In 2016, the 2016 election saw the birth of a new American political philosophy.
It was a vision of America, in which the country was not merely divided but also governed by its unique identity.
The new America was one of inclusion and solidarity, not exclusion.
It represented a sense of shared responsibility, and it embodied a commitment to democratic institutions.
Yet in the new America, a new breed of political activists and thinkers was emerging.
In 2016 the first of these new political movements was Trump’s America, which aimed to reshape America by elevating white supremacy and the ideology of racial nationalism.
While the new politics had many of the hallmarks of previous American movements, Trump’s new America did not represent a new political philosophy but rather a new strain of white supremacy.
In Trump’s Trumpworld, the white race was at the center of American politics, as was the white supremacy of the Trump clan.
The idea that all Americans were racially homogeneous, that we were all one people, and that all of our political and cultural identity was grounded in the shared white identity was at its core.
The Trump brand of politics, and the politics of white supremacists who helped define it, were also inextricably tied to the idea of the white “American.”
The new politics was based on the belief that America, and America only, was the nation of immigrants, of people of color, and of Muslims.
It also represented a rejection of multiculturalism and the idea that America should be a pluralistic society, where people of different races, religions, and nationalities could live together.
It would be a mistake to conclude that the new Trumpism represented a coherent political philosophy, but it did represent a distinctive form of white nationalism.
The politics of Trumpism Trump’s first act as president was to nominate Ben Carson as his running mate.
Carson was a racist and a xenophobe, but his running-mate’s selection represented a break from the previous administration’s policy of excluding people from entering the country based on race or ethnicity.
This meant that the Trump administration would be willing to accept people who did not share their politics or ethnic identity.
It meant that people of all races and religions could be accepted into the country.
It is important to distinguish between Trump’s immigration policy and Trump’s anti-immigration rhetoric.
In a nutshell, Trumpism was anti-immigrant in the sense that it prioritized a white racial majority, not a diverse America.
In the first six months of his presidency, Trump deported nearly 2 million people, many of whom had entered the country illegally.
Trump’s administration also created a temporary ban on immigration from seven predominantly Muslim countries, including Iraq, Iran, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, and Yemen.
These bans were the product of a policy that Trump called “extreme vetting.”
Under Trump’s policy, anyone who was not of a specific religion, ethnicity, or culture would not be able to enter the United States.
They were not being vetted to see if they would be an economic threat to the U.S. and could not bring harm to our national security.
It has been said that the policy of “extreme” vetting was an effort to stop immigrants from coming to the United State.
And while it has certainly been a useful tool for Trump, it has also led to some serious problems.
In March 2018, a coalition of groups, including the National Immigration Law Center, filed a lawsuit in federal court against the Trump Administration to challenge the policy.
They argued that the ban, which was signed into law by Trump in March, was unconstitutional, violating the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.
Under the Establishment clause, the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that the religious beliefs and practices of the people are not put in conflict with the law.
In other words, the government cannot make laws that are “so offensive to the conscience” that it is “unlawful, oppressive, or unconstitutional.”
It is a legal doctrine that has been applied to other matters in the past, but never in the context of immigration policy.
It requires a government official to “make a conscientious and just determination” before they will enforce a law.
But when Trump began the enforcement of the immigration ban, he did not have the power to make that determination.
Instead, he relied on executive action.
The executive order Trump issued on January 25, 2018, called for a “deportation force” to enforce the law, which he described as a “prosecutorial-like, law-enforcement-like” immigration agency.
The order also stated that the government would not accept “any alien who does not have a lawful permanent residence in the United Kingdom or a visa valid for travel to the USA.”
The executive action also provided that “the Secretary of Homeland Security shall designate an agency to conduct the enforcement and removal of aliens who do not have lawful permanent resident status in the USA and who seek to enter or remain in the country unlawfully.”
While Trump’s executive order was ostensibly intended to “take care of our southern border,”