Political Roundtable - Part VI

[nate33]

No. Republicans are being smart. Amnesty is a bad, bad move for the long term health of the Republican party. Why give lots of really poor people citizenship? They will mostly vote Democrat. And frankly, it's a horrifyingly cynical stance the Democrats are taking: encouraging mass immigration of poor people just to swell their voter ranks.

I'm not even convinced that promoting amnesty is all that advantageous is wooing the Hispanic vote. Why would legal, Hispanic immigrants want to compete for jobs with a whole lot more people?

Here's an article that makes my point:

FIND THAT MESSAGE: Obama’s policies were on the ballot — we have it on good authority (Obama’s). That includes “comprehensive immigration reform,” as embodied in the Chuck Schumer’s Senate “Gang of 8″ legalization + immigration increase bill. So how did it do? Let’s see:

Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas voted for the Gang of 8 bill. He’s GONE.
Sen. Kay Hagan of North Carolina voted for the Gang of 8 bill. GONE.
Sen. Mark Udall of Colorado voted for the Gang of 8 bill. GONE
Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska voted for the Gang of 8 bill. Almost certainly GONE
Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana voted for the Gang of 8 bill. She will probably be GONE after a January runoff.
Alison Grimes supported the Gang of 8 bill in Kentucky. DEFEATED
Michelle Nunn supported the Gang of 8 bill in Georgia. DEFEATED
Greg Orman supported the Gangof 8 bill in Kansas. DEFEATED
Bruce Braley supoorted the Gang of 8 bill in Iowa. DEFEATED

Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire and Mark Warner of Virginia voted for the Gang of 8 bill and BARELY SURVIVED against longshot challengers.

My prediction is that if the Republicans continue to oppose amnesty and they successfully make it a campaign issue in 2016, they will win the presidency and hold the Senate.

[Zonkerbl]

And that's why Republicans will never win a presidential election again. They can't see past their irrational hate, which is the basis of their philosophy. Irrational hate is easy to manipulate, making it the philosophy of choice of billionaires hoping to dupe millions of blue collar workers into voting against their own best interests.

But it also means you can't make rational fixes to your policy that could assure you never lose an election again. Republicans would rather hate and lose.

[dobrojim]

I gotta say, sometimes I allow myself to get upset at something you've written.
But sometimes you surprise the heck out of me in a really nice way.
Not many people on the right would dare to express any positive feelings
about Bernie. He was a card carrying Socialist for gawds sake. That's pretty
scary to a lot of people.

At this point, things are so effed up that we have to put ideology aside and first fix the corruption. Sanders and Paul understand better than anybody else the damage that the banks are doing to our nation. I think they would devote their efforts to fixing that problem first - which would be a great thing.

amen to that. Kevin Philips has written about the fact that when financial
services start becoming more than 10-15% of the GDP, your nation is in
trouble. Pushing around piles of money isn't that valuable or productive
as activities go. People in finance appear to me to be often quite overpaid.
But now they got money and can afford 5 lobbyists for each member of
Congress. And from what I can tell, the ROI for campaign donations is
exceedingly high. Average people are paying the cost for that.

[popper]

I thought it was interesting that Oregon ballot measure 88 (driver cards issued without proof of legal presence) went down in flames. I think the vote was 2-1 against the measure. Maybe blue state Oregonians hate immigrants too.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/inde ... _oreg.html

Edit - or I should say it passed, thus making it illegal to issue the driver cards

[dckingsfan]

I thought it was interesting that Oregon ballot measure 88 (driver cards issued without proof of legal presence) went down in flames. I think the vote was 2-1 against the measure. Maybe blue state Oregonians hate immigrants too.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/inde ... _oreg.html

Edit - or I should say it passed, thus making it illegal to issue the driver cards

Regardless - we need immigrants to grow - fact. The Rs can sit on it at their own peril.

[nate33]

I thought it was interesting that Oregon ballot measure 88 (driver cards issued without proof of legal presence) went down in flames. I think the vote was 2-1 against the measure. Maybe blue state Oregonians hate immigrants too.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/inde ... _oreg.html

Edit - or I should say it passed, thus making it illegal to issue the driver cards

Regardless - we need immigrants to grow - fact. The Rs can sit on it at their own peril.

No we don't. Growth at a rate faster than the assimilation rate is counter productive - particularly when all the immigration is coming from one culture, giving them an incentive to avoid assimilation. We aren't growing, we are turning New Mexico and Arizona into Mexico.

We can curtail immigration (admitting only educated people) and then implement policies to promote Americans having children (larger child tax deductions and tax credits). We can also reach out to Asia and try and encourage more immigration for China, Korea and Japan.

[nate33]

And that's why Republicans will never win a presidential election again. They can't see past their irrational hate, which is the basis of their philosophy. Irrational hate is easy to manipulate, making it the philosophy of choice of billionaires hoping to dupe millions of blue collar workers into voting against their own best interests.

But it also means you can't make rational fixes to your policy that could assure you never lose an election again. Republicans would rather hate and lose.

Whenever you done with your emotional diatribes and partisan bile, I'd like for you to explain why it is in the best interests of lower and middle class American workers in a high unemployment environment to admit more competition for jobs.

[Induveca]

And that's why Republicans will never win a presidential election again. They can't see past their irrational hate, which is the basis of their philosophy. Irrational hate is easy to manipulate, making it the philosophy of choice of billionaires hoping to dupe millions of blue collar workers into voting against their own best interests.

But it also means you can't make rational fixes to your policy that could assure you never lose an election again. Republicans would rather hate and lose.

What is the logic behind providing amnesty? It is obviously a boneheaded move.

The UK is going through a similar thing with Eastern European "tourists",and a major reason I suspect they'll back out of the EU.

As a Hispanic person I have zero problem saying deport illegal aliens. Nearly every single US consulate in central/South America have 3-4 hour lines every weekday. There is ample opportunity to make it to the US if they are skilled/educated/have family in the US.

It's a very fair process. The republicans will spin illegal immigration as a fairness issue, show the impact on jobs on the lower classes and win. It's also a big morale boost for we Hispanics who came here legally and want to protect the culture of success/education which will help our children.

Don't get me wrong, I love my people and my home country. I just don't think the best and brightest are represented via these debates. The majority of illegals I know have near zero education and are living off of various forms of public assistance while getting paid under the table for restaurant jobs. They're mostly here for the free cash and food. Does it mean they have bad souls? Of course not. But why more "free" charity, and why take away jobs legal citizens will soon need more than ever?

Have a family/kids with another illegal but kids now US citizens? Make them go back home and have their kids support them via a visa program for residency. Then go through the entire citizenship process. Sounds cruel, but it's fair. Receiving tens of thousands of public assistance money while hiding as an illegal alien is a moral and (depending on the ideology) a social crime.

[Zonkerbl]

What does amnesty do? It turns an illegal immigrant who has no rights whatsoever, whose employment is illegal, doesn't get the minimum wage, and by definition has no insurance, into a worker who is eligible for union membership, has a right to demand the minimum wage, has a right to demand insurance from his employer.

Amnesty LEVELS the playing field, if you would take your "partisan bile" blinders off for a second.

It turns someone who, by definition, pays no taxes but is still a drain on public coffers because of his/her lack of insurance, into a legitimate member of the system who will eventually be a net contributor to the public treasury.

I just don't understand how you guys FALL for this obvious billionaire-generated propaganda so easily.

Actually I do know why. Your underlying distaste for immigrants makes you easy to manipulate.

[nate33]

What does amnesty do? It turns an illegal immigrant who has no rights whatsoever, whose employment is illegal, doesn't get the minimum wage, and by definition has no insurance, into a worker who is eligible for union membership, has a right to demand the minimum wage, has a right to demand insurance from his employer.

Amnesty LEVELS the playing field, if you would take your "partisan bile" blinders off for a second.

It turns someone who, by definition, pays no taxes but is still a drain on public coffers because of his/her lack of insurance, into a legitimate member of the system who will eventually be a net contributor to the public treasury.

I just don't understand how you guys FALL for this obvious billionaire-generated propaganda so easily.

Actually I do know why. Your underlying distaste for immigrants makes you easy to manipulate.

If illegal immigrants are working illegally for U.S. employers, the U.S. employers need to be penalized and the illegal immigrants need to be deported. We don't need to reward the illegal immigrants with legal status and thereby encourage more illegal immigration and more competition for jobs.

And I have no underlying distaste for immigrants. I'm a big LEGAL immigration fan of immigrants who bring skills and education with them.

[Zonkerbl]

On a completely unrelated note, you should read this. Forget that Angela Davis is a world renowned black power activist who was an honorary member of the Black Panthers although she never joined because her beliefs about Communism conflicted fundamentally with Malcolm X's.

Angela Davis is a genius and you should read and respect what she has to say.

http://www.feministes-radicales.org/wp- ... solete.pdf

[Zonkerbl]

The last thing I'll say on immigration is that sending illegal immigrants back to their home countries is a complete waste of time and resources. The underlying incentive leading immigrants to come to the U.S. is a result of massive crime and corruption and poverty in their home countries (or whatever) - not something we have any control over. The only effect deporting people back to a country where they feel their lives are in danger has is to increase their desperation to escape. It's a silly, poorly thought out policy. And amnesty will have only a marginal effect on the underlying incentive these people face.

I agree (and had a coworker who authored a paper that proved) that penalties for companies that hire illegal immigrants is a much more effective policy than penalizing the immigrants themselves.

But deporting illegal immigrants is a waste of time - won't affect the number of illegal immigrants in the country at all, since the border is so porous (and come on, admit it - it's impossible to keep people out. Be realistic please). So that leaves either amnesty, or continuing to force illegal immigrants to work without the right to minimum wages, union membership, or health plans. Thus forcing current domestic workers to compete against such people. Which is clearly what the billionaires want, since it erodes the negotiating power of unions and generally forces wages down.

[nate33]

This is nonsense. If you are just going to give up on maintaining a border, then you may as well give up on having a country. A country isn't a country without boundaries and citizens.

How about pulling 90% of our military force from overseas and putting them on the border? That's about 2 million troops, or the equivalent of a thousand people per mile of border. I think they could manage to close it. (I'm being facetious. The job could be done with about 5% of our military.) And furthermore, the money we pay our soldiers stationed on the border would then filter through our own economy, at least in the border towns. So it's a stimulus plan for the local economy, it removes competition for low-cost labor, and it discourages future illegal immigration.

[Induveca]

The last thing I'll say on immigration is that sending illegal immigrants back to their home countries is a complete waste of time and resources. The underlying incentive leading immigrants to come to the U.S. is a result of massive crime and corruption and poverty in their home countries (or whatever) - not something we have any control over. The only effect deporting people back to a country where they feel their lives are in danger has is to increase their desperation to escape. It's a silly, poorly thought out policy. And amnesty will have only a marginal effect on the underlying incentive these people face.

I agree (and had a coworker who authored a paper that proved) that penalties for companies that hire illegal immigrants is a much more effective policy than penalizing the immigrants themselves.

But deporting illegal immigrants is a waste of time - won't affect the number of illegal immigrants in the country at all, since the border is so porous (and come on, admit it - it's impossible to keep people out. Be realistic please). So that leaves either amnesty, or continuing to force illegal immigrants to work without the right to minimum wages, union membership, or health plans. Thus forcing current domestic workers to compete against such people. Which is clearly what the billionaires want, since it erodes the negotiating power of unions and generally forces wages down.

I'd say learn from the EU. It's not an issue that will ever be solved by amnesty, their solution is to kick them back to immigration centers in southern europe, and pump in EU member state funds for immigration holding centers in spain/italy/greece where they await an eventual boat ride back to their home country.

They've dealt with this issue much longer than the US in a serious way. This has become the ultimate solution, their economies can't support more public assistance with the lack of jobs. Spain is at 25% unemployment........Greece even worse, Italy in bad shape as well.

You want to see the future of immigration reform look to the EU? It's refugee camps along the southern US border, and the states hosting those camps demanding more federal funds/homeland security troops. It's happening today in the EU, in a supposedly far more tolerant environment for immigrants. Opening up the borders isn't a solution, it's lazy and suicidal for a nation.

http://www.debatingeurope.eu/2013/11/19 ... migration/

[Zonkerbl]

Nate - if we're going to have an argument you have to say things that make sense. I'm so flabbergasted by your last post that I don't even know where to begin.

[Zonkerbl]

Wait, Indu, I'm confused. You're saying this overwhelmingly successful campaign of creating enormous refugee camps for illegal immigrants (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) is BETTER than amnesty?

WTF????

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29BoqCMRBFk[/youtube]

[nate33]

Nate - if we're going to have an argument you have to say things that make sense. I'm so flabbergasted by your last post that I don't even know where to begin.

It makes a whole lot more sense than your policy of ignoring borders, allowing millions of uneducated, unskilled, non-English-speaking people into the country, and then let them become citizens and ultimately welfare recipients.

[Induveca]

Wait, Indu, I'm confused. You're saying this overwhelmingly successful campaign of creating enormous refugee camps for illegal immigrants (!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) is BETTER than amnesty?

WTF????

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29BoqCMRBFk[/youtube]

My point was if this was the solution for socialist/typically extremely lenient countries in the EU it could be the future in the US. They aren't refugee camps per se, more holding camps for deportation. Basically rapid INS processing centers. They already have plenty of them in Texas/California/Arizona/NY/Miami on a smaller scale. The kids being held now would have already been processed and booted out some time ago.

The US is where the EW was about 7 years ago (I lived there when the debate began to heat up). It's now progressed to arresting/deporting illegals in lockstep at this point by most western EU nations. I don't know if it's the correct solution, but it's one all EU member states voted on.

If the mere mention of deportation offends your sensibilities, not sure what to say.

Sorry if I confused you, and Vinny.

[dckingsfan]

I thought it was interesting that Oregon ballot measure 88 (driver cards issued without proof of legal presence) went down in flames. I think the vote was 2-1 against the measure. Maybe blue state Oregonians hate immigrants too.

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/inde ... _oreg.html

Edit - or I should say it passed, thus making it illegal to issue the driver cards

Regardless - we need immigrants to grow - fact. The Rs can sit on it at their own peril.

No we don't. Growth at a rate faster than the assimilation rate is counter productive - particularly when all the immigration is coming from one culture, giving them an incentive to avoid assimilation. We aren't growing, we are turning New Mexico and Arizona into Mexico.

We can curtail immigration (admitting only educated people) and then implement policies to promote Americans having children (larger child tax deductions and tax credits). We can also reach out to Asia and try and encourage more immigration for China, Korea and Japan.

Good points. I would say we need both. We need our laborers for the farms. And we need others to fill the jobs we aren't filling (programming, etc.).

[nate33]

Regardless - we need immigrants to grow - fact. The Rs can sit on it at their own peril.

No we don't. Growth at a rate faster than the assimilation rate is counter productive - particularly when all the immigration is coming from one culture, giving them an incentive to avoid assimilation. We aren't growing, we are turning New Mexico and Arizona into Mexico.

We can curtail immigration (admitting only educated people) and then implement policies to promote Americans having children (larger child tax deductions and tax credits). We can also reach out to Asia and try and encourage more immigration for China, Korea and Japan.

Good points. I would say we need both. We need our laborers for the farms. And we need others to fill the jobs we aren't filling (programming, etc.).

We don't need laborers for our farms. We already have tens of millions of people on the dole. Cut their benefits and they'll go work on the farms.