“Islamophobia”

The debate on Sunday night, October 9, proved to be quite vicious as Clinton and Trump tried to out-insult the other regarding the scandals of their past.  However, Trump managed to make himself look bad without the help of Clinton when an Islamic woman in the crowd stood up and asked him to describe what he would do about Islamophobia.  Instead of offering a solution to Islamophobia, he turned the question on its head and blamed Muslims for not informing law enforcers about potential Muslim terrorists attacks in the U.S.  Not only did this offend the woman, but Trump also most likely lost any of the Muslim supporters that he possibly had.

Vetting or Screening?

Trump did not stop here.  He took it a step further and tried to smooth the lines of what he said, potentially realizing his mistake in pushing away potential voters with his rude comment.  He declared that he has changed his position on the blanket ban on Muslim refugees and now feels that they should be allowed to enter the country, but only through extreme vetting.  The question that many Americans are raising is what is the difference between extreme vetting and the screening that already takes place among the Muslims that enter the country?  The use of the word “extreme” implies that the screening/vetting is going to be more intense than it already is.  Therefore, another question arises.  Has Trump really changed his view on the blanket ban or did he just say that to appease and gain voters?  It sounds to me like he has not changed his opinion and is simply rephrasing it by using the words “extreme vetting”, which really means that he is going to use such harsh screening standards that VERY few Muslims will be “qualified” to enter into the country.

Video Link to “extreme vetting” question during debate

http:/http://for.tn/2dDYguI

A Rhetorical Mistake?

The big mistake revolving around the Islamophobia question was that Trump did not follow the rules of full, partial, and non-answers.  Trump’s response to the Muslim woman was a huge mistake because if he had instead said positive things about the Muslims, even if he did not completely agree with himself, he could have gained several Muslim voters. Instead, he flat out blamed the Muslims for the whole idea of Islamophobia and terrorist attacks.  This was a time in the debate when he should have used the non-answer strategy, or stuck with a partial answer and only state the second part of his statement that he had changed his opinion on the blanket ban.  Even then, it is possible that he deterred potential voters with the use of the word “extreme vetting”, but he at least shed some note of positivity by saying that he had decided to allow Muslim refugees to enter the country.

In conclusion, Trump’s misjudgment of when to use a non-answer and a partial answer caused deep damage to potential Muslim supporters.  Once again, Trump’s impulsive mouth has lost him voters that he so desperately needs in November.  Sometimes silence is a candidate’s best friend.

Source:

http:/http://www.theatlantic.com/liveblogs/2016/10/second-presidential-debate-clinton-trump/503495/

In Sunday night’s presidential debate, a Muslim woman from the audience asked both Trump and Clinton about addressing Islamophobia. Through inherently ambiguous language and a slight shift in message, Donald Trump answered the question signaling his immigration policy, but in a less blunt way than before.

Trump’s Original Message 

Donald Trump’s original proposed Muslim ban has effectively created a scenario in which Americans, Republicans and Democrats alike, fear the man on the top of the GOP ticket. Trump’s crude rhetoric directed towards illegal immigrants has continued to also target Muslims immigrating to our beloved country. Not only did Trump originally want to ban those coming in illegally, but he wanted to ban an entire religious group of people because of recent terrorist attacks.

Trump calls for Muslim Ban, Dec. 2015.

Sunday’s Debate

When asked about Islamophobia on Sunday, Trump answered by calling for extreme vetting from Syria and “certain areas of the world” because we do not have any documentation of who these people are, and what their feelings are towards America. This answer reveals the rhetorical concept of language being inherently ambiguous because many political issues involve events that take place in the future. In this case, Trump cannot name countries, other than Syria, banned from immigrating to the US because these countries could change. He may know good and well about the Syrian refugee crisis, but left his answer ambiguous because of what may change.

Trump also dodged the question of whether or not his Muslim ban still exists. While his website still includes the original proposal, his debate answer slightly shifted to “extreme vetting.” He did not mention his original immigration policy based on religion, and instead said he wants to look at different areas of the world where many Muslims are coming from. While it is late in the game to shift his message, Trump realizes he needs to do so to expand his audience; perhaps to an audience of moderate voters, and maybe even Muslim voters.

What we know now

The debate begged the question by moderator Martha Raddatz: “if it was a mistake to advocate blocking Muslims from entering the country” (Strauss). As Trump answered by shifting his message slightly and using ambiguous language, he may have confirmed that this initial immigration policy was not in his best intentions. Trump introduced this proposal with ambiguous language, and is now adhering to a shift in policy to both expand his audience and reshape his character before Election Day. With less than a month to go, Trump has to somehow win over the votes of those who have called him a racist or demagogue following his tough immigration rhetoric.

Work Cited

Strauss, Daniel. “Trump defends proposal for Muslim ban as call for ‘extreme vetting'”. Politico.com. Politico, 9 Oct. 2016. Web. 9 Oct. 2016.

Donald Trump’s immigration policies can be summed up in one word: extreme. He is literally advocating for the building of a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border and plans to have Mexico pay for it. These hardcore policies are killing him when it comes to Latino voters, whose votes he and the Republicans desperately need in order to take back the White House and to keep the Senate. The impression Trump is leaving on these voters could have lasting implications far beyond this election cycle and make it seemingly impossible for the Republican party revive this voter block they desperately need.

In 2004, Bush was able to win a narrow election because he was able to pull 40% of the Latino vote. That number of Latino votes has shrunk in every election since then for the Republicans, while the number of Latinos in America has continued to rise. Trump is projected to get below 20% of the Latino vote this upcoming election . In order for the Republicans to win elections this trend has to change. According to Pew, Latinos made up 17.3% of the U.S. population in 2014 and this number is projected to grow to 28.6% by 2060. By showing how drastically the demographics in the U.S. are changing, it further proves Republicans need these votes to stay relevant. It also shows how Trump’s extreme views could bring down the Republican Party. They can’t win without Latinos, and Latinos are not voting for Trump. GOP pollster Whit Ayres said, “After alienating so many nonwhite voters, Trump needs to win 65% of the white vote. Only one candidate has done that in the last 40 years, and that was Ronald Reagan in a 49-state landslide in 1984. It’s not going to happen.” Donald Trump is no Ronald Reagan.

The Republican Party must find a way to distance itself from the extreme views of Trump, but this is very difficult to do while Trump is the face of the party. Paul Ryan and the rest of the leadership on the right must make it clear to the country, and to Latinos in particular, that Trump does not represent the party when it comes to immigration; they are not this extreme. If they fail at this then the Republican Party will be in a massive hole that may take decades to climb out of if it even can climb out. Donald Trump, at best, will hurt and inconvenience the Republican Party. At worst he could spell its downfall.

The stance that each candidate holds on immigration policy is amongst the most frequently discussed topics by American voters regarding the Presidential campaign. The media highlights clips that makes their future policies seem as clear as day: Trump wants a wall with all illegals out, Clinton wants to personally send invitations to invite more immigrants in. Although the media creates the idea that the two candidates are firm in what is one of the most polarizing and defining policy positions, rhetoric throughout their campaigns suggests inconsistencies on both ends.

As we all know, Hillary Clinton is far more “qualified” than Trump is when it comes to politics. However, what comes along with the many years of her political participation? That’s right, a political history that is waiting to be delved into. Clinton’s current immigration stance is to defend President Obama’s executive actions to get illegals on track to becoming full and equal citizens. This, however, is very different from her stance in 2003 when she said, “We’ve got to do several things and I am, you know, adamantly against illegal immigrants” during a radio interview.

America understood Trump very clearly when he targeted Mexican immigrants as rapists, drug lords, criminals, and “some” good people during his June 16^th announcement speech. His solution to the illegal, undocumented immigrant epidemic- to round them all up and send them back to their home countries and build a wall to keep them out. His plan of employing a strategy of mass removal of every one of the 11 million immigrants within The U.S., while radical, garnered majority of Trump’s supporters alone.

Recently, Trump has reportedly become ‘more soft’ on his immigration policies that he once felt so strongly about. Although he insists that he still has full intentions to build a concrete wall that will be funded by Mexico in order to keep illegal immigrants out, he no longer seems to be so focused on getting the “good” illegal immigrants that are currently within The U.S. borders out. In a recent interview, Trump told Sean Hannity that the good, undocumented immigrants would, “have to pay back taxes” and would not be given any amnesty however he intends to work with them.

Although the two candidate’s have completely opposite ideas of immigration reform, they seem to have one thing in common: change. As the clock continues to tick and the Election Day approaches, it seems that the two candidates will say whatever is necessary to bait in those final votes. It will truly be surprise to us all to see what type of immigration reform will be enacted when either of the two comes into office.

As the 2016 election grinds on, we’ve seen the same policy issues arise over and over again. With the refugee crisis worsening on an international scale, the United States is under pressure to reform its immigration policies accordingly, and both Presidential candidates have their own proposals for moving forward.

The way Americans receive and decide which policies they will align with has much to do with the connotation of the words surrounding the entire immigration debate. For some, the word “immigrant,” especially “illegal immigrant,” is synonymous with “Latino” or “Hispanic.” With Donald Trump’s call to build a wall along the Mexican-American border, this is especially true. But, when looking at the numbers from a Pew Research study, Asians are actually on track to become the largest immigrant group in the United States.

In an NPR interview with Erika Lee, a professor of Asian-American history at the University of Minnesota, Lee says that Americans see Latino immigration as much more of a problem than Asian immigration, even though the numbers are smaller. This is because Asians are viewed as a “model minority” – as a group that achieves academically and economically across the board. Lee says that this label is largely “misleading,” and she is worried that the stigma surrounding Asian immigration will turn sour, as it was several decades ago in the U.S.

Lee illustrates the ability of an entire candidate’s policy stance to be grounded on an idea that is based as heavily on a stigma as it is on actual facts. Through years and years of immigration policy discussion in the public arena, Americans have begun to think of immigration very specifically, rather than considering new trends and studies that actually change the entire landscape.

Worlds Apart

Worlds apart. Those two words precisely describe the vast disagreements between Trump and Clinton on immigration policies. The American Dream as understood today still means a promise of opportunity, but this opportunity could be defined as a concrete wall built by Donald Trump that will keep undocumented workers out and allow more Americans to have access to these job opportunities, or the American Dream could represent the typical “golden paved roads” that were described when the “New World” was found and the original immigrants thought that the streets were paved with gold. In this case however, the gold is opportunity for jobs, careers, education, and a better way of life for immigrants that could be had in America if Clinton wins and allows the undocumented immigrants to stay.

Knee Deep into Convictions

“Depending on how a handful of swing states choose in November, the next president will either target every undocumented immigrant in the country for deportation or provide millions with work permits instead” says Seitz in his article “Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are Universes Apart on Immigration.” Trump wants to build a concrete wall funded by Mexico itself to keep out the immigrants entirely, while Hillary wants to pave a path within the first one hundred days of office for immigrants to receive full citizenship. She says she will “go further than Obama” in supporting immigrants in this country as she feels that they should be allowed to keep their jobs and move on with their lives. She sees them as no threat to the country and as a possible benefit as there would be more people work and grow the economy. Trump wants absolutely no amnesty and wants to close off all funding to sanctuary cities. He says that undocumented immigrants are a threat to the American job market. His rhetoric, or persuasive speech, plays on the emotions of Americans who are struggling to get jobs that are currently occupied by undocumented workers, and persuades them to vote for Trump. As you can see, both candidates appear unwilling to budge on their intended policies. The question is, would either candidate be more successful by softening their approach or their position on immigration policy to more of a middle ground that could accommodate some form of immigration to improve the economy and grant opportunity while also eliminating the harmful aspects of immigration such as drugs?

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-are-universes-apart-immigration-n641686

We all remember those infamous words from June 16, 2015, from now Republican Presidential Nominee Donald Trump. When Trump declared his candidacy, he said: “When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best,” and proceeded to call them drug lords, criminals, and rapists. This harsh, angry rhetoric played to the emotions of millions of American voters — especially those fed up with our immigration policies. These voters attached their emotional support to Trump, hoping for change from the GOP days of the Bushes’ “compassionate conservatism.”

Trump’s Plans:

In a recently released deposition regarding these comments and his new hotel, Trump revealed that he believes he won the Republican nomination because of his stance on immigration. His 10 point plan calls for building a wall on the Mexican border, ending catch-and-release, and terminating Obama’s executive amnesties. These policies have led to massive crowds at Trump’s rallies and even campaign merchandise supporting the wall:

Rhetorical Approaches: 

So, what does all of this aggressive rhetoric and crazed support mean for the GOP and immigration? Well, first off, we can look at the symbolic world view of politics. As the only constant in political life is change, it shouldn’t be all too surprising that the GOP is changing its views on immigration. While George W. Bush stood for immigration reform to include Latino support within the party, Trump is driving out that support. He has taken the party from a moderate approach on immigration to a hard right approach on the topic.

Secondly, as noted in Westen’s Political Brain, emotions can distort facts. Those hardcore Trump supporters who believe all 11 million illegal immigrants should be deported are riding on fear and anger. They might not necessarily be looking at all the facts tied to illegal immigrants — that the majority of them are not criminals or rapists. Instead, these voters have attached their feelings of fear and angry to Trump and his vision.

Lastly, Trump does a fairly decent job of persuading. As a major persuasive communication principle, Trump appeals to the whole brain with images, sounds, and words. The perfect example of this matter occurred early on in his campaign when he visited the border near Laredo, Texas. He visited a place where people experience illegal immigration firsthand, and he eventually won the endorsement of the National Border Patrol Council. Naturally, this endorsement persuaded others to believe Trump is correct on illegal immigration.

All of these factors combined show us that Trump has indeed struck a chord on illegal immigration, and has gained momentous support because of his change in symbolic world view, play to emotions, and persuasion to the entire brain.