Bill Maher: Trump’s Immigration Plan Is Hypocrisy! (VIDEO)

Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Bill Maher said on his HBO show Friday that Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s foreign spouse makes his immigration policy hypocrisy.

Trump’s immigration plan includes building a wall between the United States and Mexico and stopping a federal practice that automatically allows citizenship to those born in the country.

“Nobody brings this up about Donald Trump, who is always on about, ‘We can’t have foreigners coming into this country.’ His first wife is from Czechoslovakia. His current wife is from Slovenia,” Maher said on his program. “So, if you think crawling under a wall is the most disgusting way to become an American, somewhere there is a Panamanian woman hiding in a truck full of chickens with ten pounds of heroin-filled condoms in her stomach who’s thinking, ‘Well, at least I didn’t have to blow Donald Trump.'”

But, Maher said, Trump’s comments on immigration excited Fox News viewers.

“Yes, Donald Trump, America’s great Irish hope, unveiled his immigration plan this week — and it is yuge,” Maher said on his program. “It’s a three-point plan called Cinco de Bye-o. Here are the plans: repeal the 14th amendment, seize the wages of illegal immigrants who are working here, use that money to build a wall, and then deport all 11 million of them. Is any of this possible? No. But it gave millions of Fox News viewers their first erection in years.”

Watch Maher’s comments:

Latest Livewire
27
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for pine pine says:

    A repost:

    "Many people assume that their family immigrated to the U.S. legally, or did it “the right way.” In most cases, this statement does not reflect the fact that the U.S. immigration system was very different when their families arrived, and that their families might not have been allowed to enter had today’s laws been in effect. In some cases, claiming that a family came “legally” is simply inaccurate—undocumented immigration has been a reality for generations.

    Whether one immigrated “legally” or “illegally” depends on the laws in effect at the time. When many families arrived in the U.S., there were no numerical limitations on immigration, no requirements to have an existing family or employment relationship with someone in the U.S., and no requirement to obtain a visa prior to arriving. As numerical limitations were instituted and certain immigrants were restricted from entering the U.S., illegal immigration increased. The definition of who was “legal” and who was “illegal” changed with the evolution of immigration laws.

    Many of our ancestors would not have qualified under today’s immigration laws. Today’s requirements that potential immigrants have close family ties to qualified U.S. citizens or permanent residents, or have employment offers in particular fields, would have effectively restricted many of our families from coming legally to the U.S.

    Until the late 19th century, there was very little federal regulation of immigration—there were virtually no laws to break. The new nation needed workers, and immigration was “encouraged and virtually unfettered.” There was no border surveillance to allow only those with proper documents to enter the U.S. Potential immigrants did not have to obtain visas at U.S. consulates before entering the country. Rather, immigrants would simply arrive at ports of entry (such as Ellis Island and other seaports), be inspected, and be allowed in if they didn’t fall into any of the excluded categories. "

    http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/de-romanticizing-our-immigrant-past-why-claiming-my-family-came-legally-often-myth

  2. Maher is a major league asshole but he did get one part right: “is any of this possible…no”

    Nothing any of these GOP’ers propose on immigration is possible.

  3. 90% of what most Conservatives push these days is illegal or unconstitutional, but they don’t care.

    I once informed a Republican that they were not a strict Constitutionalist because they refused to disband the army (only a permanent navy is allowed under a strict reading of the Constitution) nor would there be an NSA, FBI, CIA, or any of the law enforcement aparati that they love. Their guns could be taken away if they were not part of a militia.

    By the time I was done, they were fuming. How dare I call out their bull.

  4. The hardcore 25% of the horrible haters in the Republican party for Trump -
    might as well put their guns to their heads and get it over with -
    911 Reince Preibus suicide hotline - hello hello anyone there - bang !

  5. Avatar for chammy chammy says:

    My mother and father came here through Ellis Island from Italy as young children with their parents in 1907 and 1909 respectively. I would be one of those people who could be deported to a country I never lived in.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

21 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for richardinjax Avatar for jw1 Avatar for artemisia Avatar for deckbose Avatar for chammy Avatar for trippin Avatar for commiedearest Avatar for becca656 Avatar for tru Avatar for captaincommonsense Avatar for barblzz Avatar for pine Avatar for cincypix Avatar for mordant_k Avatar for richterscale Avatar for sherron Avatar for SayWhatGOP

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: