Wednesday, March 01, 2017

Trump's address to Congress, on CNN and all major networks, makes the "mainstream" more comfortable.

The television event last night was, of course, Donald Trump’s speech to a joint session of Congress.  I watched it on CNN.  (Spell his name "t_Rump"). Technically this was not a "State of the Union" speech.

Trump did sound “logical” in the way he described his “America First”.  Yes, it is reckless not to enforce our laws regarding entering the country.  Yes, it is difficult for the United States to vet people from failed or hostile states.  Yes, there is no Earth flag  This not Star Wars yet.

He did cite examples of lesser known crimes committed by illegal immigrants.  He did mention “radical Islamic terrorism”, against the advice of advisers.  But the crime from “illegals”  has more to do with drug cartels than Islam.   Most of the well known Islamist terror attacks have come from people in the country legally, or second generations in families that did not assimilate well.

Overstated visas are a problem, and I was a little surprised not to hear it mentioned.

Trump, to his credit, opened by mentioning Black History Month and by condemning anti-Semetic threats recently.

Trump did not say how he would pay for all his ambitious programs, including making health insurance premiums lower for working Americans while covering pre-existing conditions (hint: public tax money).  Trump promised a “stable transition” for those in the exchanges.  He did not explain how health savings help poor people.

Here is CNN’s analysis of “6 takeaways”.  Why Trump called for “unity”, McTerran argues on CNN that his speech doesn’t negate his previous campaign of “hate”.

MSN fact-checked 13 of Trump's claims in his address.

Radley Balko's op-ed in the Washington Post is not very kind to Trump. ("A Broadside Attack on the Values of a Free Society.")  Rick Sincere of GLIL share this on his own daily paper today (March 2).

Trump wants to increase the relative proportion of legal immigrants brought in because of unusual skills.  He wants more emphasis on evidence that the immigrant can become self-supporting.  But that could support the idea of Canadian style sponsorship (or expansion of I-864 requirements).

No comments: