With his penchant for Tweeted insults and GIF, Donald Trump will never be mistaken for a master of the art of soft persuasion. However, he clearly gained public debate on the issue of immigration.
It does not make sustained and careful attention. Twitter the other day that media eventually cover its success on the border, even if he devoted more energy to his war with CNN that promote the reduction of illegal borders.
No, it is the fact of their victory in November, and data showing the importance of the issue of immigration, which began to change the intellectual climate.
It was assumed, even by many Republicans like Senator John McCain, opposition to amnesty and high levels of legal immigration would condemn the GOP as a minority forever. Trump exploited conventional wisdom.
Now center-left intellectuals ask to reconsider orthodoxy at the immigration festival, it became increasingly hostile to law enforcement and any skepticism about current levels of immigration.
The swing was huge. A Trump defeat in November after he runs into an exaggerated version of immigration restrain would send Republicans back to the comfortable and agreeable clichés about comprehensive immigration reform. And if Hillary Clinton had won on a platform that has doubled in the Obama administration’s amnesties, serious immigration law has lost its political legitimacy.
Trump probably would not have won without running so straight into the consensus consensus teeth.
According to a study by the Public Religion Research Institute and the white voters of the White Working Class, there was a concern for cultural change and support for the deportation of undocumented immigrants that voted for Trump and not for a loss of Economic or social condition. Similarly, a report from the Study Fund for Democracy Election Group revealed that Hillary Clinton returned to voters who supported populist Barack Obama, the issue of immigration is expanding.
In the light of the election, Josh Barro Business Insider, William Galston of the Brookings Institution, Peter Beinart Atlantic, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria, and Stan Greenberg of Democracy Corps, among others, urged Democrats to re-calibrate.
Many of these writers are not content to observe the dangerous policy of the maximalist stance on immigration or to support such a policy must take into account the economic costs and benefits of immigration. They also give importance to cultural concerns about mass immigration – the concerns that many on the left view as ill-concealed hatred.
In an act of heresy by the Davos ensemble, Fareed Zakaria recommends that “the party to take a less absolutist position on immigration and recognize both the cultural and economic costs of large-scale immigration.”
In foreign affairs, Jeff D. Colgan Brown University and Robert O. Keohane of Princeton, both supporters of globalization, pointed out that “this is not the fanaticism to gauge immigration levels to the ability of immigrants to assimilate and The possibility of adjusting the company “.
This sentiment would not be so remarkable if the Democratic Party was not so radical about immigration. The Atlantic Beinart piece was a reminder that there is more than 10 years left, leaving much room for the discrepancy on immigration.
It returns a little later, in the 1990s, and Bill Clinton openly denounces illegal immigration and liberal giant Barbara Jordan leads a bipartisan commission calling for better enforcement and reduction of legal immigration.
Meanwhile, Democrats are convinced that liberal immigration has political decision-making and that immigration is actually a civil rights issue and therefore not negotiable.