or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Immigration Reform Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Immigration Reform Thread

post #1 of 219
Thread Starter 
I'll start with what's at stake:

Politico's article "Immigration Reform Could be Bonanza for Dems"
Quote:
The immigration proposal pending in Congress would transform the nation’s political landscape for a generation or more — pumping as many as 11 million new Hispanic voters into the electorate a decade from now in ways that, if current trends hold, would produce an electoral bonanza for Democrats and cripple Republican prospects in many states they now win easily.

Beneath the philosophical debates about amnesty and border security, there are brass-tacks partisan calculations driving the thinking of lawmakers in both parties over comprehensive immigration reform, which in its current form offers a pathway to citizenship — and full voting rights — for a group of undocumented residents that roughly equals the population of Ohio, the nation’s seventh-largest state.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/immigration-reform-could-upend-electoral-college-90478.html#ixzz2RIXdiAGa
post #2 of 219
Thread Starter 
City Journal weighs in. We absolutely cannot fall for this trick again. The Dems made chumps out of the voters with the 1986 fraud. The deal was to let 3 million illegals become citizens in return for stopping the influx at the border.

It is quite possible that GOP leadership, Beltway-clueless, will run full speed at the football as clever, devious Lucy pulls the football away and laughs when Charlie Brown suffers a paralyzing neck injury.
Quote:
Mickey Kaus has demolished the Senate bill’s central claim: that it makes border security a precondition for the granting of permanent-resident status. In fact, the enforcement goals consist of empty promises; nothing actually hangs on their achievement or requires that they ever be met. Immigrant advocate Frank Sharry candidly echoed Kaus’s analysis in the Wall Street Journal: “The triggers [for obtaining green cards] are based on developing plans and spending money, not on reaching that effectiveness, which is really quite clever.”


http://www.city-journal.org/2013/eon0422hm.html
Quote:
The coming amnesty’s insult to the rule of law and its magnet effect on future illegal immigration could perhaps have been justified had the proposed reform decisively converted the legal-immigration system from a family-based to a skills-based one. Instead, the Senate bill makes only a minor change in that direction. Reconfiguring immigration priorities is crucial, because many children of unskilled immigrants are assimilating into the underclass. They are also placing enormous burdens on the nation’s schools. California governor Jerry Brown proposes to redirect state taxpayer dollars from middle-class schools to those with high proportions of “English learners,” because Hispanic students lag so far behind whites and Asians. Most of these “English learners” were born and raised in the U.S. but are characterized as non-native speakers because their academic language skills are so low. Nationally, only 18 percent of Hispanic eighth-graders read at or above proficiency levels, according to the 2011 National Assessment of Educational Progress. Because of their low academic achievement (and their high rates of illegitimacy), second- and third-generation Hispanics rely on government welfare programs far more than native-born whites.
post #3 of 219
Thread Starter 
This NYT editorial highlights the powerful role race politics and group division has played in furthering the left wing agenda. In truth, the RINO's aided and abetted the ruin of the GOP, valuing cheap lawn care and labor over the values that built up the nation. And Democrats, chasing votes like a crack addict chases that last piece of rock into the sewer, are all to happy to encourage lawless immigration. Both Bush and Obama, and their enablers in the Congress, wrote IOUs to fund free cell phones, toilet parties, and cotton candy studies, garbage, trash, lint, so now our kids have to work doubly hard to pay it off.

The priss-pot preaching of the NYT in this editorial demonstrates how far we've fallen. The U.S. won't crumble from external pressures. We've committed suicide.


Quote:
We’ll leave the Republicans to their discussions in quiet rooms in the hope that at least a few are suggesting throwing out their old and failing playbook, seemingly written by and for a dwindling society of angry white men.

Much can be said about what Mitt Romney’s fatal embrace of hard-core positions on immigration did to his share of the Hispanic vote. (It shriveled, to 27 percent, according to exit polls, compared with 44 percent for George W. Bush in 2004.) Mr. Romney could have followed Mr. Bush’s moderation and won over many Latinos, but he lurched to the right, pushing xenophobic schemes for “self-deportation” and hailing Arizona as a model for immigration reform.

Some Republicans have been warning one another for years about the stupidity of alienating a fast-growing and influential group of Americans. It’s not working. The Hispanic vote went overwhelmingly to Democrats in House and Senate races as well, by roughly the same 75-to-25 split. “We have to fix our Hispanic problem as quickly as possible,” said John Weaver, a Republican strategist.

He’s right. But the Republicans don’t have a Hispanic problem. They have an America problem, a country that is growing more diverse and, on a wide range of issues, shows a sensible moderation and social tolerance far out of step with radio ranting and Tea Party rigidity. It wasn’t just Hispanics who heartily rejected Republicans on Tuesday. It also was African-Americans, Asian-Americans, young people and, to perhaps the greatest effect, women.

In exit polls on Tuesday night, two-thirds of voters said undocumented immigrants working in the United States should be offered a chance to apply for legal status. Only about one in three said they should be deported. (At the state level, in Maryland, voters overwhelmingly approved giving in-state college tuition rates to young undocumented immigrants.) Six in 10 voters said abortion should be legal. More than 50 percent said they believed the economy favors the wealthy, and most of them supported raising taxes on people making more than $250,000.

For a party that has built itself up on explicit and implied appeals to xenophobia, cultural resentment and income-redistribution for the rich, ideological purity is not a long-term strategy for success.

It is impossible to say how harshly the opaque Mr. Romney would have governed. But he and his party still blindly espouse a rigid theology that worships at the shrine of tax cuts and filibusters. It still includes ideologues whose views on issues like women’s health range from retrograde to medieval. Men like Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly are willing to say in public what Mr. Romney would say only in private to donors: half of Americans are “victims” who feel entitled to health care, food and housing from the government.

This wretched worldview does not apply to all Republicans all the time. Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey recently found things to admire in a Democratic president’s big-government help in an emergency. But the talk-show host Mark Levin told him to “shut the hell up.”

If the Republican Party turns away from self-destruction, it should do so for the right reasons. America shouldn’t reform immigration because Republicans need to add slices to their shrinking loaf of Wonder Bread. It should fix immigration because the system is broken and unjust and millions of people are suffering. Republicans should embrace family values for all families, gay families, too — along with protecting reproductive rights and access to health care — because these are the right things to do for the country we’re in, not the country they imagine it to be.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/opinion/the-republicans-post-election-day.html
post #4 of 219
Latinos and women and gays, oh my!
post #5 of 219
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by AJL View Post

Latinos and women and gays, oh my!

We've always had women and gays. The influx of illegal aliens from Mexico for the sake of cheap labor and votes, oh my!
post #6 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

The influx of illegal aliens from Mexico for the sake of cheap labor and votes, oh my!

Start by making the people that employ them pay a living wage in America. Problem solved. NEXT!
post #7 of 219
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by hossoso View Post

Start by making the people that employ them pay a living wage in America. Problem solved. NEXT!


Don't you think enforcing the border is a better policy? I believe countries, even the U.S., has the right to determine who comes into the country.
post #8 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

Don't you think enforcing the border is a better policy? I believe countries, even the U.S., has the right to determine who comes into the country.

No, I think local people will take jobs that pay a living wage. Hiring illegal immigrants, paying them fair wages and risking the penalties would be a serious disincentive for corporations to continue the practice. Resulting in far fewer people crossing the border illegally and giving already stretched border patrol agents focused funnel points to regulate. If you remove the motivation for illegal immigration you're on the right track to curbing illegal immigration.

This problem will only be remedied from the top down. Unfortunately we are very reluctant to punish large corporations for anything in this country. Our focus on providing a business friendly environment is costing us billions.

Sorry, I'm eating, watching Bates Motel, have my beer helmet with the dual sippy straws on and I'm watching my dogs on the beach. I'm distracted. I may come back and edit this later if it doesn't make sense.
post #9 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

We've always had women and gays. The influx of illegal aliens from Mexico for the sake of cheap labor and votes, oh my!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

Don't you think enforcing the border is a better policy? I believe countries, even the U.S., has the right to determine who comes into the country.

You hint around this, but let's not pretend that the business interests in the Republicans party haven't had a co-equal role in keeping immigration an unfixed problem for this long. It's not just the Democrats playing demographic politics. Both sides have some ground to give to make any kind of workable solution.
post #10 of 219
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post


You hint around this, but let's not pretend that the business interests in the Republicans party haven't had a co-equal role in keeping immigration an unfixed problem for this long. It's not just the Democrats playing demographic politics. Both sides have some ground to give to make any kind of workable solution.


No hint intended. I think I called them out pretty heavily, and lay most of the blame at the feet of George W. Bush (just don't tell Manton I said so).
post #11 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by hossoso View Post

If you remove the motivation for illegal immigration you're on the right track to curbing illegal immigration.

Wait, you mean enforcement is a really shitty way of decreasing unwanted behaviour? But the war on drugs and alcohol prohibition worked so well!
post #12 of 219
Thread Starter 
Translation: Ha ha! Demographics will kill conservatism and we'll become a left wing radical wonderland.

Yes, this is premature dancing in the end zone, but 2012 proved that this outlook is pretty accurate.

Quote:

GOP Grief and Grieving

The attack on the Republican establishment by the tea party folks grabs the gaze like a really bad horror flick — some version of “Hee Haw” meets “28 Days Later.” It’s fascinating. But it also raises a serious question: Are these the desperate thrashings of a dying movement or the labor pains of a new one?

Charles M. Blow

My money is on the former. Anyone who says that this is the dawn of a new age of conservatism is engaging in wishful thinking on a delusional scale.

There is no doubt that the number of people who say that they are conservative has inched up. According to a report from Gallup on Thursday, conservatives finished 2009 as the No. 1 ideological group. But ideological identification is no predictor of electoral outcomes. According to polls by The New York Times, conservative identification was slightly higher on the verge of Bill Clinton’s first-term election and Barack Obama’s election than it was on the verge of George W. Bush’s first-term election.

It is likely that Republicans will pick up Congressional seats in November partly because of the enthusiasm of this conservative fringe, democratic apathy and historical trends. But make no mistake: This is not 1994.

This is a limited, emotional reaction. It’s a response to the trauma that is the Great Recession, the uncertainty and creeping suspicion about the risks being taken in Washington, a visceral reaction to Obama and an overwhelming sense of powerlessness and loss.

Simply put, it’s about fear-fueled anger. But anger is not an idea. It’s not a plan. And it’s not a vision for the future. It is, however, the second stage of grief, right after denial and before bargaining.

The right is on the wrong side of history. The demographics of the country are rapidly changing, young people are becoming increasingly liberal on social issues, and rigid, dogmatic religious stricture is loosening its grip on the throat of our culture.

The right has seen the enemy, and he is the future.

According to a Gallup report issued this week, Republicans were more than twice as likely as Democrats and a third more likely as independents to have a pessimistic outlook for the country over the next 20 years. That might be the fourth stage of grief: depression.

So what’s their battle plan to fight back from the precipice of irrelevance? Moderation? A stab at modernity? A slate of innovative ideas? No, their plan is to purge the party’s moderates and march farther down the road to oblivion.

Erick Erickson, the incendiary editor of the popular conservative blog RedState, appeared on “The Colbert Report” on Monday and said that “no one really knows what a Republican is anymore.”

Split hairs about labels if you must, but the Republican brand already has begun a slow slide into obscurity. And turning further right only hastens its demise. Quiet as it’s kept, many in the party know this. That, alas, is called acceptance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/09/opinion/09blow.html
post #13 of 219
Quote:
Originally Posted by hossoso View Post

No, I think local people will take jobs that pay a living wage. Hiring illegal immigrants, paying them fair wages and risking the penalties would be a serious disincentive for corporations to continue the practice. Resulting in far fewer people crossing the border illegally and giving already stretched border patrol agents focused funnel points to regulate. If you remove the motivation for illegal immigration you're on the right track to curbing illegal immigration.

This problem will only be remedied from the top down. Unfortunately we are very reluctant to punish large corporations for anything in this country. Our focus on providing a business friendly environment is costing us billions.

Sorry, I'm eating, watching Bates Motel, have my beer helmet with the dual sippy straws on and I'm watching my dogs on the beach. I'm distracted. I may come back and edit this later if it doesn't make sense.

I do so enjoy arguments around "living wages" and "fair wages."
post #14 of 219
Thread Starter 
The rest of the world is catching up with me. 10 years too late.
Quote:
Yes, Immigrants Ought to Be ‘Conservative'
By Charles C. W. Cooke
April 24, 2013 11:58 AM
Comments133

Harry Enten has a thoughtful piece in the Guardian in which he pushes back against Politico’s claim that immigration reform will be a “bonanza” for the Democratic party. If you’re interested in the question, you should read it. Enten is correct to question the scale of the bonanza, but I don’t think he’s correct in saying that it’s not hugely beneficial for Democrats.

Anyhow, this excerpt jumped out at me:

The article starts off promisingly enough with the premise that if immigration reform passed and undocumented immigrants became citizens, Latinos would start voting Democratic in even larger numbers. I can go along with this because the main reason anyone votes for or against a political party is for its economic platform, and 81% of first generation Latino immigrants say they want a “bigger government with more services”, compared to only 48% of Americans overall.

This seems to be supported by the data. My question is this: Why are people not up in arms? At what point did it become socially acceptable for the vast majority of newcomers into a society to want to change it? If most immigrants will be poor and will require a “bigger government with more services,” isn’t this an argument against letting them in?

As a general rule, it strikes me that it’s out of line to move to a country because you like the way things are there and then to try to change those things. I don’t care where you’re from, if you emigrated voluntarily — as I did from Britain — it’s because you thought your life would be better in the country to which you moved; because you wanted to be of that country; because you wanted to be American. And if it wasn’t, well it damn well should have been. It’s really not on to thank the people of that country for letting you become a member of their society and then to start agitating for the government to be bigger and, in inevitable consequence, for those people to pay for more services for you to enjoy. Or, for that matter, to walk over the border uninvited and then to complain when the people who made the laws you broke don’t jump too high in order to help you out. At best, doing so is bad manners; at worst, its downright treacherous. It’s illegal for legal immigrants to receive federal assistance for a reason. Would that there were a constitutional way of making it a lifelong prohibition.

I live in New York City. It is of constant amazement to me how often people say, “how on earth did you become a conservative?” Or, “what is with your obsession with the Constitution?” It amazes me that progressive Americans just presume that I’ll be an ally of theirs because I have a foreign accent and how readily they will start badmouthing the country with an “am I right?!” grin. They are almost certainly right in their presumption, but surely this should be the other way around? Immigrants are supposed to be conservative of the existing order and they are supposed to love the Constitution. If they’re not, as the data suggests, we have a problem. Take a look at the citizenship test. It is surprisingly prescriptive. As it should be: This country is based on a great idea, not the whim of the current caretakers, and worthwhile assimilation relies heavily on immigrants’ feeling excited by that idea. If we are now conceding that most of them are not, we have a real problem.

Three things are simultaneously true: Immigration can be — and has been – a wonderful thing; liberty is fragile; and America is different than most other places from which immigrants will come. Thomas Jefferson pondered on this paradox in the late 18th century:

But are there no inconveniences to be thrown into the scale against the advantage expected from a multiplication of numbers by the importation of foreigners? It is for the happiness of those united in society to harmonize as much as possible in matters which they must of necessity transact together. Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent. Every species of government has its specific principles. Ours perhaps are more peculiar than those of any other in the universe. It is a composition of the freest principles of the English constitution, with others derived from natural right and natural reason. To these nothing can be more opposed than the maxims of absolute monarchies. Yet, from such, we are to expect the greatest number of emigrants. They will bring with them the principles of the governments they leave, imbibed in their early youth; or, if able to throw them off, it will be in exchange for an unbounded licentiousness, passing, as is usual, from one extreme to another. It would be a miracle were they to stop precisely at the point of temperate liberty. These principles, with their language, they will transmit to their children. In proportion to their numbers, they will share with us the legislation. They will infuse into it their spirit, warp and bias its direction, and render it a heterogeneous, incoherent, distracted mass. I may appeal to experience, during the present contest, for a verification of these conjectures. But, if they be not certain in event, are they not possible, are they not probable?

“Absolute monarchies” are not so much the problem nowadays, but the United States still enjoys a “temperate liberty” that the majority of other countries do not. The peculiar genius of America has been to bind its imports to that national ethos, rallying them around the exceptional ideals that made the country special. And it has been the expectation that new recruits will be bound. Why are we accepting so readily that the majority of people who come here will want to make changes?

This isn’t about expecting conformity of opinion or depriving immigrants of their voice: it’s about pushing back against the expectation that immigrants will be reformers by default instead of conservatives by default; it’s about questioning the widespread assumption that newcomers will try and make the country more like the places they left behind (if this is true, why do you put up with it?); it’s about challenging the oft-repeated idea that “demographics” doom limited government and other American tradition – as if this is okay. When exactly did this start? Does it really make sense that one should move here, go through the long and deliberate process, get a passport, and then set about trying to change things on the backs of the native population? Is that the American dream now? I certainly hope not. Why isn’t there more resistance?

UPDATE: Judging by the comments, I think my original post didn’t make my position clear enough, so I’ve made a few changes to clarify my meaning. To be clear: I’m not questioning that the vast majority of immigrants seem to want to change things, I’m wondering why Americans so happily accept this.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/346516/course-immigrants-should-be-conservatives
post #15 of 219
How about why "conservatives" ought to like immigration?

Competition and free markets are the best thing for economic growth. Even though it hurts some individuals in some cases, the greater good is served by free markets and competition. Why wouldn't having a bigger market with more competition for jobs mean better workers and a growing economy?

(hint - it would - it would mean we start to win the "talent war" )


As a side note - I am in Tokyo right now. Also visited Australia/NZ earlier in the year. Two places where diminished trade and immigration make some people seem happy, but overall things are not so good (very high prices, lower standard of living for people with relatively high wages).

Furthermore, anybody who thinks Jose Average is just hopping over the border from Mexico is delusional. You need to be very hard-working, motivated, etc. to pick up and move to a place where you don't know the language and try to find work.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Official Immigration Reform Thread