Nine Ethics Takeaways From The Reaction To Donald Trump’s Anti-Illegal Immigrant Comments

Donald Trump thinks her life mattered more than cheap labor and Hispanic votes.

Donald Trump thinks her life should have  mattered more than cheap labor and Hispanic votes. Clearly, he must be punished…

1. Nobody can offer a reasonable justification for the U.S.’s tolerance of illegal immigration.

If anyone could, this would have been an excellent time to offer it. Nobody did this because there is no reasonable justification, just naked greed (big business), political expediency (politicians),  rationalizations (illegal immigration advocates) and sentimentality (everyone else).

2. Donald Trump, as awful as he is, has his uses.

Disgracefully, neither Presidential candidate spoke in any honest detail about the illegal immigration problem in 2012, talking safely and generally about “the need for immigration reform” instead, which is exactly as useful as advocating deficit reform, drug policy reforms and tax reforms, which is to say useless—but sufficient to keep lazy voters nodding like bobbleheads. The fact is that illegal immigration is an existential problem for the country as it can be for any nation, and responsible leaders and aspiring leaders have an obligation to deal with it seriously, openly and directly. They don’t. Thus it is left to buffoons and irresponsible leaders like Donald Trump to drop the stink-bombs they do. Truth from any source is still better than endless lies and obfuscation.

3. The mainstream news media is as biased, incompetent and dishonest on this issue as any other, and arguably more so.

Literally all the mainstream coverage of the organized backlash to Trump’s comments has been based on various critics’ expressions of horror and ridicule at Trump’s words. Virtually none has covered the factual basis for his statement, which is considerable. Most Americans know Trump is a jerk. Do they know that opposition to illegal immigration has nothing to do with racism or opposition to immigration itself? Do they know the corrupt and cynical motivations that placed the United States in this dilemma? No, the news media is only interested in identifying bad guys (Trump, and anyone who doesn’t regard illegal border crossers as heroes) and good guys (those compassionate, rule of law-rejecting pols and advocates who want U.S. immigration restrictions to be a dead letter).  The news media is really one of the bad guys. At this point, for example, the only major news outlet that careful and accurately distinguishes between illegal immigration and immigration is Fox News. For the rest, the conflation of the two is part of a grand strategy of misdirection.

4. The GOP Presidential candidates are cowards, with exception of Senator Ted Cruz.

Only Cruz has had the integrity to praise Trump for raising the issue, and still properly express reservations about his method of doing it. The rest have all expressed politically correct tut-tutting at Trump’s generally accurate statement that the U.S.’s failure to protect its southern border is a disgrace, that Mexico is benefiting by allowing its poorest, most desperate and criminal population to become our problem, and that many of the illegal immigrants bring crime with them. [Read the comments on Mediate regarding Cruz’s statements on Trump. They almost entirely consist of ad hominem insults (whatever he may be, Ted Cruz is no idiot), birther slurs (a man born to an American citizen visiting in Canada is a “natural born” U.S. citizen, you dolts), and statements based on the assumption that letting illegals just waltz across our borders is good policy, which, of course, it is anything but.]

5. The feckless Republicans pols are ducking because they are desperately afraid of alienating Hispanic-American voters, so they jettison their integrity, honesty, and duty as leaders and Americans.

Principled Republicans should trust Hispanic-Americans to have the same responsible concerns for the best interests of their nation as any other informed citizens, and appeal to them as the law-abiding patriots they are to oppose a disastrous open border policy that rewards illegal conduct.

6. Democrats and progressives increasingly rely on using various forms of coercion to stifle debate rather than to engage it.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio announced that he is reviewing Trumps contract’s with the city to see if he can punish Trump for daring to suggest that we have an illegal Mexican immigrant problem. He said:

“We are reviewing Trump contracts with the City. Donald Trump’s remarks were disgusting and offensive, and this hateful language has no place in our city. Trump’s comments do not represent the values of inclusion and openness that define us as New Yorkers. Our Mexican brothers and sister make up an essential part of this city’s vibrant and diverse community, and we will continue to celebrate and support New Yorkers of every background.”

Boy, the left really, really hates free speech, doesn’t it?  Government official are forbidden from declaring what kind of  speech does or does not have a “place” in any jurisdiction in the United States, but the Democrats keep trying to asert otherwise, on the theory that if they say it often enough, citizens will acccept it. Even though Trump was speaking as a public citizen and a candidate for office, De Blasio thinks it is appropriate for the city government to take punitive action against him for his opinion. This is the Chick-fil-A’ fiasco all over again, and also resembles the Senate Democrats’ strong-arm attack on the Washington Redskins.

It is beginning to look like a vote for Democrats is a vote against the principles of freedom of thought, discourse, dissent and speech. I would assume this would trouble—liberals. Or have they already been corrupted beyond repair?

7. Trump is quite correct to point to that the recent random killing of 31-year-old Kate Steinle by an illegal immigrant, Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez, who had been deported five times, as a perfect example of what he was talking about.

ICE has explained it turned Lopez-Sanchez over to San Francisco authorities on March 26 for an outstanding drug warrant, and requested an immigration detainer. But Nancy Pelosi’s constituents, mindless supporters of illegal immigration and pro-drugs as well, believe that violates Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, so they allowed one of Mexico’s best to stay around long enough to kill an innocent white women.

Thank God for that, since only black lives matter. A black victim might have caused the city’s leftists to have a cognitive dissonance meltdown.

The news media is soft-peddling the story as much as it can—CNN calls the alleged killer “undocumented,” as if he misplaced his papers somewhere, another now accepted journalistic deceit—because the narrative is that all illegal immigrants are heroic parents trying to gain a better future for their offspring.  It should be used by Republicans as an effective Willy Horton-style attack on any Democratic Presidential candidate advocating continued border control abdication. The message: Your “immigration reforms” policy killed this woman. Go ahead: deny it.

8. The double standard being employed by the left and a news media in their response to the Charleston church shooting by Dylan Roof and Steinle’s murder is stunning.

Roof used a gun and liked Confederate flags, though there is no evidence that either different gun laws or the absence of the flag would have stopped his rampage. Never mind: the President used the tragedy to rev up the anti-Second Amendment zealots, and an anti-Confederate flag mania has somehow extended to desecrations of statues of Christopher Columbus. Kate Steinle is dead as a direct and undeniable result of the nation’s negligent enforcement of immigration laws championed by the same people who want to tear down statutes of Robert E. Lee, but to suggest that more stringent enforcement is necessary is “racist.”

9. Trump is an idiot.

If he is going to raise important issues as a “straight-talker.’ he is obligated not to play directly into the pro-illegal immigration mob’s strategy of attacking the messenger rather than rebutting the message. He has an obligation to be clear, and not so inflammatory that real content of his message is lost. He just can’t do it.

24 thoughts on “Nine Ethics Takeaways From The Reaction To Donald Trump’s Anti-Illegal Immigrant Comments

  1. This is war.

    Were I the President, I would declare nationwide martial law, and have the Army go block by block, house by house, to forcibly remove illegal aliens, and give the soldiers orders to shoot anyone that gets in the way.

    It is beginning to look like a vote for Democrats is a vote against the principles of freedom of thought, discourse, dissent and speech. I would assume this would trouble—liberals. Or have they already been corrupted beyond repair?

    We need to punish pro-illegal-alien speech as it provides comfort to our country’s enemies.

    Under traditional notions of freedom of speech, even pro-illegal-alien speech falls under this freedom. Under a straightforward analysis set forth under Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 702 at 710-719 (1997) , such a law would be unconstitutional.

    But that was then. Times can blind. New dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations,often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere
    and the judicial process. The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions,and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. And the Supreme Court just abandoned the Glucksberg analysis.

    What we are dealing here is a concerted effort to destroy America. The authors of the Bill of Rights could have never envisioned an anti-American media. They could have never envisioned open support of illegal immigration. They never could have imagined what happened to Kate Steinle.

    Time did blind us in this case. Those who wrote the First Amendment never had the perspective of a treasonous media, setting out to undermine our country in every manner. Pro-illegal-immigration speech is an injustice, an injustice we did not see until the murder of Kate Steinle. We have a right to be free of the threat of illegal aliens, a right to be free of the threat of an anti-American media hostile to our values and our country. We need to protect these rights. And we must do so by classifying pro-illegal immigration speech as treason, and punishing it as such. We must regulate the media to ensure that it does not promote anything hostile to America. For freedom of speech goes too far, as we have learned, when it protects anti-American speech.

    If you argue that this is unconstitutional, under a Glucksberg analysis,I agree. But Glucksberg is no longer the test. And unless Glucksberg is restored, my arguments for regulating the anti-American media and banning speech in favor of illegal immigration should withstand constitutional challenge.

      • Why?

        I became aware of a new dimension of freedom- the freedom to have a country free of an anti-American media. This came about through a perspective of pleas and protests, including the murder of Kate Steinle. In case you have not noticed, the Supreme Court no longer adheres to history and tradition when interpreting the scope of our freedoms.

        Those who “wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment” could not have anticipated illegal immigration or an anti-American media that fully supports it. We need to save our country.

        The past does not rule the present. the fact that the authors of the First amendment understood it to encompass anti-American speech should have no bearing. For we are aware of a new dimension of freedom of speech. The Founders did not see the nature of the injustice of freedom of speech; we do. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed. My new insight leads me to believe that not only should we outlaw pro-illegal-immigration speech, such outlawry is consistent with the First Amendment. I have a better informed understanding of how constitutional imperatives define a liberty that
        remains urgent in our own era. We face a threat to our very survival, and we can not let historic notions of freedom get in our way.

        The Supreme Court does not adhere to historical notions of freedom. Why should I?

        • “The Supreme Court does not adhere to historical notions of freedom. Why should I?”

          Well, Michael, presumably because the Supreme Court does not adhere to hysterical notions from people like you who hurt ANY cause — including their own — (1) by demanding “final solutions” (if that rings a bell: hear it!) that go against every principle this country stands for; (2) by bypassing or ignoring every difference of opinion or established process, or gradations thereof, whether judicial, legal, political, social, educational or personal; and (3) by making it really, really hard for rational readers of this blog to in all conscience link the posts’ thoroughly thought-out, useful, openly and honestly and sometimes even ethically arguable ideas (including the ones by most contributing commenters) to other websites or individuals.

          Conversation-stopping or blocking is not a solution to any problem: it is a tantrum. Please try to control it.

        • “Sanctuary cities” with local Democratic pols trying to kiss up to the Hispanic community, need to end. There needs to be ONE immigration policy.

  2. “We are reviewing Trump contracts with the City. Donald Trump’s remarks were disgusting and offensive, and this hateful language has no place in our city. Trump’s comments do not represent the values of inclusion and openness that define us as New Yorkers.”

    Wow. Just the worst. There should be some way for him to be instantly fired just for having those kinds of totalitarian, anti-speech sentiments while working from a position of power in the United States. Deport this guy to North Korea where he belongs.

    • Trump, for all his faults, is at least a patriot. those who support illegal immigration are traitors and they are the ones whose speech should be suppressed.

  3. Jack, I agree will all of your points. Greed and political expediency drives big business and the politicians in Washington in their lust for cheap labor and Hispanic votes. It is resulting in increased crime, the loss of jobs for US Citizens, trashed neighborhoods, and huge increases in spending for medical care and education for illegal immigrants. Certainly some of these people will pull themselves up by their bootstraps but I believe that we are well on our way to becoming a third world country. Sentimentality and wishful thinking replaces a thoughtful analysis of this major problem. Too bad that some of the less egotistical Republicans weren’t willing to bring this up before the clownish Trump.

  4. I id not learn Spanish during my school years. I hope to God my granddaughter does, because she will need it.

  5. From a historical perspective, we in Texas, at one time, accepted and, in fact, promoted the concept of “wetbacks” coming into the state, primarily to provide cheap, temporary labor for ranches, construction and various low-skill employments. We did so because the traditional illegal alien, whom I freely admit is who we were talking about with that term, was totally temporary, and would earn enough as a migratory worker, ranch-hand, fence-mender or other laborer to live like a king in Mexico after he returned a year later. Unfortunately, such is no longer the case. Mexico is actively encouraging illegal crossing of the border, for no other reason than that their rotten, corrupt government is not able to squeeze cumshaw from these peasants and criminals. That said, however, suggesting that using the Army as an ameliorative for the situation is somewhat naïve. One combined arms division can cover roughly 50 miles; the border is roughly 2500 miles. Therefore, it would require, roughly, 50 DIVISIONS to seal the border. We don’t HAVE 50 divisions, and if we did, that would leave nothing left for the rest of the world. Care to guess who would be the first to take advantage of THAT? The problem, as Michael has noted, obliquely, is that we are providing a ‘suction’ for illegals. Criminals are escaping prosecution, both here and in Mexico, large corporations, such as GM, are providing jobs at slave wages, and the government is providing benefits at an unprecedented rate for those deemed illegal. In addition, we are providing citizenship for the children of illegals born here. All of these problems are fixable, as I am sure Trump is aware, but his vision of how to do so is flawed. Certainly, Rubio’s and Bush’s are. I would think that the solutions are obvious, so I will not go into them here. Defining the problem, as Michael has, is often the first step in providing solutions.

      • While posse comitatus may or may not apply with that (I’ll defer to Jack on that one. I honestly don’t know), it’s still a numbers game. The Army isn’t big enough to chase down approximately 14 million illegals currently in this country.

        • Well, the imposition of martial law generally suspends civil law, which would seem to include the Posse Comitatus Act.

          • It still is a numbers game. The entirety of the Armed Forces is not big enough to accomplish what he wants. Start subtracting people who would be useless in a ground action, such as F-14 and -15 pilots, most sailors, and ALL administrative types, and it becomes unworkable. I am sympathetic to his feelings, but a little practicality would seem to be called for, here.

            • This is where the right’s stubbornness is unethical. Adhering to rigid absolute principle when that train has left the station is incompetent and unethical. the 11,12,13 million illegals that are here can’t be removed without making the entire US look like a production of Fiddler on the Roof. Can’t lock em all up, can’t throw them out, can’t shoot them: what’s left? Swallowing hard, saying, “You lucked out, everybody, shame on US” and making sure it doesn’t happen again. Give them limited citzenship for life—as in: you don’t get to vote or hold office, ever, but your kids will, and that’s a gift.

              • I hate to say it, but that’s where I’d put my money. Viscerally, yeah, it’d be great if we could up-root ’em and send ’em home, but the simple fact is that we have let this go on too long. It ain’t gonna happen. That said, there are ways to MAKE ’em go home, on their own. Crippling fines for employers who hire ’em, at slave or any other wage, cut off all government benefits, rescind the amendments giving everyone lucky enough to be born inside the borders citizenship (require at least 1 parent to already be a citizen) and, above all, drop the bureaucratic BS for legal immigrants such that they can become citizens without waiting 20 years (rare, but it does happen). At least make ’em more realistic. In short, stop the suction.

                • A modest proposal : a cheaper alternative is to put a bounty on illegals. $1,000 dead or alive. After a few million have been “retired”, most of the rest would leave.

                  You’d need to issue “special deputy” licences (for a modest fee) so they’d be immune from prosecution of course, and they’d only be allowed to use deadly force if “in fear of their lives”. Cost of ammunition would be reimbursed. Call them “Bladerunners”.

                  There’s plenty of precedent for this in US history. Ask the Plains Indians.

                  Any citizens shot by mistake could take civil action against the shooters, which is apparently enough to deter police from doing the same thing. Or so the courts say.

                  • Sadly, illegal aliens chose to wage war against the United States.

                    I would propose that illegal aliens accused of violent crimes against Americans should be tried by military commissions similar to those at issue in Ex Parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). For these sort of acts should be treated as acts of war against the United States.

  6. In my own puny way I have begun a revolt. And it works! When making a call to any govt. agency or large utility when instructed to use 1 for English, 2 for Spanish I simply wait. Soon enough joe blow picks up my call whereupon I inform them that as an American citizen I should not have to punch a number. No doubt they can use the extra prompt to add another FOREIGN language! Except other national groups have learned, and quickly, to SPEAK the language of the land! I am sick to death of reading help wanted ads specifying Spanish required. I wonder how many brain dead Americans remember the news reports that the HISPANIC vote put Obama in office. Get a grip! Time is running out! Everyone must write or call or e mail their representatives in both houses to DEMAND a stop to the ridiculous border issue! We have already granted amnesty, not so long ago. Why do so again? Notice how Europe is going bonkers now they are being invaded and run over? HELL-O, HELL-NO! When I see Latinas protesting in the streets WE paid for I wonder where ICE and law enforcement are hiding. Round up time! How DARE you invade my country then attempt to control how it’s run! Enough. And no more automatic citizenship because you drop your puppy here. Take it and go home. The dumb dems want to give full rights and services, health, driving, social security etc. to these invaders. Hell no…make them go! 15-20 years here still speaking Spanish? Get OUT! The schools cannot provide books, paper, pencils or music classes, choir, other interesting learning opps because they are drowning under the load of non-citizens accessing the schools WE paid for. I’m SICK of the PC society and Trump can dang well say whatever he wants. I, for one, will be requesting refunds on my tickets, trips planned, clothes shopping and any other excursion to NY. I had in mind. Furthermore I will boycott Spanish grocers, lawn care workers, cleaning people and forget buying food from farms using alien labor. Did you not hear that human waste and toilet tissue was found in Mexican fields? It’s true. Google that. And then tell me when YOUR job is threatened because you voice an opinion that you were too busy, tired, or brain dead to stand up for our most basic freedom, free speech. For cryin in the sink people, even the KKK is allowed to speak! But I can’t say that I’m sick of over crowded California? Oh, I might offend. Tuff do. I hope I do! Stand up, man, get off your duff, dude. Quit laying back, lady. The time is NOW! It may already be too late. But at least go down having your own honest opinion, and, for now, the freedom to express it. Sigh. The communists were right, we will be defeated from within. By apathy, self indulgence, lack of will. So sad and this used to be the greatest nation on earth. For shame.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.