[dragonwriter]

> The only immigration related topic I've heard him talk about is illegal immigration, not legal immigration.

Aside from talking about currently illegal immigration, he's also talked about a ban on foreign Muslims (the details of which have morphed over time), he's talked about curtailing existing legal immigration programs (focssing on the H-1B, but he's also said he'd implement an "absolute requirement to hire Americans first for every visa and immigration program" -- which doesn't even make sense for many visa categories and immigration programs [including the main US set of immigration visa categories, which are the family-based categories], but its what he said), he's suggested increased application and other fees for existing legal immigration programs.

[thescribe]

While I'm uncomfortable with the ban on Muslims, what is so bad about having fewer immigrants? It's just another policy that we could tweak.

[dragonwriter]

Whether it's bad or not is beside the point; the upthread question was whether Trump was only against illegal immigration or against immigration more broadly. His campaign statements make it clear that the latter is the case.

You are, of course, free to think that's a good thing.

[basseq]

With the caveat that his comments on Muslims are not part of the immigration debate, but rather the ISIS / terrorism / homeland security debate. I guess you can't have one without the other, but there is nuance there.

[dragonwriter]

His comments on Muslims are absolutely about banking certain immigrants. Like his comments about Mexicans being rapists, etc., they use safety issues as the justification for the stance against immigrants, but they are absolutely about immigration.

[basseq]

There's a chicken-or-egg scenario here. Do we block immigration because of safety (or employment, or other) reasons, or are those "reasons" just excuses to block immigration (due to racism or xenophobia I guess?).

You're claiming it's the latter. What do you base that on?

[dragonwriter]

> You're claiming it's the latter.

No, I'm not. I'm claiming that "security" and "immigration" aren't disjoint categories of policy discussions such that just because a position on immigration has some reference to security concerns, its part of the "security debate" but not part of the "immigration debate"; Trump has made many comments against immigration (and not just currently-illegal immigration). Some of those comments have been justified by economic concerns, some have been justified by security concerns. But that doesn't make the former about the economy but not immigration, and it doesn't make the latter about security but not immigration. Instead, it makes the former about economics and about immigration, and the latter about security and about immigration.