The open-border, pro-cheap-foreign-labor editorial board of the Washington Post (a newspaper that once employed an illegal alien in direct violation of federal law, but was never held accountable because the Obama administration is letting employers get away with all sorts of lawlessness) recently argued that the Trump campaign was made of "sneer, not substance." Unfortunately, the paper doesn't seem to have done its research. Linked at the bottom of this blog post are the immigration platforms of both major presidential candidates, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. It seems to me that there’s quite a lot more substance in Trump’s platform than there is in Clinton's.
In its hit piece, the Washington Post marginalized Trump's concerns about our open border. The paper references "dark conspiracy theories" and "hatefulness" when noting Trump's mention of rapists coming across the border illegally from Mexico. Apparently the paper either thinks the border is secure or that, in the least, it is impervious to rapists and murderers.
It seems the paper thinks that 90-year-old Earl Olander doesn't exist and that he wasn't beaten to death by an illegal alien from Mexico in Minnesota last year. Apparently it's hateful to note that Olander was bludgeoned with a shotgun and suffered two significant injuries to his head that caused his brain to bleed, as well as injuries to his ear, lip, and a broken shoulder blade. It is apparently hateful to note that he was struggling on the ground for quite some time before he died (according to the blood stains on the carpet) and that his legs and hands were bound with duct tape.
The criminals involved in this case — who were found guilty — were allowed to roam free because they were a low priority under the Obama administration's enforcement priorities. But they had plenty of run-ins with law enforcement and could have been deported long before the vicious murder. As a local paper noted: "Both have numerous convictions for driving on an invalid or revoked license. Vergara also has been convicted of drunken driving." An American citizen had to be brutally murdered before these individuals became a priority for deportation. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe this dangerous enforcement scheme would change under a President Hillary Clinton.
The Post also seems to think that 60-year-old Margaret Kostelnik wasn't murdered by a Mexican illegal alien in Ohio last year and that a 14-year-old girl wasn't victimized by the alien's attempted rape. Nor does the Post believe a third woman was shot in the arm by the Mexican illegal alien as she enjoyed time with her children in a nearby park. True, the suspect pled guilty, but apparently it's still just a "dark conspiracy theory" in the mind of open-border enthusiasts.
These are just a few examples of the victimization caused by our open border. Unfortunately there are many more examples.
Oddly, the Washington Post also wrote that Trump "doesn't seem to care about [the Constitution's] limitations on executive power." This is another example of the Post not living in the real world; it is President Obama's controversial amnesty agenda that is currently tied up in courts, namely programs that the president implemented by going around Congress. The same newspaper is undoubtedly going to endorse Hillary Clinton, the candidate who pledged she'd "go further" than Obama on immigration. Once you go around Congress, how much further can you go? If Clinton had any concern about the Constitution's limitations on executive power, this is the last thing she'd be proposing. And the Washington Post editorial board would be calling her out.
Though the purpose of this piece isn't to come to the defense of Trump, only a writer who hasn't done his research could conclude that Trump doesn't have any substance on the issue of immigration. Trump has the most comprehensive immigration platform of any presidential candidate I've ever seen. Certainly it is more substantive that the immigration platform offered by the Clinton campaign, which offers little more than promises of amnesty.
But you should decide for yourself which candidate offers more substance. Each platform can be found at these links:
The Center for Immigration Studies is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit research organization founded in 1985.
It is the nation's only think tank devoted exclusively to research and policy analysis of the economic, social, demographic,
fiscal, and other impacts of immigration on the United States.