President Donald J. Trump

[136 or 142]

It's not my "thing "to get into long discussion.. I haven't the skills and use my little smart phone for everything. limitations of meduim.
^^^^ internal ryme and circle of life, I'd rather concern myself with... Now'a days...

Either you understand monetary cycles or don't.. But here's a clue.. Pay off today's debt with  tomorrow's cheaper inflated currency.

I laugh when read of a country that paid off its WWII debt to the US some fifty years later. And spin is all about the nobility of doing so.

Some credit goes to Mr Trump.. his policies if carefully enacted should start a new montary cycle. Yippee we're ALL going to die worrying about inflation.
wash ..shampoo.. repeat

Yes, I thought that's what you might be referring to.  There is a recurring conspiracy theory among some forex traders that nations in debt will bring on themselves hyper inflation so as to pay off that debt.  When that view takes hold, it causes a decline in the currency and an increase in long term interest rates.

Beyond that, the consequences of the international effects of the United States doing such a thing are beyond the scope of my knowledge of economics, it would be extremely complicated entailing first order effects and second order effects.  Beyond that I can only point out that such an action might not do the U.S as much good as many other nations because most commodities are denominated in U.S dollars.  No mainstream economist I know of proposes doing any such thing.

The effects of such an action might be far more severe than any of the 'contingencies' the U.S might have to worry about from disengaging military in some foreign affairs.

Of course, since this is an area of monetary policy and not fiscal policy,  such an action would have to be approved of by Janet Yellin. If she refused (which she would obviously do) Trump's only option would be to fire her.  I don't know if the head of a Central Bank in an advanced economy has ever been fired (or forced to quit).  I know that Jimmy Carter removed the Federal Reserve Chair that he had himself appointed after Arthur Burns by making that person his Treasury Secretary, but in that case, that person (I have no idea what his name is off the top of my head) had lost the confidence of the markets, so his removal was not regarded negatively.  Carter also replaced him with Paul Volker.

As this would be, as far as I know, an unprecedented action, it's impossible to have any certainty as to what the consequences could be.  At a minimum though, the basic that follows an extreme loss of confidence in a government is capital flight resulting in market collapse and an immediate upsurge in unemployment.

[akwilly]

You guys (136 or 142, SV) are freaking great.

[WhiteCrow]

You guys (136 or 142, SV) are freaking great.

Great... as in...a couple of highly educated idiots

(smiley face,  waving bye bye, wink wink)

[136 or 142]

Great... as in...a couple of highly educated idiots

(smiley face,  waving bye bye, wink wink)

I'm reasonably well educated.  I don't know on what basis you think that Dunning-Kruger has any advanced education beyond his having misread a thesaurus.

[akwilly]

I'm reasonably well educated.  I don't know on what basis you think that Dunning-Kruger has any advanced education beyond his having misread a thesaurus.

I read his posts in a British accent and it makes him seem smarter

[Teh PeNgu1n oF dOOm]

Which liberals here want to go confront those miners and tell them their industry and culture is dead?

Hell, I am a Trump supporter, and I would tell them their industry and culture is dead.

I would say they need to start transitioning into other industries.

Trump and Clinton are both pandering to this issue anyways.

Coal will be used until an alternative is put in place.

[Teh PeNgu1n oF dOOm]

To start, on Trump

2.Successful businesses.  Nobody has a clue what his actual net worth is.  It's been stated that had he merely put the money he received from his parents into a trust fund that was invested in the Fortune 500 index fund, he'd have the same net worth that is the best guess of what he's actually worth. 

Many of his businesses have either gone bankrupt or are no longer going concerns.  His totally failed Atlantic City operations are the most high profile.

I don't doubt that he's a brilliant marketer, but that, along with buying politicians is about all he's recognized as being brilliant at.  I'm not even sure that aside from his own bragging that there is any actual evidence he's all that good a negotiator. 

As has also been said, it's a lot easier to make a billion when you already have a million (or several million) than when you're just starting out.  He's hardly a self made person like Steve Jobs, for instance.

Only four of his 88 businesses have declared bankruptcies.

On the topic of him putting the money he received into a trust fund being equal to what he is currently worth, well, Trump has been divorced three times, has multiple children, donates a large amount to charity, and most importantly lives an extravagant lifestyle.  All of those things require a lot of money.

If you took even a bit of money say, $1000-5000 and invested it in the Fortune 500 index and let it sit there for 51 years, I am sure for most Americans' it will be greater than their net worth when they reach the age of 69.

Why?

Life takes money.  It takes a lot of money.

You are intelligent enough to know this, I am surprised I would have to school you on this easily understood topic.

Trump has built a pretty successful business empire for the last 51 years.

He has surmised that our country is suffering from a few issues that could be relatively easily fixed.  These are issues that have plagued our country and political atmosphere for decades.  Illegal immigration, trade, and companies moving their operations over seas.

Will he be successful remedying those issues?  I don't know.  I am willing to give him a try in the face of a Hillary Presidency.

Something has to be done to secure our border, stop a foreign workforce willing to work for 1/4 below labor market wages, and renegotiate some of our terrible trade deals where it's obvious these weren't for the benefit of the American people, but corporations and dirty politicians.

I am honestly not sure why Democrats aren't with Trump on these issues.

These illegal immigrants are being exploited, being paid slave labor wages, and a business owner is getting richer off their slave labor.  Yet, they don't want to mention this or take any action to change this.

Trade deals that enrich corporations and disenfranchise American citizens.  The Democratic party doesn't care about that?

Corporations moving their operations and factories overseas, putting people out of jobs, and then wanting to import their goods back into the country.  The Democratic party doesn't care about that?

[Teh PeNgu1n oF dOOm]

Rand Paul officially endorsing Donald Trump.

[ItsOver]

...I am honestly not sure why Democrats aren't with Trump on these issues.

These illegal immigrants are being exploited, being paid slave labor wages, and a business owner is getting richer off their slave labor.  Yet, they don't want to mention this or take any action to change this.

Trade deals that enrich corporations and disenfranchise American citizens.  The Democratic party doesn't care about that?

Corporations moving their operations and factories overseas, putting people out of jobs, and then wanting to import their goods back into the country.  The Democratic party doesn't care about that?

As usual, it's all about power.  That's what the vast majority of the D.C. mafia cares about, Dems and RINOs.  As long as they can maintain that and preferably increase that power, that's what they care about.  Trump, whether's he good or bad, isn't a member of the D.C. clan and a potential threat to their comfortable D.C. enclave.  Will he be initiated into "The Family?"  Will he burn it down?  Who the hell knows. 

[VtaGeezer]

On the topic of him putting the money he received into a trust fund being equal to what he is currently worth, well, Trump has been divorced three times, has multiple children, donates a large amount to charity, and most importantly lives an extravagant lifestyle.  All of those things require a lot of money.

The notion that Trump is a "trust fund" success is an attractive fallacy that's representative of most of the emotional personal slurs aimed at him by PC hysterics.  His net worth was well over a billion dollars  ($1.6B in 2000 per Forbes Mag) before his father died; 5X his father's net worth. BTW, he divorced just twice.

[mikuthing01]

Rand Paul officially endorsing Donald Trump.

Nice

[starrmtn001]

Oh dear. You really stepped on a garden rake there, Boy Wiki. They aren't there to keep Germany secure so much as to keep the rest of Europe secure from Germany. Although it might not look like it now, there is still a feeling that Germany needs to be kept in check in case they start getting aggressive again. That's why the European Union is so important.

You live there.  You are experiencing the effects of your social climate, first hand, though we do through the 'ripple' effect.  I would think you know more about what is going on there than what is being said, or written, by someone who doesn't even live on the same continent or islands as you do.

[JesusJuice]

I don't know if I can keep handling all of these happenings:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/106011126889852928

[VtaGeezer]

Now Warren is getting destroyed on social media. This is epic.

The problem with this is that if Trump had the legal minimum Indian blood to get a business advantage he's be all over it...and he knows it.

[FightTheFuture]

Trump yada yada yada Trump yada yada.  Whatever.

Like my dear ol` granny always used to say between drags on her Camel, "be careful what the f*** ya ask fer, boy. Some asshole might just come along and give it to you`n"

Well, you got it. Good luck with "it."

[aldousburbank]

I would think you know more about what is going on there than what is being said, or written, by someone who doesn't even live on the same continent or islands as you do.

I see what you did there.

[Value Of Pi]

Quote from: 136 or 142 on Yesterday at 12:01:03 PM
It's even a little hard to imagine China invading Japan, so, it's debatable that the U.S troops are needed there.  I certainly can't see any need for them in Germany.  NATO troops are needed in Eastern Europe right now, and I don't doubt that Eastern Europe could not pay for them (Eastern European nations already are spending a higher proportion of their GDP on their military than any nation except for the United States), so it's a question of setting priorities.

Who could have predicted that WW1 would have been followed by a conflict even worse two decades later? We have to allow for contingencies. We can't all be as smart as you with your crystal balls. Here's a bit of history for you: the Roman empire started to implode at one of its most successful periods, because Augustus decided to reduce the borders of his empire, which allowed the barbarians to encroach over several centuries, ending with Rome being sacked in the fifth century CE. It was a prudent financial measure at the time that sowed the seeds for the empire's ultimate destruction. The bottom line isn't everything, you need some imagination too when you are deciding on your actions.

It seems to me that only one of you understands about Pax Americana (and Pax Romana) and its importance in preventing regional conflicts, the total breakdown of international order and a Third World War. The idea of doing some kind of strict dollars and cents accounting of where we can afford to keep American troops, and who deserves to have them, is missing the forest for the trees.

Trump is guilty of misunderstanding these issues because he has no understanding of international affairs or history. Some on the right and left have a similar kind of misunderstanding covered over with slogans about America's wrongful role as "policeman of the world." None of these people really appreciate the horrors that Americans and everyone else have been spared as a result of America's worldwide military presence.

It's far from a perfect system for keeping the world from blowing itself up. But it has successfully kept the lid on, which is as much as anyone can reasonably expect from a responsible superpower.

[starrmtn001]

I see what you did there.

Um, what?    I actually meant that one.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

The problem with this is that if Trump had the legal minimum Indian blood to get a business advantage he's be all over it...and he knows it.

Not only has Trump made his detractors political and economics experts but apparently he's made them all psychic as well.

What's funny to me is just how stupid and how of touch the Democrats are. Hillary is going off on social justice nonsense about two years after it became unfashionable. Then they tried to give Trump the name "Dangerous Donald" without realizing how bad ass that is. Now they're trying to say Hillary is the most dangerous candidate in the election. Establishment politicians are brain dead. Hillary is giving Mitt a run for his money as the worst campaign/candidate I've witnessed in my lifetime.

I think people inside Hillary's camp are trying to sabotage her. First this million dollar meme division which has made Hillary the anti-Christ on the internet and on all social media where modern opinion is formed. Now everyone thinks a Hillary supporter is a paid shill whether they are or not which has decimated the little support that she had. That info should have never been leaked to the public. And that strategy was so doomed to failure that whoever came up with it is either a complete idiot or completely doesn't care. It's such brilliant propaganda for Trump that it's one of the biggest political fumbles I've ever witness. Since this happened, Bernie's results have literally reversed and it's nearly impossible to find organic Hillary support.

But also a lot of her public appearances are pathetic. For instance Hillary not being able to figure out how a subway card worked, or an atm worked or most of the little things normal citizens do on a daily basis. Either her campaign group is so idiotic and bottom tier that they don't know they're handling an evil robot and keep putting her in horrible positions. Or they're so egotistical about her winning that they don't even care how out of touch her campaign is and how bad she looks.

[whoozit]

Once again I ask why all the Democrats are so upset Trump is going to get the nomination.  Political experts have told us he has no chance in the general election.  This should be a delight to the Democrats, so why all the histrionics?

[NowhereInTime]

Once again I ask why all the Democrats are so upset Trump is going to get the nomination.  Political experts have told us he has no chance in the general election.  This should be a delight to the Democrats, so why all the histrionics?

My left wing is filled with various minority groups who fear a Trump presidency.  LGBT, Latinos, and African-Americans all feel that, at best, The Donald will ignore their concerns and, at worst, do things like mass deportations, build a wall, deny LGBT hard won rights, and create a police state so impervious to prosecution and litigation that black lives will be taken with (greater) impunity.
Actually, I really don't think he's any of these things.  I still think he's an NYC GOP'er who wouldn't do a damn thing to lose a potential customer (even the Cinco de Mayo Taco Bowl, tone deaf as it was, was Trump trying to assuage fears that he "hates" Latinos) or voter.  Now that he's the nominee, he's in this to win this.  He will drive hard right (racism, sexism, anti-PC,) to get elected then detour back to the center.  He won't do a damn thing about abortion, he won't be rounding up Latinos, (although he will build a wall, especially if a Trump construction company gets a piece of that action) and he sure isn't going to persecute LGBT (many of whom are Trump clients and customers).  He will be a nationalist on economic issues, for good or ill (jury still out, though TPP is a toxic mess), and he will probably have to be talked off a ledge with responses to terror activity.  I do think, however, he will be a far better negotiator with competitor states than HRC.

[GuerrillaUnReal]

My left wing is filled with various minority groups who fear a Trump presidency.  LGBT, Latinos, and African-Americans all feel that, at best, The Donald will ignore their concerns and, at worst, do things like mass deportations, build a wall, deny LGBT hard won rights, and create a police state so impervious to prosecution and litigation that black lives will be taken with (greater) impunity.
Actually, I really don't think he's any of these things.  I still think he's an NYC GOP'er who wouldn't do a damn thing to lose a potential customer (even the Cinco de Mayo Taco Bowl, tone deaf as it was, was Trump trying to assuage fears that he "hates" Latinos) or voter.  Now that he's the nominee, he's in this to win this.  He will drive hard right (racism, sexism, anti-PC,) to get elected then detour back to the center.  He won't do a damn thing about abortion, he won't be rounding up Latinos, (although he will build a wall, especially if a Trump construction company gets a piece of that action) and he sure isn't going to persecute LGBT (many of whom are Trump clients and customers).  He will be a nationalist on economic issues, for good or ill (jury still out, though TPP is a toxic mess), and he will probably have to be talked off a ledge with responses to terror activity.  I do think, however, he will be a far better negotiator with competitor states than HRC.

You are a brilliant individual. This is some of the best analysis I've read on here. I agree with your sentiments.

[Teh PeNgu1n oF dOOm]

Trump yada yada yada Trump yada yada.  Whatever.

Like my dear ol` granny always used to say between drags on her Camel, "be careful what the f*** ya ask fer, boy. Some asshole might just come along and give it to you`n"

Well, you got it. Good luck with "it."

I will take Trump any day over some Jesus freak, creepy idiot who gloats about beating his children.

[VtaGeezer]

I will take Trump any day over some Jesus freak, creepy idiot who gloats about beating his children.

uh-oh...

[ItsOver]

Once again I ask why all the Democrats are so upset Trump is going to get the nomination.  Political experts have told us he has no chance in the general election.  This should be a delight to the Democrats, so why all the histrionics?

It's because they care so much and are just looking out for the best interests of everyone, no matter who they may be, of course.



Did you know it takes a village?

[136 or 142]

Only four of his 88 businesses have declared bankruptcies.

On the topic of him putting the money he received into a trust fund being equal to what he is currently worth, well, Trump has been divorced three times, has multiple children, donates a large amount to charity, and most importantly lives an extravagant lifestyle.  All of those things require a lot of money.

If you took even a bit of money say, $1000-5000 and invested it in the Fortune 500 index and let it sit there for 51 years, I am sure for most Americans' it will be greater than their net worth when they reach the age of 69.

Why?

Life takes money.  It takes a lot of money.

You are intelligent enough to know this, I am surprised I would have to school you on this easily understood topic.

Trump has built a pretty successful business empire for the last 51 years.

He has surmised that our country is suffering from a few issues that could be relatively easily fixed.  These are issues that have plagued our country and political atmosphere for decades.  Illegal immigration, trade, and companies moving their operations over seas.

Will he be successful remedying those issues?  I don't know.  I am willing to give him a try in the face of a Hillary Presidency.

Something has to be done to secure our border, stop a foreign workforce willing to work for 1/4 below labor market wages, and renegotiate some of our terrible trade deals where it's obvious these weren't for the benefit of the American people, but corporations and dirty politicians.

I am honestly not sure why Democrats aren't with Trump on these issues.

These illegal immigrants are being exploited, being paid slave labor wages, and a business owner is getting richer off their slave labor.  Yet, they don't want to mention this or take any action to change this.

Trade deals that enrich corporations and disenfranchise American citizens.  The Democratic party doesn't care about that?

Corporations moving their operations and factories overseas, putting people out of jobs, and then wanting to import their goods back into the country.  The Democratic party doesn't care about that?

1.I didn't just mention the bankruptcies, I mentioned that many of his other businesses were no longer going concerns as well, meaning they were folded up because they failed: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/donald-trumps-13-biggest-business-failures-20160314

I also wrote that Trump has clearly had many successes and is obviously a marketing genius but that he's had spectacular failures as well.  I've also written that just because he's been a mostly successful businessperson (with the help of a $1 million start in 1960s dollars, so, again he's far from a 'self made' billionaire unlike say Steve Jobs) doesn't mean he'd be a successful political executive.  Rick Scott in Florida and Rick Snyder in Michigan are two extremely wealthy businessmen who were elected governor of their state as the first office they ever sought and in my opinion they have both been complete disasters, even though they managed to both get narrowly reelected in 2014 partly as a result of it being a Republican wave year.

I finally wrote that some business people are successful in politics because they are pragmatists above all else, but Donald Trump is mostly basing his campaign on an emotional appeal to aggrieved groups and any appeal based on his business acumen is solely restricted to his saying "I've been a great businessperson" it's certainly not based on any specific policy proposals he's put out.

As to his net worth.  While it was VtaGiza that put out the claim on Trump's net worth from Forbes Magazine from before he had his trust fund and not you, if he's going to claim Forbes Magazine as his source on that, then he also should believe Forbes Magazine who calculated the part that Trump would be no wealthier if he had merely put his money in a Fortune 500 Index fund.  I don't know how Forbes Magazine calculated that, so I don't know if they took his living expenses into account or not.  Maybe I should have looked into it more before mentioning it, but Forbes Magazine is generally well respected and I don't think they'd make a claim with an obvious error like you mentioned.  While Forbes Magazine like many senior executives are obviously displeased at the idea of a President Trump (though they're likely mostly horrified that he took over the Republican Party) they did this calculation regarding Trump and his wealth long before most pundits seriously thought Trump could win the Republican nomination, so it's unlikely they wrote an obviously inaccurate article on Trump just to derail his campaign.

As to his charity givings, what's your source on that?  He doesn't release his income tax returns and he lies about practically everything. So, if the only source that Trump gives a lot of money to charity is Trump himself, I wouldn't believe that.

While Trump has been compared to Hitler which I think is over the top (to VtaGeezer, I never compared Trump to Hitler I compared not believing Trump's campaign rhetoric to not believing Mein Kampf which a lot of Germans didn't take seriously because they thought it was so insane that he couldn't really believe that) the more accurate comparisons with Trump are, in my opinion, to two Italian politicians: the Duce Mussolini and Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi.  Mussolini because of Trump's similar clownish campaign antics and his authoritarian bent, but to Berlusconi because many Italians thought he would 'fix the country' because he had been a successful businessman.  In the end Berlusconi was a complete failure who didn't have a clue about governing and who found that his being a CEO of a large company did not transfer to managing the government.  All he did was significantly increase the deficit in order to try and pay off enough people so that he could stay in office, which he was successful at.  Of course, Trump can't even do that by himself.

[136 or 142]

My left wing is filled with various minority groups who fear a Trump presidency.  LGBT, Latinos, and African-Americans all feel that, at best, The Donald will ignore their concerns and, at worst, do things like mass deportations, build a wall, deny LGBT hard won rights, and create a police state so impervious to prosecution and litigation that black lives will be taken with (greater) impunity.
Actually, I really don't think he's any of these things.  I still think he's an NYC GOP'er who wouldn't do a damn thing to lose a potential customer (even the Cinco de Mayo Taco Bowl, tone deaf as it was, was Trump trying to assuage fears that he "hates" Latinos) or voter.  Now that he's the nominee, he's in this to win this.  He will drive hard right (racism, sexism, anti-PC,) to get elected then detour back to the center.  He won't do a damn thing about abortion, he won't be rounding up Latinos, (although he will build a wall, especially if a Trump construction company gets a piece of that action) and he sure isn't going to persecute LGBT (many of whom are Trump clients and customers).  He will be a nationalist on economic issues, for good or ill (jury still out, though TPP is a toxic mess), and he will probably have to be talked off a ledge with responses to terror activity.  I do think, however, he will be a far better negotiator with competitor states than HRC.

1.I don't think Trump owns any construction companies.  My understanding is that he hires them to build his hotels and other buildings.  I understand that his businesses don't even own many more hotels but that he just licenses out the 'Trump' name brand.  However, I just read yesterday that his oldest son is the President of a Trump subsidiary that does develop, manage and own hotels.

2.I doubt Trump would be a very good negotiator of trade deals at all.  He's able to come to agreements on his business deals because both he and his negotiating partner have mutually shared interests and they negotiate over a limited range of things (You build my hotels, I agree to pay you.).  Trade agreements though are much more complicated and involve many areas of disagreements. This involves making deals where both sides try to come up with agreements where both sides  try to maximize gains that don't involve the other side losing (Pareto Optimality) or if one side has to lose, that the losses be minimized as much as possible. Trump has already said that his sole interest in any negotiations is the United States, so he has no interest in looking for mutually beneficial deals. My guess is that should Trump become President he wouldn't negotiate any trade agreements, wouldn't be able to get other nations who already have agreements with the U.S to renegotiate and would barely attempt to negotiate any agreements with other nations on other matters at all.   Of course, you may be happy with that.   Also, since I've already said you can't believe anything Trump says, maybe he'd actually be far more pragmatic than the nonsense he puts out about "America first."

[136 or 142]

It seems to me that only one of you understands about Pax Americana (and Pax Romana) and its importance in preventing regional conflicts, the total breakdown of international order and a Third World War. The idea of doing some kind of strict dollars and cents accounting of where we can afford to keep American troops, and who deserves to have them, is missing the forest for the trees.

Trump is guilty of misunderstanding these issues because he has no understanding of international affairs or history. Some on the right and left have a similar kind of misunderstanding covered over with slogans about America's wrongful role as "policeman of the world." None of these people really appreciate the horrors that Americans and everyone else have been spared as a result of America's worldwide military presence.

It's far from a perfect system for keeping the world from blowing itself up. But it has successfully kept the lid on, which is as much as anyone can reasonably expect from a responsible superpower.

I admit this isn't an area of expertise of mine, and I never said that the U.S should disengage every where, only that in most places, that I agreed with Trump that they should pay for the full cost of the protection the U.S gives them.  I also agreed with him that many of the places where the U.S has bases are largely for historical reasons (World War II) and it's hard to see any present strategic need to keep them.

However, since I'm not an expert on this I can't know for sure but there is an obvious potential error of logic in what you wrote:
A.There has been no third world war
B.The U.S has military bases all over the world
C.A is a result of B.

[whoozit]

My left wing is filled with various minority groups who fear a Trump presidency.  LGBT, Latinos, and African-Americans all feel that, at best, The Donald will ignore their concerns and, at worst, do things like mass deportations, build a wall, deny LGBT hard won rights, and create a police state so impervious to prosecution and litigation that black lives will be taken with (greater) impunity.
Actually, I really don't think he's any of these things.  I still think he's an NYC GOP'er who wouldn't do a damn thing to lose a potential customer (even the Cinco de Mayo Taco Bowl, tone deaf as it was, was Trump trying to assuage fears that he "hates" Latinos) or voter.  Now that he's the nominee, he's in this to win this.  He will drive hard right (racism, sexism, anti-PC,) to get elected then detour back to the center.  He won't do a damn thing about abortion, he won't be rounding up Latinos, (although he will build a wall, especially if a Trump construction company gets a piece of that action) and he sure isn't going to persecute LGBT (many of whom are Trump clients and customers).  He will be a nationalist on economic issues, for good or ill (jury still out, though TPP is a toxic mess), and he will probably have to be talked off a ledge with responses to terror activity.  I do think, however, he will be a far better negotiator with competitor states than HRC.

Thanks, that was an excellent response. I agree with most of what you state.

[136 or 142]

1.On illegal immigration.  I've already written that for the most part this isn't a very big issue any more in terms of the flow of illegal immigrants as the total stock of illegal immigrants, using the best statistically accurate measures, has not changed in a decade. 

Democrats and, in fact, the vast majority of Americans according to the opinion polls (though maybe they're lying to pollsters) agree with what I suggested above as a compromise to Albrecht:  deport the illegal immigrants who have committed crimes (except for the crime of entering the U.S illegally), give the remaining likely large majority a path to citizenship that entails paying a fine to address their illegal entry and give them full rights of non Americans living in the United States in the meanwhile.  That would address the genuine concerns you express about the potential of them being exploited workers.

I realize this could encourage some people from Central America to try to get into the U.S, but the recent wave of illegal immigrants into the U.S from Mexico and other parts of Central America have been as a result of drug wars.   Aside from the obvious idea of legalizing drugs to (mostly) end these drug wars, which is an obvious idea but also obviously isn't going to happen any time soon, if that is the case of why they came to the United States, and if they had nowhere else to flee to except the United States out of fear of loss of life, then those people would not be illegal immigrants, but would be legal refugees (though their status as genuine refugees would obviously need to be as established as best as it can be.)

So, there actually isn't a huge amount of evidence that providing the stock of illegal immigrants in the United States a path towards legal citizenship would result in any significant increase in new illegal immigrants.