How to Outflank Everyone on Immigration

Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie remark about the Republican primary in their recently published book, Let Trump Be Trump:

We wanted none of the other candidates to move to the right of us on immigration. From the overwhelmingly positive reaction we received at rallies to the boss’s hard-line immigration stance, we knew he had struck a chord with a large number of voters. What we couldn’t believe was how tone-deaf all the other candidates and the mainstream media seemed to be.

Although it may not have been too difficult to be to the right of Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio on immigration, as both politicians hold positions similar to many mainstream Democrats, it was a bold and contrarian move at the time to stake out such untended turf on an admittedly hot-button issue. Many seasoned political advisors would have thought—and did think—it was outlandish to wager that by outflanking even hard-right guys such as Ted Cruz on immigration, the Trump campaign would be anything other than further marginalized.

Instead, by grasping onto wild success in the wake of this immigration gambit, the Trump campaign showed that what polite, intellectual circles might consider “hard right” policy was, when it came to immigration at least, entirely mainstream.

Activist journalists and pollsters could create an aura of sympathy around amnesty by asking leading questions: if this innocent child were brought to the United States through no fault of her own and went to school and behaved in a civically responsible way, would you deport her? It would shock no one in the Trump campaign to hear that a sizable majority would say “no.” But most of them would answer “no” to the question without changing their fundamental and underlying position on immigration.

Context matters—and so does the hierarchy of passion. Many poll respondents who were guilted into offering some contingent path to citizenship were pushed to answer a question that was not weighing on them too heavily. The people who care the most on the amnesty side of the equation are either ineligible to vote (wonder why?) or dyed-in-the-wool liberals who would never consider voting for a Republican in any event. The New York Times featured exit polls immediately after the 2016 election, showing that among voters who said immigration was the most important issue, only 32 percent voted for Clinton, while a stunning 64 percent voted for Trump.

A particularly revealing new poll underscores just how mainstream Trump’s position really is. Already outlets such as NPR have published matter-of-fact attempts to diminish the poll’s results, mainly because they are so damning for liberal aims. A breathtaking 81 percent of Americans want immigration levels below 1 million a year, according to the Harvard-Harris poll (yes, that beacon of conservatism, Harvard University). Though this might superficially seem to contradict Gallup’s polling on the topic, it rather hones the sloppiness of the Gallup poll’s wording (reduce, maintain, or increase immigration levels?) by providing precise guidelines for immigration numbers: none, 1 to 250,000, 250,000 to 499,999, and incrementally upwards to the highest category, 2.5 million or more.

Many Americans are not so exposed to the sheer scale of immigration into the United States because they don’t happen to live those parts of the country where immigration matters most. However, anyone should be able to visualize what the Harvard poll’s numerical guidelines mean in the context of their communities —just how sizable a crowd a half a million people comprise, and what this represents in a country of hundreds of millions. Perhaps Harvard-Harris could submit the question to the public again in a month, with some context as to how current numbers compare to those of the past century, both in percentages (they’re high now) and in absolute numbers (they’re off the charts).

The NPR story incorrectly states that 72 percent of respondents chose some number under 1 million—again, at least 81 percent seek numbers below current levels, which have recently been well above 1 million. The Harvard-Harris poll also contains other results inconvenient for a liberal immigration agenda: 68 percent oppose the diversity visa lottery, and significant majorities opposed the government shutdown, while also supporting a deal similar to that just offered by the Trump Administration.

That deal has provoked fierce outrage from conservative writers and grassroots alike, most of whom are hoping that it was just, as Trump tweeted, “to show that Democrats do not want to solve DACA, only use it.” Trump’s media strategy has proven wily beyond words, time after time, and so it is probably too early to say what the master plan was here.

The reaction, however, should be an unambiguous reminder that it’s time to return to the immigration ideas that animated a winning coalition, outflank all opponents on the Right, and face down elected officials who stand in the way of a propulsive popular mandate to reduce immigration. Any deal with concessions to amnesty activists must have at its core a major reduction in immigration numbers—both near term and long term.

Support Free & Independent Journalism Your support helps protect our independence so that American Greatness can keep delivering top-quality, independent journalism that's free to everyone. Every contribution, however big or small, helps secure our future. If you can, please consider a recurring monthly donation.

Want news updates?

Sign up for our newsletter to stay up to date.

75 responses to “How to Outflank Everyone on Immigration”

  1. Of course the polling is all in the questions, which are ALWAYS loaded.
    For example, if the question was “would you naturalize any illegal immigrant knowing that illegal immigrant was and would always be a net economic negative for the American taxpayer”, how many people would say “yes”, regardless of the underlying illegal immigrant sob story?
    But that’s what Democrats are trying to do. Form an electoral majority of lifetime net economic negatives.

    • Gℴogle pays all people $98 hourly to do some small tasks working off of a home computer .. Labor only for few peroid of time in a day and fun more time with your own relatives … Any person can apply this golden chance!!!this Wednesday I purchased a gorgeous Audi Quattro just after making $7473 this five weeks .it’s really the most rewarding but you may no longer forgive yourself if you do not test it.!ng112a:⇋⇋⇋ http://GoogleFeedFreelanceHomeJobs/getcash/$98/everyhour ♥♥s♥m♥♥♥x♥♥z♥i♥♥♥e♥g♥d♥♥z♥♥y♥♥d♥♥♥x♥♥e♥c♥♥a♥♥m♥♥b♥♥w♥♥w♥♥♥b♥♥♥n♥♥♥c♥♥♥l♥♥w♥♥g:::::!qf70a:wkyuk

    • Are immigrants always net negative? Was your gramps from Naples a negative loss?

      • My grandfather came from Sicily LEGALLY in 1906 and yes he was a net asset. He received no welfare, social services, or free medical care—unlike every illegal alien ever.

      • Grazie mille. My family came from Misilmeri and Lipari, Sicilians, and came to a sink or swim America. They chose to swim.
        Illegals today typically start as hard workers, but pay zero toward schools and hospitals and police and fire and everything that all the rest of us pay for. Then they progressively lose their work habits as playing the system takes hold.

      • My grandmother was an even odder duck. Though of Italian descent, her family moved to France in the mid-1800s (I don’t know the reason for the move). Her parents moved to French Algiers sometime in the late 1880s and that is where she was born. So she grew up speaking French and not Italian. She came to the states with her mother, sisters, and brother in 1913. Both she and my grandfather (her husband) entered through the Port of New Orleans though at different times. Another sister went back to France from Algeria and so I have a number of distant cousins there.

      • Does state sales tax pay for those things? Do local taxes every pay for those things?

      • Yes, all expenses of illegal immigration are felt at the national, state, and local level including increased costs of law enforcement (increased crime due to illegals working in a cash economy), increased burden on the local judicial system, increased costs of local education and schools, increased costs of medical expenses that are not reimbursed by the state or federal governments…then you go on to the state level and the cost continues to be felt by the entire state. Plus local increased unemployment by low income legal residents who have their jobs taken by illegal immigrants at lower wages further degrading local wages for Americans. There was a time that immigration was a great asset. That was centuries ago and the times have changed as have the “freebies” we have granted ourselves as a republic.

      • Some. Same as anyone who deals in the all cash economy. We get taxes from their meager purchases but not from earnings which is where most individuals pay into the system their tax. All except cash economy workers pay into SS and Medicare that is not refundable yet they collect SS and Medicare as caretakers for anchor babies on welfare and SS as the custodial caretaker of the anchor babies.

      • So that is a yes, they pay for things like your fire truck and school and other stuff local and state sales taxes pay for.

      • I doubt if all of the immigrants in my state pooled the money they paid in taxes together would buy a fire truck. They pay for the gas of the ambulance that cares them to the hospital as we pay for all the other costs. That is closer to the amount they pay – almost nothing and they do cost the US taxpayers billions of dollars annually.

      • A work visa is for legal immigrants. No work permits are issued to illegal aliens although deportation orders often go and should go to this group.

      • yes – legal immigrants are non-citizens until they fulfill the requirements of being a citizen, apply, and take the oath of citizenship. They can work but not vote until they are a citizen and the work permit must be renewed.

      • You know everyone came in legally then except the Chinese. You know there wasnt that stuff yet, dummy. And no your landscaper doesnt get free medical care, who tells you that they all do?

      • Oh, dear, you’re insulting the wrong guy. Surely you meant to insult me, “dummy”, spoken like the true gah-vone that you are.
        Yes. The landscaper gets free medical care. Or perhaps your point was nothing is “free”, everything has to be paid for, question is, by whom?
        Answer: the taxpayer. And the private health care insured, whose premiums pay for times three people.
        All thanks to gah-vones like you.

      • Can you cite proof that all immigrants get “free” healthcare.
        It wasn’t until the 1880s that we had any federal immigration law of any kind, and it wasn’t until 1924 that we began requiring papers of people coming to the United States. So when you say your ancestors came here legally, basically you’re not saying anything because for most of American history, coming here legally meant getting off the boat.

      • I’ll jump in on this one Frank. Anyone going to the emergency room for ANY reason is not asked citizenship to receive treatment. They are asked if they have insurance or other ability to pay. Even if they have no ability to pay they are not turned away. The hospital eats the loss or includes the charges in other bills of those who have insurance.

        ipso facto illegal aliens receive FREE MEDICAL CARE. Of course since you are lacking in self honesty you will deny the logic as proof.

      • That doesnt mean they dont pay their bills. Yes it is illegal to deny care to someone, american who can pay or not. Plenty of illegals go to the dentist and pay in cash homey.

      • Idiot–the claim is that illegal aliens receive FREE MEDICAL CARE. If they use an emergency room and do not pay that is Free. The dentistry argument is silly. No one in this commentary has claimed that every little bit of medical care received by an illegal was totally free in all cases. The claim is that they receive free medical care–which you cannot disprove.

        It is like saying that if I only rob banks on Mondays I am not a bank robber because I haven’t robbed all banks on all days.

      • But anyone can get free medical care. Right and you dont know if everyone pays or not, And you cant use “all illegals rob banks cause some old white guy on am radio told you they”

      • When you can reconstitute that into a complete sentence, please let me know. Until then, you only embarrass yourself.

      • If you can prove only illegals get that please advise, if you can prove you know for a fact that no illegal has ever paid for that care, please advise.

      • I hope you are not getting your analysis on illegals from a white guy on am radio.

      • Then your hopes have been answered. I do not listen to a white guy (which one by the way?) on the radio. God gifted me with a brain. I’m uncertain what he had against you but it must have been something big.

      • So where did you read that all illegals never pay their bills?

      • Who said never? Who said all? Not me! Typical goalpost moving liberal tactic.
        Try again Junior.

      • Just making sure that is not what is being claimed. But anyone illegal or not can get healthcare at the er, and everyone gets sent a bill, correct? What is your point, you want to deny non citizens that ability?

      • unlike every illegal alien ever. Every? Ever? What proof are you using to state that?

      • Ask your grandkids how to use google and learn when social services programs were started.

      • You really are six shades of stupid. When both my grandmother and grandfather entered the United States they had to identify themselves and sign a registry. IOWs there was a legal document that documented their entry. Second, they were subjected to a medical exam to determine if they had any communicable diseases–Typhus and TB being the main ones screened for at that time.

        Illegal aliens ARE NOT identified upon entry. They receive no medical exams. Tuberculosis is on the rise in this country. Does anyone have to connect the dots for you to understand something so simple.?

      • It wasn’t until the 1880s that we had any federal immigration law of any kind, and it wasn’t until 1924 that we began requiring papers of people coming to the United States. So when you say your ancestors came here legally, basically you’re not saying anything because for most of American history, coming here legally meant getting off the boat.

        Sorry bud, gonna trust npr on this one.

      • You used that silly argument before to no avail. They were identified upon entry. They received a medical exam upon entry. Had they failed the medical exam they would have been sent back to the country of origin.

        None of which you can claim for anyone who crossed our border illegally, obtained a job illegally, obtained a social security number illegally, obtained a driver’s license illegally, or voted illegally.

      • That was only in NYC, right? Can you cite where you are getting this info from, or is it “pop pop told me some things”?

      • New Orleans was an official port of entry and had been for a long time. It predated Ellis Island as a Port of Entry. My mother inherited the immigration paperwork of her mother. Her father’s paperwork is held by family of her great aunt. But do keep trying rel. It’s fun watching someone making an ass out of themself.

      • No offense but the only proof you have provided is based on “cause i dern say so”. No papers were required prior to 1923. Read the npr link.

      • NPR, my God. If you ever go to Ellis Island please go to the museum. In it you will find displayed copies of the registration books going back to the establishment of Ellis Island as a Port of Entry. In the book you will find the signature of the person entering, their age, and their sex. THAT IS A RECORD OF ENTRY. You are such a dolt.

        Here are two examples of entry documents. Note–both predate your silly 1923 date. One is the ships manafest that had to be presented to the port authority. It listed name, sex, country of origin and so forth. The second is the document recorded by the immigration agent of entrants held because of disease or evidence of criminal behavior. IOWs entry control.. In addition to the information on the manifest, the agent also included information whether the person could read or write.

        THESE ARE ENTRY DOCUMENTS! Illegals do not have them.

        End of story.

      • Dude, they didnt bring that with them. That was recorded when they got here.

      • Who said they did? I said that they were registered at the point of entry. IOW–we knew who they were.
        I also said they were checked for communicable diseases. I showed you a picture of names of those detained for further scrutiny. ILLEGALS do not do any of this.

        Learn to read. Quit moving the goalposts. I have proven the assertions I made. You have not.


        It’s basically a meaningless statement because for most of American history, there was no immigration law. It wasn’t until the 1880s that we had any federal immigration law of any kind, and it wasn’t until 1924 that we began requiring papers of people coming to the United States. So when you say your ancestors came here legally, basically you’re not saying anything because for most of American history, coming here legally meant getting off the boat.

        So Giuseppe could walk right in in 1860.

      • Stupid, stupid stupid. I have posted repeatedly that they were registered upon arrival. Illegals aren’t.
        I have said that they were examined for diseases. Illegals are not.

      • What difference does it make? It is still prior to the 1924 immigration laws. The records are out there. Go find them yourself. I proved you wrong. That’s enough for me as I have grown weary of your willful ignorance.

      • First and second class passengers received a quick inspection while aboard ship, based on the federal notion that “if a person could afford to purchase a first or second class ticket, they were less likely to become a public charge in America due to medical or legal reasons,” says the Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Foundation.
        Read more:

      • So? Were they checked? YES. Were they registered on entry? YES. Are illegals? NO.

      • Kinda of a low bar for illegal vs. legal? right? Like if your might be sick or not makes you legal? So if you came in before the having to write your name part they arent illegal, right?

      • If you bothered to look at the pictures you would see one is dated 1903 and the other 1907—way, way before your 1924 milestone. I found lots and lots of photos of manifests and documents. You only have to look to see you have been ill informed.

      • 1924 is where the “where are your papers?” “It was deliberately passed to try and exclude people of inferior races, which back then meant people from Southern and Eastern Europe like Italians and Jews.”

        So before that there was no legal immigration except making sure Chinese couldn’t come in, in the 1880s.

      • So what would you say to the argument that we’re hearing that people coming to the U.S. now have to respect the laws of the land whether you like them or not? How does that sound to you?

        JENNINGS: Well, I just would say to people who are saying that – careful what you wish for. If those laws had existed when your ancestors came, you’d probably still be living in Italy or Poland. The reality is, immigration law is a moving target in America. It has not existed for most of our history, and when it has existed, it has waxed and waned with different attitudes towards people coming into the country

      • There were not laws against coming in at a border checkpoint, you got off the boat ,done.

      • You are failing in defending the indefensible as if that would be a shock. In 1875 the Supreme Court gave the right to enforce immigration to the Federal government. Prior it was handled by the states. Then in 1924 the US created the border patrol agents to prevent illegal immigration smuggling which was a response to public demand that the immigration wave be stopped. You are fighting against history and the rule of law. Give it up – there is a reason immigration is enforced and people are not allowed to enter our borders – the US public demanded it and the laws were passed 100 years ago.

      • But when you say my pop pop came in legally, well yea he walked off a boat.

      • I was able to get alcohol and buy my granddad his brand of cigarettes when I was 12 too until they tightened up policing the laws on sales to minors. That example, like yours with your dad, has no bearing on today’s laws.

      • That is my point, saying my pop pop came in legally is misleading cause everyone just came in.

      • Your grand father (pop pop) would have to has come here illegally to have immigrated during his lifetime (if deceased). We’ve had immigration laws against “just coming in” without screening for over 100 years.

      • If he came by passenger or freight liner he immigrated through an immigration port legally. But, you may be right in that your pop pop was smuggled or worked on the boat to smuggle himself into the US illegally by jumping ship and coming ashore but never was caught. You are not telling all the story or are just being a troll going on about a grand father who “got off the boat” when there is more to the story.

      • Oh, the ancient era thinking that the world today is the same as in the 1880’s…how absurd.

      • If you believe that an illegal immigrant landscaper doesn’t get free medical care from the emergency room then you haven’t been to an emergency room lately.

      • So does sue bob white. But she might pay and so might your boy.

      • Of course the illegal landscaper gets free medical care … free to HIM anyway. All he has to do is turn up at the local ER with the sniffles and we’re the suckers who pay, with our tax dollars or inflated health insurance premiums or both.

      • Or free to you if you dont pay, but he might pay you dont know that.

      • All immigrants admitted since 1965 have been a net negative. The public never asked to be replaced by tens of millions of foreign affirmative action beneficiaries surviving on the redistributed wealth of white Americans. Without radical reductions in immigration, social and political chaos, separatism, and civil war loom.

      • Ill put you down as a white nationalist. Stay strong homey.

  2. ” … if this innocent child were brought to the United States through no fault of her own and went to school and behaved in a civically responsible way, would you deport her?”

    Yes. Without a second thought. Try phrasing the question thusly:

    “The parents of a child commit a crime — say they rob a bank. They squirrel away a portion of the proceeds for their child. Years later the crime is solved, the parents arrested, and the source of the child’s wealth becomes known.

    “Do you support that child — who was a mere infant and nowhere near the crime scene when it was committed — being stripped of her wealth?”

    The innocent children of illegal immigrants are AT BEST that case. They have no more claim to the ill-gotten gains landed on them by their parents than the bankrobbers’ kid. And I’ll bet you that if my version of the question were posed to the general public more than 90% would answer as I did.