Week In Politics: Trump Shifts On Immigration Policy


Joining us now to speak about this and a rest of a week in politics are a unchanging weekly commentators, E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post and Brookings Institution and David Brooks of The New York Times. Hello, we two.


E J DIONNE, BYLINE: Good to be with you.

MCEVERS: So we usually listened about what sounds like a change of routine for Donald Trump on his signature issue, immigration. But afterwards again, no one is totally sure. Let’s speak about a fallout if he is indeed softening his position on this. We’ve already seen people on a right – Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter – criticizing Trump about this. We listened some of that during a finish of Scott’s square there. we theory a large doubt is by perplexing to enhance his bottom to embody some-more assuage Republicans with this softer stance, does Trump mount to remove people in his strange base, a people who voted for him in a primary in a initial place? David?

BROOKS: Well, initial of all, we don’t consider this is a routine flip-flop or an ideological struggle. we consider it’s an courtesy camber issue. He usually is someone who responds incentive by incentive to what happens to jump into his mind, and afterwards he has flights of ideas that go wherever they think. The usually thing he’s unequivocally been unchanging on is his self-love. And so we consider we’re going to see this as opposite crowds conflict opposite ways. we wouldn’t review too many into it, though, as arrange of some vital ideological position. And we don’t consider it’ll quite assistance him one approach or another. we consider his interest to people is formed on a many deeper clarity of protest, not since he’s ideologically rigorous.

MCEVERS: But as we pierce behind and onward from one to a other, we mean, don’t we divide people in any camp, E.J.?

DIONNE: Well, we consider he is. He’s already alienated people on a other side of his aged position on immigration. My favorite criticism – somebody on Twitter pronounced that there will be a new Trump product in respect of his immigration meanderings this week. It’ll be Trump Jell-O since that’s what it’s felt like all week. And yes, he – we know what? He threatens to remove a elites, if we will – worried elites, anti-immigration elites, anti-legalization elites. And we listened that in Scott’s piece. That competence have some filtering down effect.

What it feels like is Trump is – a man who’s ostensible to be a anti-politician is being a unequivocally asocial politician and presumption that his possess bottom will be with him no matter what and figure that he’s unequivocally on their side. And so he’ll send out some softer sounds to try to get those assuage voters. It does uncover how many difficulty he is in with Republican moderates. He clearly has not rallied a Republican opinion a approach a hopeful needs to.

MCEVERS: What do we guys consider is next? He’ll confirm that we don’t need to build a wall?

DIONNE: No, a wall he can’t get absolved of. we consider a wall is a one constant. It’s plain (laughter).

MCEVERS: There’s some smoothness there. Also, this week there was a lot of back-and-forth between Donald Trump and his opponent, Hillary Clinton, of course, over who is a bigger racist. Let’s take a listen to some of that.


DONALD TRUMP: Hillary Clinton is a extremist who sees people of tone usually as votes, not as tellurian beings estimable of a improved future. She’s going to do zero for African-Americans. She’s going to do zero for a Hispanics.


HILLARY CLINTON: Donald Trump has built his debate on influence and paranoia. He is holding hatred groups mainstream.


TRUMP: You’re racist. You’re racist. You’re racist. They keep observant it – you’re racist. It’s a tired, outrageous argument.

MCEVERS: we mean, is Donald Trump right there? Is this – we mean, what is this evidence unequivocally about?

BROOKS: Well, we consider this is, again, an emanate of incentive control. Why does he wish to go on this theme of injustice and racial bigotry? This is to be satisfactory – I’m perplexing to be satisfactory to Donald Trump. This is a man who, after San Bernardino, unequivocally built his debate on observant we should anathema all Muslims from entrance into this country. That was a initial detonate for Donald Trump. And that’s holding a actions of a sole particular and ascribing it to a group. And that’s called bigotry.

And so there is some seed there that he has influenced up. we don’t consider he – we don’t know what’s in his heart during all, yet that seed is there. His debate manager comes from an classification that is scandalous for racially charged articles. And so that’s usually a square of who he has been.

MCEVERS: What do these possibilities gain, though, from observant that a other one is a racist, E.J.?

DIONNE: Well, we think, we know, we collect a assign opposite an competition that indeed has merit, that electorate can brand with. we mean, we know, accusing Hillary Clinton of being a extremist or a extremist is like accusing Donald Trump of carrying good ambience and too many self-restraint. You know, we mean, it usually doesn’t rinse with many voters. And as David suggested, it got him totally off an conflict that indeed had some possibility. You know, he was going after Hillary Clinton on emails and on a foundation. And whatever we consider of those issues – and we’ll substantially speak about them – they are positively some-more earnest than aggressive her as a bigot.

But we consider Hillary Clinton did a unequivocally critical thing this week in going after a alt-right, as it’s known, that is, we know, a new new right that is white nationalist, extremist or racialist. And what she did there is she was unequivocally clever to contend this is not conservatism as we have famous it or republicanism as we have famous it. She could’ve left in a opposite instruction and contend a Republicans and conservatives sowed a seeds of this. She is unequivocally perplexing to open a doors far-reaching and contend Republicans, we can save we from Trump. You got to opinion for me this time since we don’t wish your celebration to go down that road. And we suspicion that was a unequivocally important

DIONNE: Republicans, we can save we from Trump. You got to opinion for me this time since we don’t wish your celebration to go down that road. And we suspicion that was a unequivocally critical indicator of where she’s going to go for a rest of a campaign.

MCEVERS: Interesting. We did not hear – after Hillary Clinton spoke about a alt-right, there was overpower from Republicans not responding to her, not entrance in anyone’s invulnerability there.

BROOKS: Yeah. And we would say, among my friends in a Republican Party, they’re already carrying a contention of what do we do after Trump? When do we have a argument? What is a reaction? And one of a things – it’s turn transparent to a lot of people – it’s politically unsustainable and somewhat incorrigible to have an all-White party. And so something large has to be reconsidered in that light.

MCEVERS: This week, emails performed and expelled by a regressive organisation Judicial Watch showed that a tip Clinton Foundation central contacted a State Department to run for a assembly between a climax king of Bahrain and afterwards Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This was in 2009.

In a email, a substructure central called a king a good crony of ours. The prince, of course, had donated tens of thousands of dollars to a Clinton Foundation. And this assembly eventually did take place. we know that Hillary Clinton has talked about high walls between a substructure and a State Department, yet it does sound like they were operative flattering closely together.

DIONNE: You know, we consider a king finished adult removing a assembly by normal channels. It usually shows how difficult this substructure is for a Clinton. There’s been no glow here. There’s usually been smoke. But we consider we’ve talked about this before.

Ultimately, they’re going to have to find a approach to pull a substructure aside if she’s inaugurated boss so, we know, we don’t keep articulate about these stories. Because even if zero actionable is ever found, these are a terrible daze for her.


BROOKS: we would contend there’s a incessant brittleness to her reaction, that is untrustworthy. Even carrying a private server, a approach a information continues to dump out. All Clinton scandals are a same, where they usually do not recover information during a gait they unequivocally should.

And this is a tough doctrine for all of us to learn, yet infrequently we usually have to get a information out there.

MCEVERS: That’s David Brooks of The New York Times and E.J. Dionne of The Washington Post. Thanks to both of you.

DIONNE: Good to be with you.

BROOKS: Good to be with you.

Copyright © 2016 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit a website terms of use and permissions pages during for serve information.

NPR transcripts are combined on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and constructed regulating a exclusive transcription routine grown with NPR. This content might not be in a final form and might be updated or revised in a future. Accuracy and accessibility might vary. The lawful record of NPR’s programming is a audio record.

Article source: