-sex marriage.
If you were american, who would you vote for in the elections? Watch
View Poll Results: Who would you vote for?Donald Trump (Republican)3040.00%Hillary Clinton (Democrat)2533.33%Jill Stein (Green)1216.00%Gary Johnson (Libertarian)810.67%Darrell Castle (Constitution)00%Voters: 75. You may not vote on this poll
- 14-09-2016 02:02
(Original post by AH127)
- 14-09-2016 13:26
I don't necessarily agree with all of his positions on immigration, but the fact that he isn't spouting "Islam is a religion of peace and sunflowers" is a massive step up from Clinton and Sanders, in my opinion.
(Original post by AH127)
I think the idea that he can deport that amount of illegal immigrants is pretty unreasonable, but on the other side you have Clinton bring on illegal immigrants to speak at her rallies, which is just nonsense. The word 'illegal' doesn't seem to matter to a lot of leftists, they just see a poor little Mexican girl crying about having to go back to Mexico; as if letting all the Mexicans who don't like their country come live in a better one would help their country of origin.
The cost doesn't seem like that great of an issue when you take in to the cost of keeping them in the country: providing food, housing etc. Not to mention that taking action against illegal immigrants would deter some who were thinking to cross the border, as well as the big ****-off wall. It might cost a decent amount in the short term, but I think it'd be an overall gain when considering how much it costs the country to provide for them for the rest of their lives. Personally, I think funding to welfare could be re-routed to deportation if he really wanted to combat them, but that's just me.
Republicans seem to think that anyone anti-Trump is indifferent to illegal immigration and this simply isn't true. The WSJ wrote a brilliant article on Arizona's mass decrease in illegal immigrants - it's a perfect case study to extrapolate to other states. Everyone has analysed this article in their favour on both sides of the debate, but there are two things we can be certain of: 1. in the short and medium-term, mass departure of low-skilled illegal immigrants has an adverse effect on an economy and 2. In the long-term, it will most likely benefit the economy but not because of the common myths, such as that native workers will have more jobs (the article shows that only 10% of the illegal workers' jobs were taken up by natives and legal workers) but because it forces businesses to improve their production via investing in technology and machinery now that low-skilled labour is in short supply. In other words, it prompts the country to increase the definition of "low-skilled" in line with raising intelligence levels of the world. Humans cannot keep picking fields and working manual labour jobs when we are becoming increasingly educated and intelligent. Reliance on low-skilled employment stunts progression.
The conclusion we can draw is that the prompted mass deportation Trump proposes would cripple the economy, perhaps irrecoverably due to the far more complex nature of carrying this out on an entire country rather than one state. A more realistic solution is to encourage incentives for businesses to invest in capital rather than low-skilled labour while also gradually making stricter the laws on illegal immigration to reduce its cost to the US. Simply kicking them out is ineffective, expensive and short-sighted (unless they are criminals).
(Original post by AH127)
As for banning Muslims, I think there would be a few things that would happen, assuming he'd actually manage to pass any law even close to that, which I doubt as well. Obviously, existing Muslims in the country would most likely outrage and kill a few people, burn a few buildings down. As they do. On the other hand though, it would put out the idea to the world that what the moderate Muslims are currently doing simply isn't enough for the states to trust their community as a whole. Hopefully it'd be a rocket up the backside for moderates to do more than just publicly condone on Facebook the actions of a person committing the weekly Islamist attacks.
The answer is clear: restrict immigration with tighter borders and more sensible requirements for muslim immigrants such as high English proficiency, an integration system (i.e. no faith schools, no private Sharia courts) and welfare stringency, in-depth background checks with a focus on secular values, and racial profiling of muslim illegal immigrants. None of which Trump has the tact or intelligence or patience to orchestrate. He only has one answer: get rid of everyone. Here is a great article detailing this by Douglas Murray, essentially the right's equivalent of Harris.
And remember, any muslim Islam-reformers like Asra Nomani would be banned from returning to the US under Trump if they ever went on holiday. And those outside the US, such as Maajid Nawaz (by far the most influential reformer), would undoubtedly be banned from living there due to his past.
- 14-09-2016 13:28