Will the neverTrumpers ever understand?

The neverTrumpers will never understand that his followers and voters did NOT vote for a personality and business style.  They voted for a set of policies.

To end unfettered, illegal immigration and related abuses.  Against wasteful big government. For a stable public AND private health care system.  For public AND private ed. To stop human and drug smuggling at the Southern border.  To rebuild AND employ inner cities where needed. For clean air and clean water, not an environmental political wedge issue.
Rational, affordable public policy. The list is long.

The Opposition (aka The Resistance) should explain why they are simply just opposed, and propose their policies.

Immigration reform, a framework

There are maybe millions of Immigration Dreamers residing on US soil (within borders) in violation of US ICE laws and possibly others.
There are likely many 10’s of millions of Dreamers not on US soil, and not in violation of any US laws. Many are a few yards literally from US borders (Canada, Mexico) or just a plane or boat ride away. Many are in far more dire straits than US Dreamers.
Would a swap of some sort be an acceptable middle ground? All things considered. Will someone give up their seat on the bus?

If a swap, then not really another amnesty. Fair to those waiting legally. On balance, the humane issue is improved overall — The Left can’t possibly object. The Right gets all law abiding new people. Maybe some middle ground.

Add adult adoption and sponsorship to the equation. Relax child adoption rules and timelines.

Immigration has been a hot button, divisive issue for many years now. Just recently, an expensive Federal vs. State and Local government fissure has widened. The divide hinges on residency status, legal/illegal.
Question:  Should illegal aliens (as defined by US law and more specifically ICE) be asked to voluntarily, in fairness to all, in good conscience, “come out of the shadows” and rectify their residency status, or leave?  In other words, cure, correct, fix, remedy, remove their illegal status.

If leave is chosen, then a number provisions could kick-in.  For example, assets could be sold tax free.  Transportation provided free of charge.

DACA, has the US lost it’s way

Who thought of this DACA “thing”. Will the US grade human beings like cattle?  Like a beauty contest, keep the 10s and deport the rest?

What if an illegal alien family as a high achiever child and a lazy one? Keep one and deport the other? Does the US have a soul anymore?

The policy maker problem

The problem is the SAT prep test.  Policy makers attain a level of education by virtue of attending college and sometimes higher.  They did well on the SAT test to obtain admission to college, and did well on the SAT test by taking SAT test prep courses.

Those courses hammer home over and over very simple inductive and deductive reasoning — usually if / then type problems.

If there are two apples on the table and the dog ate one, how many are left for you and your sister.  By answering these sort of questions, students gain admission to universities, and then often specialize.  Sometimes even PhDs.  The PhD is usually earned by studying some VERY narrow subject matter like the post colonial sex life of Malaysian iguanas.  These folks often transition to the Ruling Class by virtue of their degrees or consult to the Ruling Class. Not a bad idea to have one of these folks if iguana sex ever becomes an international crisis.

So why is the SAT prep test the problem.  For many of the Ruling Class, the elites, the academics, the intelligentia, their intellectual development peaked and or stopped back in high school in 10th grade.  They have the if / then logic hammer and EVERYTHING thereafter looks like a nail.  This leads for example to the logic behind gun control.  IF there are no guns they argue, THEN there can be no deaths caused by guns.  The policy makers have these ah ha moments when most everyone else just says, duh.

These kind of stunted policy makers (uncompetitive in the private sector) and this kind of logic caused the 2008/2009 housing crisis for another example.  IF everyone owns a house, THEN …  These policy makers unfortunately can’t comprehend or manage the complexity of IF, THEN … BUT!  Depending on the political spectrum, some other policy makers immediately chime if with BUT guns don’t kill, people do.  Wow! Now we got it.  Slightly more advanced than 10th grade at least.  Another guiding light is the proverbial “a few bad apples don’t spoil the whole barrel”.  That one solves everything for sure.

The class described above is not just in charge of iguana sex.  They are advising on and implementing policy for everything from health care to banking laws.  IF we lower interest rates to zero, THEN …  They don’t even have a BUT.  Next if zero doesn’t work, IF we make interest rates negative, THEN …  What if negative doesn’t work?

A side note on the iguanas.  The post graduate work is usually related to sex or predation so the TV animal shows will pick them up.

Trojan Horse

Some are “afraid” to be critical of Islam and thereby all Muslims by logical (or illogical) extension. Why, is a very reasonable question and an open issue. Many of these same people are quick to be critical of Christianity (and some sects) and Christians.

Everyone knows what Trump means because he has used the term, “Trojan Horse” many times.  Yet the Dems AND the Pubs continue to malign him by jumping on the religious “test” stuff.

And, they immediately jump even further to analogize a temporary ban on immigration from a small number of known Islamic hot spots to Japanese internment in WWII. That’s a fairly big leap, yet typical in the game of politics. How did these folks pass Freshmen Logic, English and Debate 101?

And, before some jump again, EVERYONE understands the concept of US law, “innocent until proven guilty”. And that the Constitution says, “freedom from religion” (not “of”), etc. etc.

If Trump has to expand and explain and PC and CYA every single comment, he will never finish any speech.

Focus more on the message and the policy and the problem, and less on the messenger.