Stability and gradualism, or loud, yelly attention-grabbing nonsense?

Ace of Spades takes a look at Donald Trump's immigration reform plan:

It is not possible to get further to the restrictionist side of things than Trump. He has staked out his ground there, and he is alone there.

...Even if you assume Trump is a Bullshit King, which I do myself, you have to concede at least that even if Trump delivered half of what's here, it would be a major Overton-Window-shifting move. I suppose it's theoretically possible that he could just be lying about everything, but assuming he's not lying about everything, then this is pretty much the ne plus ultra of immigration reform outlines.

He tosses this in there:

End birthright citizenship. This remains the biggest magnet for illegal immigration. By a 2:1 margin, voters say it’s the wrong policy, including Harry Reid who said "no sane country" would give automatic citizenship to the children of illegal immigrants.

He also wants to reform the H-1B process, so that the work visas are not used (as they are often alleged to be used) to recruit cheaper younger foreign tech workers to replace older more expensive American ones.

...But Trump is a definite X Factor, a big bag of unknowns. How does his brass, crude style play? Can he actually attract so-called Reagan Democrats? Do they like his dockworker-sort of sense of combativeness?

Or, on the other hand: Does this sort of loud, yelly, attention-getting nonsense alienate what someone said in private conversation was the "true heart of the party," the suburban middle-class family-raising sort of person who is in favor of, more than anything, stability and gradualism, because political lurches look especially frightening to someone with a seven year old daughter and a college savings account?

Meanwhile, Scott Walker has joined Trump in wanting to end birthright citizenship.
Read more here.

Trump releases his immigration reform plan

The Trump campaign has released his immigration reform plan. Chateau Heartiste brings us these excerpts:

When politicians talk about “immigration reform” they mean: amnesty, cheap labor and open borders. The Schumer-Rubio immigration bill was nothing more than a giveaway to the corporate patrons who run both parties.

Real immigration reform puts the needs of working people first – not wealthy globetrotting donors. We are the only country in the world whose immigration system puts the needs of other nations ahead of our own. That must change. Here are the three core principles of real immigration reform:

1. A nation without borders is not a nation. There must be a wall across the southern border.

2. A nation without laws is not a nation. Laws passed in accordance with our Constitutional system of government must be enforced.

3. A nation that does not serve its own citizens is not a nation. Any immigration plan must improve jobs, wages and security for all Americans.

The cost of building a permanent border wall pales mightily in comparison to what American taxpayers spend every single year on dealing with the fallout of illegal immigration on their communities, schools and unemployment offices.

Triple the number of ICE officers. […]

Nationwide e-verify. This simple measure will protect jobs for unemployed Americans.

Mandatory return of all criminal aliens. […]

Detention—not catch-and-release. […]

Defund sanctuary cities. […]

Enhanced penalties for overstaying a visa. […]

Cooperate with local gang task forces. […]

End birthright citizenship. […]

Increase prevailing wage for H-1Bs. We graduate two times more Americans with STEM degrees each year than find STEM jobs, yet as much as two-thirds of entry-level hiring for IT jobs is accomplished through the H-1B program. More than half of H-1B visas are issued for the program’s lowest allowable wage level, and more than eighty percent for its bottom two. Raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs will force companies to give these coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers from overseas. This will improve the number of black, Hispanic and female workers in Silicon Valley who have been passed over in favor of the H-1B program. Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities.

Immigration moderation. Before any new green cards are issued to foreign workers abroad, there will be a pause where employers will have to hire from the domestic pool of unemployed immigrant and native workers.

Mexico must pay for the wall and, until they do, the United States will, among other things: impound all remittance payments derived from illegal wages; increase fees on all temporary visas issued to Mexican CEOs and diplomats (and if necessary cancel them); increase fees on all border crossing cards – of which we issue about 1 million to Mexican nationals each year (a major source of visa overstays); increase fees on all NAFTA worker visas from Mexico (another major source of overstays); and increase fees at ports of entry to the United States from Mexico [Tariffs and foreign aid cuts are also options]. We will not be taken advantage of anymore.

Read more here.

Can immigration reform be depoliticized?

PJ Media's Henry Gomez linked to an article in Reason by Ed Krayewski, who advocates for immigration reform because

From a rights and limited government perspective, normalizing the situation of illegal immigrants ought to take top priority. Lack of legal status prevents illegal immigrants from participating in economic and civic life. As I’ve argued before, it’s not access to welfare that drives illegal immigrants' desire for legal status, but rather access to property and other rights that are, in our modern society, unfortunately tied to government documents and recognition. Focusing on a “pathway to citizenship” recognizes the need for illegal immigrants to have government recognition in order to buy and sell property, enter into contracts, use the court system for dispute resolution, and so on. It provides a way to depoliticize the issue and broaden its appeal.

For a libertarian solution, the "path to legalization" isn't about delivering new voters for the Democrats or increasing the welfare rolls, but about creating a legal environment wherein millions of people already living in the U.S. can become full and active participants in the economy. It would involve providing a federally recognized legal status for illegal immigrants that would fall short of citizenship or permanent residency but allow them to participate in economic and social life—to open bank accounts, drive, acquire occupational licenses, board planes, and do the many other things that require an ID in America today.

Concurrently, a libertarian solution would repeal the laws that penalize employers for hiring the wrong person. Employers have as much of a right to associate freely as immigrants have to travel freely. Government edicts should not come in the way of someone who wants to work and someone who wants to pay for work.

Of course, the libertarian approach also seeks to legalize drugs, which is a huge component of our massive governmental approach to border security. Gomez points out, though, that

Republicans of both the conservative and libertarian variety need to coexist in order for the party to have a viable future. In fact, on many issues the libertarian wing is taking the lead. Insofar as the Tea Party is about smaller government, lower taxes, less debt, and more personal freedom, it’s operating in deeply libertarian territory. But somehow Rubio’s intent is a sin so unforgivable that many had written him off as just another RINO in the mold of John McCain and Lindsey Graham.

Gomez wonders who made immigration reform the litmus test of conservatism?