Specifically regarding how immigration relates to LGBT rights: Is there any statistical link between anti-LGBT hate-crime and immigration from Muslim countries?
Perhaps more to the point, if LGBT activists (HRC in particular) don't feel the same way, how do you explain that? Do they not realize Trump is (despite opposing their marriage rights and opposing protecting them from discrimination) actually their ally? I find that claim startling.
Regarding illegal immigrants, it's a tough issue. I thought www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/31/untangling-the-immigration-debate was a good broad summary of thought here. I will say that I disagree with the criticism of "entitlement." It's hard to know what you would do in their shoes, but I think it's obvious that all humans have some entitlements to some rights, and, even if we find it necessary to enforce a certain law, we should be aware of the human motivations behind such actions.
> Specifically regarding how immigration relates to LGBT rights: Is there any statistical link between anti-LGBT hate-crime and immigration from Muslim countries?
Not any studies I'm aware of. From a personal standpoint, no scientific basis, I do believe that if you immigrate to a country, you should be willing to accept that country's norms and prevailing beliefs. 52% of British Muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/11/europe/britain-muslims-survey/) If you take a look, certain countries have high percentages of muslims who think they should have sharia law implemented. (http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/22/muslims-and-...) Should we prevent people from those countries from immigrating without severe checks? I personally think so.
> Do they not realize Trump is (despite opposing their marriage rights and opposing protecting them from discrimination) actually their ally? I find that claim startling.
Trump I don't think really cares one way or another. If you look at his previous interviews, he says that he doesn't care if you're gay as long as you're smart and tough, he'll hire you. And you might want to read some of Scott Adam's blog posts. He postulates that the Clinton campaign has been so effective as painting Trump as "literally Hitler" that you can sort of stick any sort of bad image about him to him easily. Hence the racism, bigotry, etc etc.
> I will say that I disagree with the criticism of "entitlement." It's hard to know what you would do in their shoes, but I think it's obvious that all humans have some entitlements to some rights, and, even if we find it necessary to enforce a certain law, we should be aware of the human motivations behind such actions.
I agree with the human motivations, but I am a bit more callous in that I don't really care. For me, illegal immigrants are a bit like squatters in properties they don't live in. Just because they took care of the house for a while doesn't mean that they can live there because they really really want to and they've done it for so long.
And just a little note. Trump does have a point that Mexico is not sending us their best and brightest in illegal immigrants. It's hard crossing the border, and quite dangerous. If you were educated and skilled, you'd probably stay in Mexico or try to emigrate legally. The people who are forced to try to immigrate illegally generally don't have much to offer the United States, sadly enough. Somehow that's racist?
It's weird to me to characterize the candidate's willingness to ban people who might potentially be more anti-gay than the prior as a pro-LGBT position, especially in comparison to a candidate who supports laws that actually advance and protect gay rights.
(Anyway, what about gay immigrants from Muslim countries? Surely those coming from countries with repressive laws are most deserving of admission, no?)
In your reply, you sort of beat around this bush, I think. Yes, you can paint Trump a lot of ways (though I think much of that owes to what the man himself says), and yes, immigrants from conservative religious societies may be less prone to support liberal values, but the candidate himself also does not support those values. He opposes gay marriage. He opposes anti-discrimination legislation. http://www.hrc.org/2016RepublicanFacts/donald-trump-opposes-.... Surely the candidate's own statements on policy matter, don't they?
I think accusations of racism are not made quite so lightly. But Trump did claim that he saw "thousands of Muslims celebrating" in New Jersey after 9/11. He did claim illegal immigrants are "rapists and murderers", when statistically they commit fewer violent crimes than the control. The anti-immigration arguments often do take a racial tone, as when people complain about "press 2 for Spanish" or when a (Hispanic, yes) Trump supporter warned of "taco trucks on every corner".
I doubt racism is your motivation, or that of many supporters. But I am surprised and worried when Trump supporters don't identify the ambiguously (or, in the case of David Duke, not so ambiguously) racist motivations of their comrades-in-arms or their candidate himself.
> Two stand out to me: the Paris environmental deal, and the Iran nuclear deal. In both cases, do you think that renegotiating these deals will lead to a better outcome? Congressional Republicans have been arguing for tearing up the Iran nuclear deal, which seems highly likely to make the world less safe.
I think that renegotiating is always a good idea. Starting off on one extreme and then making concessions is one way of negotiating, and one that I think is the best. That way the person you're negotiating with doesn't quite know how far they can push you, and you might get concessions you might not otherwise get. And it's just renegotiating - nothing is set in stone. Once you start making definitive statements, you start painting yourself in a corner. Since renegotiations under Trump will start at the earliest in 3 months, why would you commit to a course of action now? Lots can change in 3 months, and you don't want your words thrown back in your face.
> But to be clear, do you merely support deporting "criminal" immigrants (i.e. felons), or do you believe it's necessary to deport as many undocumented residents as possible?
I would argue that semantically, all undocumented residents are "criminal", as in technically they're breaking the law being here. Now that being said, they do provide a large boost to our economy, so I guess the answer is "it depends". Not to sound too cold-blooded, but a lot of illegal immigrants seem to feel entitled to life in the United States while they are breaking the law. "We've lived here decades and worked very hard! We should be citizens." They fail to realize that they are uninvited guests in our country right now, and we are fully within our rights to send them back to their countries of origin. Once again, Trump has done a great job of not getting nailed down to one specific course of action, because like I said before, a lot can change in 4 months, and he'll get a lot more information once he becomes president.
> Yet because the Clinton Foundation takes Saudi contributions you assume Clinton is opposed to LGBT rights, and you assume otherwise about Trump?
Also she advocates for the intake of refugees from primarily fundamentalist Islamic countries, many of whom believe in Sharia law. Trump has softened his immigration stance on Muslims to be "extreme vetting" for countries known to be jihadi hotbeds. Those are the countries most oppressive to LGBT rights, and I think it's good that we restrict immigration from there.