Дональд Трамп - Triggered

Dems want it both ways. They want to be seen as the compassionate party, welcoming illegal immigrants with open arms, but they don’t want to be the ones who have to take care of them. Well, you can’t have it both ways. Money doesn’t grow on trees.

When you clear away all the hysteria surrounding the wall, it turns out to be part of a compassionate immigration strategy. The United States can’t solve the problems that today’s immigrants experience. Those problems have to be addressed in the immigrants’ home countries. My father is right to get tough on Mexico. It’s in countries like our neighbor to the south that the answer to the illegal immigration problem lies, not in the United States. When DJT cut off aid to a lot of those countries, even some honest leaders on the left said it was a smart move. Much of the money we’d sent to those countries had never made it to those who needed it. Instead, it had been syphoned off by dictators and crooked politicians.

Ever since Ted Kennedy, Democrats have been wrong on immigration. Their strategies have only kept poor countries poor and overwhelmed the United States with desperate people in need of help. As a result, we have a shortage of skilled workers and far too many unskilled immigrants in need of government assistance.

Even if you ignore the moral side of the argument—that it’s our job to be nice to the world and take care of everyone, which is ridiculous—there’s a set of dire economic circumstances here. The United States cannot afford to pay to take care of the world when we can’t even care for our own citizens. I can hardly count all the people who came up to me on the campaign trail lamenting the sad state of our VA hospital system, a system that is finally being addressed by my father. He believes that our veterans should be taken care of before even one dollar goes to helping an illegal immigrant on food stamps or paying for undocumented students to go to college.

How can that be controversial?

Does this mean we need to shut down all immigration? Of course not. We can continue to allow refugees into the United States to live and work if they show genuine respect and admiration for America, as my friend in the coffee shop from Ethiopia did, and strive to make our country better. There is a system in place whereby each new immigrant is given a visa that allows him or her to remain in the country for a specified period—usually one to two years, longer if he or she has a job or plans to attend college. The H-1B visa gives preference to people in foreign countries who excel in specialized fields such as medicine or engineering. This enables us to fill our cities with qualified professionals from other countries, some of whom may bring outside expertise or a different point of view. In the last few decades, this visa has allowed doctors and surgeons from all over the world to come in and provide much-needed relief to US cities whose health care systems are on the verge of breaking under the weight of our swelling illegal immigrant population.

This visa system has been especially helpful in towns such as Brownsville, Texas, just a few miles north of the Mexican border. In Brownsville, people are twice as likely to have diseases as the average American, and nearly all the doctors and nurses who treat them are here on visas. To the hysterical left, these “best and brightest” visas are racist and exclusionary; to the Trump administration, they are a model around which we should design the rest of our immigration system. My father recently introduced an idea to overhaul our immigration policy using a merit-based system instead of the chain migration system that is now in place. The reaction by the left, and even by some on the right, was as if he wanted to put machine-gun turrets on the border.

I have five children. As they grow up, the people a merit-based system would draw would be their direct competition. Theoretically, I should think of this as a negative. But it really isn’t. Competition is good, and it forces parents and students to make wise choices, such as not going $300,000 into debt for a PhD in underwater basket weaving. I don’t think there’s any such thing as a wasted education, but if you can’t pay off your debt with the job that education trains you for, I’m not sure what else to call it.

Even with careful vetting and a lengthy application process, it is far too easy for bad actors to squeak past our visa safeguards without setting off any alarms. Terrorists such as ISIS members can exploit these lax borders. This is why, in a perfect world, the US government would be able to keep track of each and every visa it issues—and, more important, the people who hold those visas—using the best technology available. Unfortunately, the technology in use by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) today is about as up to date as Nintendo. I know, having worked on a mostly privately funded national campaign, how easy it is to get your hands on technology that keeps incredibly detailed information on people. In presidential politics, this is the name of the game. If our federal government had even a small percentage of the technological capability of the average private sector corporation or political campaign, finding potential terrorists in a pool of 1 million visa applicants would be easier than locating Elizabeth Warren on an Indian reservation. Instances of Islamic terrorism on US soil—which have already declined sharply since Democrats lost control of the White House—would almost certainly fall further, and we would free up space for more bright, competent immigrants to obtain visas.

But our government doesn’t have access to that kind of system—not even close.

When ICE wants to check on the status of a foreigner staying in the United States, it has about twenty-seven different databases to comb through, all of which are supported by ancient computer systems and run by people who have no idea how to use them. As a result, more than 700,000 people who are granted temporary visas for work, study, or asylum disappear into the system every year, moving away from their last known addresses and effectively dropping off the federal government’s radar.

So when ICE wants to look for a visa holder who’s gone dark, it’s faced with the choice of either searching through dozens of old databases, interviewing sources, and combing neighborhoods looking for one person or just giving up in the hope that nothing terrible will happen. This is all made much worse by the fact that to the hysterical Democrats in Congress, ICE might as well be the Gestapo. When DJT was elected and promised to give more funding to ICE so it would be able to carry out its duties effectively, protests broke out in the streets, mostly in communities that aren’t affected by the scourge of illegal immigration. Three of the Democrat presidential hopefuls want to either abolish or gut ICE. “We should probably think about starting from scratch,” Democrat senator Kamala Harris said. Elizabeth Warren wants to shut the agency down altogether.

The good news is that the American people are awake to what’s happening with immigration. Democrat rhetoric and fake news might be able to fool some people for a while, but it can’t do so forever. Just as in the real estate business in Manhattan, the market always figures it out. The American people know there’s a problem at the border. They know that everyone who’s coming over isn’t a good actor. They know it’s not the American dream that many of today’s immigrants seek but the easy American dollar. And that, as my Ethiopian friend said, makes it harder for those who come here legally. But the American people see through all the lies of the left.

The market always knows.

7.

NOT YOUR GRANDFATHER’S DEMOCRAT PARTY