Seems like the House Republicans decided immigration reform was not worth it. I believe they hold Obama responsible for their inability to pass it, as well.
Statement here: http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/joint-statement-house-gop-leaders-immigration-reform
Quote"Today House Republicans affirmed that rather than take up the flawed legislation rushed through the Senate, House committees will continue their work on a step-by-step, common-sense approach to fixing what has long been a broken system. The American people want our border secured, our laws enforced, and the problems in our immigration system fixed to strengthen our economy. But they don't trust a Democratic-controlled Washington, and they're alarmed by the president's ongoing insistence on enacting a single, massive, Obamacare-like bill rather than pursuing a step-by-step, common-sense approach to actually fix the problem. The president has also demonstrated he is willing to unilaterally delay or ignore significant portions of laws he himself has signed, raising concerns among Americans that this administration cannot be trusted to deliver on its promises to secure the border and enforce laws as part of a single, massive bill like the one passed by the Senate."
Quote from: Jacob on July 10, 2013, 10:33:55 PM
Quote“The American people want our border secured, our laws enforced, and the problems in our immigration system fixed to strengthen our economy. But they don’t trust a Democratic-controlled Washington, and they’re alarmed by the president’s ongoing insistence on enacting a single, massive, Obamacare-like bill rather than pursuing a step-by-step, common-sense approach to actually fix the problem.
Man if all of the American people do not trust Democrats why do they keep electing them? Puzzling. What does that say about Republicans? :P
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 02:08:44 AM
Quote from: Jacob on July 10, 2013, 10:33:55 PM
Quote"The American people want our border secured, our laws enforced, and the problems in our immigration system fixed to strengthen our economy. But they don't trust a Democratic-controlled Washington, and they're alarmed by the president's ongoing insistence on enacting a single, massive, Obamacare-like bill rather than pursuing a step-by-step, common-sense approach to actually fix the problem.
Man if all of the American people do not trust Democrats why do they keep electing them? Puzzling. What does that say about Republicans? :P
It means they can say all sorts of illogical things and their base will swallow it and ask for seconds.
Did love the comment from the local GOP diehard
QuoteErik Huey, you are Extremely Stupid. The House and Speaker continue to do the America Peoples Work. It is your President Obama aka (Barry Soetoro) and The Entire Democratic Party that are the Do Nothing Politicians. It is you, as well as Obama and the entire group of Dumbercrats that are a Bunch of Lying, Liberal, Racist, Weak, Un-American, Socialist, Idiots. The American People will make all of the Democrats running in the upcoming 2014 Mid Term Election Pay Dearly by Voting for Republicans. So Erik Huey maybe you can get Obama to Invite you to the Mans Country Gay Bath House in Chicago where he has a (Life Time Membership) so the both of you can Spoon. LMAO.
Ummm you are so proud of America's 1rst Gay President because he will never be considered the 1rst Black President Stupid. A Trained Blind Porch Monkey can do a better Job Erik and I am a Real Black Man so don't get this Twisted you Lying, Liberal, Racist, Weak, Dumbercrat, Socialist.
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 02:08:44 AM
Man if all of the American people do not trust Democrats why do they keep electing them? Puzzling. What does that say about Republicans? :P
You presume that he counts people who vote for Democrats as Americans.
I can't believe these fucking idiots.
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 11:41:32 AM
I can't believe these fucking idiots.
Yeah. How dare they deny Democrats millions of new voters.
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 11:57:08 AM
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 11:41:32 AM
I can't believe these fucking idiots.
Yeah. How dare they deny Democrats millions of new voters.
:rolleyes:
Well it does seem that the GOP has settled on their electoral strategy being to expand their appeal amongst the straight white male demographic.
I find it ironic that when Republicans pander to Miami Cubans it's craven and base but when Democrats do something similar with Chicanos it's noble and courageous.
I'm also amused by the Orwellian spin of calling it immigration "reform." Who can possibly be against reform? Reform is always a good thing.
Take it up with Rubio, Yi.
Quote from: Jacob on July 11, 2013, 12:09:51 PM
Take it up with Rubio, Yi.
He and Jeb Bush both think the GOP has to buy Latino votes. That has nothing to do with the merits.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2013, 12:07:39 PM
I find it ironic that when Republicans pander to Miami Cubans it's craven and base but when Democrats do something similar with Chicanos it's noble and courageous.
This thing was pretty bipartisan, Yi. The Senate seemed to think so.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2013, 12:11:20 PMHe and Jeb Bush both think the GOP has to buy Latino votes. That has nothing to do with the merits.
But it does undercut the narrative of it being a strictly partisan Dem vs Rep issue that you're constructing.
Quote from: Jacob on July 11, 2013, 12:14:24 PM
But it does undercut the narrative of it being a strictly partisan Dem vs Rep issue that you're constructing.
Fair enough. But the point still stands that the principle driver for proponents is vote-getting.
They've been running ads on talk radio stations here non-stop for the past month or so with Rubio and (to a lesser extent) Paul Ryan, trying to sell the Senate immigration bill as a conservative measure. Sometimes they'll even repeat the ad back to back during the same commercial break. It does actually make a couple good points, but overall the "amnesty now, border security later maybe if we feel like it" thing is kind of a tough sell.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2013, 12:07:39 PM
I find it ironic that when Republicans pander to Miami Cubans it's craven and base but when Democrats do something similar with Chicanos it's noble and courageous.
Not ironic and when has anybody ever called the Democrats noble and courageous? Certainly nobody in this thread.
QuoteI'm also amused by the Orwellian spin of calling it immigration "reform." Who can possibly be against reform? Reform is always a good thing.
Immigration policy should be reformed. Because the current policy is unenforceable and a complete and utter failure. Anytime anybody wants to do something about that is welcome. I have a feeling the Senate bill probably is not a vast improvement.
I am baffled that the word "reform" is Orwellian. I mean...really? What word should we be using?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2013, 12:15:58 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 11, 2013, 12:14:24 PM
But it does undercut the narrative of it being a strictly partisan Dem vs Rep issue that you're constructing.
Fair enough. But the point still stands that the principle driver for proponents is vote-getting.
Isnt it also sound policy to recognize all the people that are working and living there so that they can be full contributors to society?
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 12:17:54 PM
They've been running ads on talk radio stations here non-stop for the past month or so with Rubio and (to a lesser extent) Paul Ryan, trying to sell the Senate immigration bill as a conservative measure. Sometimes they'll even repeat the ad back to back during the same commercial break. It does actually make a couple good points, but overall the "amnesty now, border security later maybe if we feel like it" thing is kind of a tough sell.
Well Amnesty is cheap and easy. Border security is seemingly almost impossible and probably really expensive.
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 12:20:47 PM
I am baffled that the word "reform" is Orwellian. I mean...really? What word should we be using?
"The immigration bill."
Let's say the GOP had proposed a bill that would erect a huge electrified fence and make illegal immigration a capital offense. Technically speaking, that would be a reform too, as it would change the status quo.
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 12:20:47 PM
I am baffled that the word "reform" is Orwellian. I mean...really? What word should we be using?
Amnesty.
Quote from: crazy canuck on July 11, 2013, 12:21:45 PM
Isnt it also sound policy to recognize all the people that are working and living there so that they can be full contributors to society?
Recognize as in grant legal residency to? I don't know of any country in the world that grants legal residency to everyone who just shows up.
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 12:22:28 PM
Well Amnesty is cheap and easy.
Easy? Sure. Cheap? Not really, when you consider how much more social spending it will entail.
QuoteBorder security is seemingly almost impossible and probably really expensive.
100% border security may well be impossible. But we can and should do a better job at it. But some politicians & groups simply do not want border security or are at best ambivalent, which is what causes the inaction.
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 12:12:29 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2013, 12:07:39 PM
I find it ironic that when Republicans pander to Miami Cubans it's craven and base but when Democrats do something similar with Chicanos it's noble and courageous.
This thing was pretty bipartisan, Yi. The Senate seemed to think so.
Really? Because from what I know the Dems have a majority in the senate and only 14 republicans voted in favor.
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 12:20:47 PMI am baffled that the word "reform" is Orwellian. I mean...really? What word should we be using?
Yeah it's a bit puzzling. It seems a little idiosyncratic to nail your colours to that particular mast given the way bills are named and referred to in the American political process.
But I guess it makes sense - "reform" was a fine way to refer to the process when it was bipartisan and the Republicans thought they might want to support it. Now that they've decided to kill it dead, they're better off calling it something more unpleasant than "reform."
... which does kind of seem a bit Orwellian - wanting to change the language to suit the current political marching orders. The GOP has always been at war with immigration, don't you know?
14 is a pretty good chunk :hmm:
Quote from: Jacob on July 11, 2013, 12:36:06 PM
Yeah it's a bit puzzling. It seems a little idiosyncratic to nail your colours to that particular mast given the way bills are named and referred to in the American political process.
Calling it the Immigration Reform Act of 2013 would be fine if that were the official title. But people are using immigration reform generically, not as a brand name.
QuoteBut I guess it makes sense - "reform" was a fine way to refer to the process when it was bipartisan and the Republicans thought they might want to support it. Now that they've decided to kill it dead, they're better off calling it something more unpleasant than "reform."
... which does kind of seem a bit Orwellian - wanting to change the language to suit the current political marching orders. The GOP has always been at war with immigration, don't you know?
:huh:
You do realize Boehner and I are two separate people, don't you? He's not the one objecting to the language, I am.
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 12:30:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 12:22:28 PM
Well Amnesty is cheap and easy.
Easy? Sure. Cheap? Not really, when you consider how much more social spending it will entail.
They're working
for us. They
should be receiving some benefits.
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 12:36:45 PM
14 is a pretty good chunk :hmm:
Of course it means that the bulk of Republicans in the senate were against it...
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 12:41:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 12:36:45 PM
14 is a pretty good chunk :hmm:
Of course it means that the bulk of Republicans in the senate were against it...
"Bipartisan" doesn't mean "everyone votes for it". It means that even among the opposition party there is a decent chunk of support.
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 12:41:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 12:30:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 12:22:28 PM
Well Amnesty is cheap and easy.
Easy? Sure. Cheap? Not really, when you consider how much more social spending it will entail.
They're working for us. They should be receiving some benefits.
They are, we haven't thrown them out.
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 12:43:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 12:41:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 12:36:45 PM
14 is a pretty good chunk :hmm:
Of course it means that the bulk of Republicans in the senate were against it...
"Bipartisan" doesn't mean "everyone votes for it". It means that even among the opposition party there is a decent chunk of support.
Except in this case the decent chunk is the 32 of 46 who came out against it.
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 12:43:25 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 12:41:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 12:30:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 12:22:28 PM
Well Amnesty is cheap and easy.
Easy? Sure. Cheap? Not really, when you consider how much more social spending it will entail.
They're working for us. They should be receiving some benefits.
They are, we haven't thrown them out.
Why would we? They have been accepting minimum wage and lower to come work here, they have been doing jobs we don't like to do, and unscrupulous business owners can easily take advantage of them. What's to throw out?
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 12:44:10 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 12:43:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 12:41:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 12:36:45 PM
14 is a pretty good chunk :hmm:
Of course it means that the bulk of Republicans in the senate were against it...
"Bipartisan" doesn't mean "everyone votes for it". It means that even among the opposition party there is a decent chunk of support.
Except in this case the decent chunk is the 32 of 46 who came out against it.
Okay, garbon. From here henceforth, bipartisan shall only be used to describe legislation which 50% of each party votes for.
Its been so long since there has been such a thing as bipartisan polictics in America that its hard to recognize it when it occurs. :(
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 12:45:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 12:43:25 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 12:41:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 12:30:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 12:22:28 PM
Well Amnesty is cheap and easy.
Easy? Sure. Cheap? Not really, when you consider how much more social spending it will entail.
They're working for us. They should be receiving some benefits.
They are, we haven't thrown them out.
Why would we? They have been accepting minimum wage and lower to come work here, they have been doing jobs we don't like to do, and unscrupulous business owners can easily take advantage of them. What's to throw out?
My point was that they already get benefits.
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 12:46:20 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 12:44:10 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 12:43:16 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 12:41:55 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 12:36:45 PM
14 is a pretty good chunk :hmm:
Of course it means that the bulk of Republicans in the senate were against it...
"Bipartisan" doesn't mean "everyone votes for it". It means that even among the opposition party there is a decent chunk of support.
Except in this case the decent chunk is the 32 of 46 who came out against it.
Okay, garbon. From here henceforth, bipartisan shall only be used to describe legislation which 50% of each party votes for.
Well you also have House Republicans coming out against it. Seems that "bipartisan" is just a buzzword if we apply the definition you are using.
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 12:51:24 PM
Well you also have House Republicans coming out against it.
I think they knew they were going to have a tougher time in the House anyway. It's a wonder some of those guys have all their teeth.
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 12:56:50 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 12:51:24 PM
Well you also have House Republicans coming out against it.
I think they knew they were going to have a tougher time in the House anyway. It's a wonder some of those guys have all their teeth.
Indeed.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fc%2Fc0%2FSpeaker_Nancy_Pelosi.jpg%2F220px-Speaker_Nancy_Pelosi.jpg&hash=08b6ed218bd8be94c3dfe900667ea2f512e2b023)
Hey garbon - normally you seem pretty partial to tough political women. Why not Pelosi, what's your issue with her? (that's her, right?)
Quote from: Jacob on July 11, 2013, 01:17:14 PM
Hey garbon - normally you seem pretty partial to tough political women. Why not Pelosi, what's your issue with her? (that's her, right?)
Yes that's Pelosi. Mainly because she doesn't really do much while walking around with a large ego. She's very divisive in the sense that she doesn't even make gestures like she gives a damn about Republicans (or really anyone in her party that doesn't agree with her). She's basically like "I'm super awesome and know how everything should be if people just let me" and I don't share her views.
Also, apart from Hil, what other political women have I been partial too? :unsure:
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 12:17:54 PM
They've been running ads on talk radio stations here non-stop for the past month or so with Rubio and (to a lesser extent) Paul Ryan, trying to sell the Senate immigration bill as a conservative measure. Sometimes they'll even repeat the ad back to back during the same commercial break. It does actually make a couple good points, but overall the "amnesty now, border security later maybe if we feel like it" thing is kind of a tough sell.
How exactly are we to gauge "border security"?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 02:17:59 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 12:17:54 PM
They've been running ads on talk radio stations here non-stop for the past month or so with Rubio and (to a lesser extent) Paul Ryan, trying to sell the Senate immigration bill as a conservative measure. Sometimes they'll even repeat the ad back to back during the same commercial break. It does actually make a couple good points, but overall the "amnesty now, border security later maybe if we feel like it" thing is kind of a tough sell.
How exactly are we to gauge "border security"?
Dead beaners piled high in front of maching gun emplacements with interlocking fields of fire.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2013, 12:11:20 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 11, 2013, 12:09:51 PM
Take it up with Rubio, Yi.
He and Jeb Bush both think the GOP has to buy Latino votes. That has nothing to do with the merits.
Where did they say "buy Latino votes"?
Quote from: Ed Anger on July 11, 2013, 02:19:47 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 02:17:59 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 12:17:54 PM
They've been running ads on talk radio stations here non-stop for the past month or so with Rubio and (to a lesser extent) Paul Ryan, trying to sell the Senate immigration bill as a conservative measure. Sometimes they'll even repeat the ad back to back during the same commercial break. It does actually make a couple good points, but overall the "amnesty now, border security later maybe if we feel like it" thing is kind of a tough sell.
How exactly are we to gauge "border security"?
Ineffective, the Germans used that criteria and millions of Americans, Soviets and British crossed their borders.
Dead beaners piled high in front of maching gun emplacements with interlocking fields of fire.
Germans suck. Good god fearing American ingenuity wins over godless shitting Germans.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 02:19:56 PM
Where did they say "buy Latino votes"?
Too Razzish today.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2013, 02:25:10 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 02:19:56 PM
Where did they say "buy Latino votes"?
Too Razzish today.
So yeah, they didn't say that, did they? That's just how you interpret it. Which is frankly an odd way to interpret it. A rather long and arduous path to citizenship doesn't quite equal the purchase of votes for Latino citizens already here.
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 02:07:50 PM
Also, apart from Hil, what other political women have I been partial too? :unsure:
I thought I've seen some :wub: from you re: Margaret Thatcher, Eva Peron, and a few others in the vein?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 02:36:56 PM
So yeah, they didn't say that, did they? That's just how you interpret it. Which is frankly an odd way to interpret it. A rather long and arduous path to citizenship doesn't quite equal the purchase of votes for Latino citizens already here.
Oh, it wouldn't actually work. But I agree with Yister than the motivation is pandering to the Hispanic vote.
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 02:45:09 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 02:36:56 PM
So yeah, they didn't say that, did they? That's just how you interpret it. Which is frankly an odd way to interpret it. A rather long and arduous path to citizenship doesn't quite equal the purchase of votes for Latino citizens already here.
Oh, it wouldn't actually work. But I agree with Yister than the motivation is pandering to the Hispanic vote.
Do you consider laws that you like pandering to you?
I think means "appealing to voters who like something I disapprove of" when he says "pandering".
Quote from: Jacob on July 11, 2013, 02:52:06 PM
I think means "appealing to voters who like something I disapprove of" when he says "pandering".
Well it would also be pandering to business owner who often hire these guys as cheap labor.
Quote from: Jacob on July 11, 2013, 02:44:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 02:07:50 PM
Also, apart from Hil, what other political women have I been partial too? :unsure:
I thought I've seen some :wub: from you re: Margaret Thatcher, Eva Peron, and a few others in the vein?
Oh, that's true though I definitely would not say that I support what Evita did in politics. :D
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 02:54:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 11, 2013, 02:52:06 PM
I think means "appealing to voters who like something I disapprove of" when he says "pandering".
Well it would also be pandering to business owner who often hire these guys as cheap labor.
Absolutely. They're lobbying & advertising pretty heavily for amnesty.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileyshack.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F12%2Fspoop_smileypoophitsthefan_100-1001.gif%3Fw%3D545&hash=a1b5ea444132c91f5a780f679cf649b0c25fcbe6)
Are you saying you are overheated?
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 03:13:35 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 02:54:45 PM
Quote from: Jacob on July 11, 2013, 02:52:06 PM
I think means "appealing to voters who like something I disapprove of" when he says "pandering".
Well it would also be pandering to business owner who often hire these guys as cheap labor.
Absolutely. They're lobbying & advertising pretty heavily for amnesty.
Well I guess that explains why amnesty is so popular.
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 12:50:14 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 12:45:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 12:43:25 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 12:41:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 12:30:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 12:22:28 PM
Well Amnesty is cheap and easy.
Easy? Sure. Cheap? Not really, when you consider how much more social spending it will entail.
They're working for us. They should be receiving some benefits.
They are, we haven't thrown them out.
Why would we? They have been accepting minimum wage and lower to come work here, they have been doing jobs we don't like to do, and unscrupulous business owners can easily take advantage of them. What's to throw out?
My point was that they already get benefits.
You act like we're doing them a giant favor instead of the other way around :lol:
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 03:42:12 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 12:50:14 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 12:45:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 12:43:25 PM
Quote from: fhdz on July 11, 2013, 12:41:21 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 12:30:41 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 12:22:28 PM
Well Amnesty is cheap and easy.
Easy? Sure. Cheap? Not really, when you consider how much more social spending it will entail.
They're working for us. They should be receiving some benefits.
They are, we haven't thrown them out.
Why would we? They have been accepting minimum wage and lower to come work here, they have been doing jobs we don't like to do, and unscrupulous business owners can easily take advantage of them. What's to throw out?
My point was that they already get benefits.
You act like we're doing them a giant favor instead of the other way around :lol:
Letting them live in the US is a favor.
I think slave owners said something similar about their slaves.
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 03:49:31 PMLetting them live in the US is a favor.
Well you're not really letting them, are you?
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 03:49:31 PM
Letting them live in the US is a favor.
Lacking the means to deport all of them is not a favor :lol:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 03:51:37 PM
I think slave owners said something similar about their slaves.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 03:52:14 PM
Quote from: garbon on July 11, 2013, 03:49:31 PM
Letting them live in the US is a favor.
Lacking the means to deport all of them is not a favor :lol:
Maybe not "all", but we certainly can deport large numbers of them. Whether or not that and that alone will solve the long-term problem is up for debate, of course.
Derspeiss you are a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy in good standing, when Republicans say we need more border security how much are we talking about?
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 04:04:43 PM
Derspeiss you are a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy in good standing, when Republicans say we need more border security how much are we talking about?
Enough to secure the border Duh. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 04:04:43 PM
Derspeiss you are a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy in good standing, when Republicans say we need more border security how much are we talking about?
Finishing the fence (which by law was supposed to be done last decade) and adding significantly more border security agents is a nice start. We also need to formulate some metrics to measure progress, as Senator McCain has requested but for some reason our exceedingly feminine DHS secretary refuses to do.
Honest and serious question, measure progress of what?
Quote from: katmai on July 11, 2013, 04:17:42 PM
Honest and serious question, measure progress of what?
How many illegals are getting through, and how many are being stopped. I know we have some numbers already, but I don't know how reliable they are & can't find them anyway.
Gotcha.
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 04:20:47 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 11, 2013, 04:17:42 PM
Honest and serious question, measure progress of what?
How many illegals are getting through, and how many are being stopped. I know we have some numbers already, but I don't know how reliable they are & can't find them anyway.
They should just stop everyone south of the border from coming in just to be safe.
I'm more wary of those Northerners.
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 04:20:47 PM
Quote from: katmai on July 11, 2013, 04:17:42 PM
Honest and serious question, measure progress of what?
How many illegals are getting through, and how many are being stopped. I know we have some numbers already, but I don't know how reliable they are & can't find them anyway.
Are the illegals even really a concern? The Mexican birth rates, and for the rest of Latin America, are just plumeting. In a short time this is not even going to be a big issue anymore. Now the secure border thing, with all the drug gangs and so forth, are a much bigger issue.
Worring about illegal immigrants pouring over the borders is a bit like trying to fight the last war.
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 04:16:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 04:04:43 PM
Derspeiss you are a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy in good standing, when Republicans say we need more border security how much are we talking about?
Finishing the fence (which by law was supposed to be done last decade) and adding significantly more border security agents is a nice start. We also need to formulate some metrics to measure progress, as Senator McCain has requested but for some reason our exceedingly feminine DHS secretary refuses to do.
Didn't the they put the national guard on the border? Since "more security" is so open ended it seems like it's the phrase to repeat when you don't actually want to do anything.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2013, 12:07:39 PM
I'm also amused by the Orwellian spin of calling it immigration "reform." Who can possibly be against reform? Reform is always a good thing.
You mean like "welfare reform"?
Or is that the good kind?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 11, 2013, 06:02:19 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2013, 12:07:39 PM
I'm also amused by the Orwellian spin of calling it immigration "reform." Who can possibly be against reform? Reform is always a good thing.
You mean like "welfare reform"?
Or is that the good kind?
Tort reform.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 11, 2013, 06:02:19 PM
You mean like "welfare reform"?
Or is that the good kind?
Just like welfare reform.
Oooh, what about Tax Reform?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2013, 06:13:21 PM
Just like welfare reform.
But I assume you supported welfare reform.
So the use of a word that means "to change the form of" in order to denote a change in policy is not such a terrible thing as to cast aspersions on the underlying merits of the policy, correct?
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 04:46:50 PM
Are the illegals even really a concern?
Not to you, Languish, and others, no. But it is for a lot of other folks.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 11, 2013, 07:21:04 PM
But I assume you supported welfare reform.
So the use of a word that means "to change the form of" in order to denote a change in policy is not such a terrible thing as to cast aspersions on the underlying merits of the policy, correct?
Allow me to clarify dear colleague.
I have no objections to political supporters of this particular bill trying to cast it in as positive a light as possible. Referring to an amnesty bill as "immigration reform" is well within the pale of allowable spin.
My objection, rather, is to the use of the term by the ostensibly objective press. When they refer to this particular bill as "immigration reform" they adopt the role of advocate. Or dupe.
Quote from: katmai on July 11, 2013, 04:41:00 PM
I'm more wary of those Northerners.
The irony of DerSpicy calling for tough immigration laws was apparently lost
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 04:16:38 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 04:04:43 PM
Derspeiss you are a member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy in good standing, when Republicans say we need more border security how much are we talking about?
Finishing the fence (which by law was supposed to be done last decade) and adding significantly more border security agents is a nice start. We also need to formulate some metrics to measure progress, as Senator McCain has requested but for some reason our exceedingly feminine DHS secretary refuses to do.
Are illegal border crossings really the source of much of the illegal alien problem these days?
I thought it was more people who legally entered the country, but then over-stayed their visa...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2013, 07:31:23 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 11, 2013, 07:21:04 PM
But I assume you supported welfare reform.
So the use of a word that means "to change the form of" in order to denote a change in policy is not such a terrible thing as to cast aspersions on the underlying merits of the policy, correct?
Allow me to clarify dear colleague.
I have no objections to political supporters of this particular bill trying to cast it in as positive a light as possible. Referring to an amnesty bill as "immigration reform" is well within the pale of allowable spin.
My objection, rather, is to the use of the term by the ostensibly objective press. When they refer to this particular bill as "immigration reform" they adopt the role of advocate. Or dupe.
Isn't fighting over labels politics 101? It's why the sides in the abortion debate are labelled pro-life and pro-choice, because nobody wants to be anti-anything...
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2013, 07:31:23 PM
Referring to an amnesty bill as "immigration reform" is well within the pale of allowable spin.
I agree it is within the pale. Particularly if the only alternative is "amnesty bill"
QuoteMy objection, rather, is to the use of the term by the ostensibly objective press.
Don't know who this directed at
But . . .
I take it from the tone of your complaints you don't like the bill.
Yet so far your objection has been to the adjective used to describe it and the not-so-shocking claim that some of the politicians voting for the bill might have political motivations.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 11, 2013, 07:38:49 PM
Don't know who this directed at
The media.
QuoteBut . . .
I take it from the tone of your complaints you don't like the bill.
Yet so far your objection has been to the adjective used to describe it and the not-so-shocking claim that some of the politicians voting for the bill might have political motivations.
The fact that "some of the politicians voting for the bill might have political motivations" is a dishonest characterization of my stated position. I said so far the primary argument advanced so far has been winning the Latino vote.
I thought the path to citizenship in the I Have a Dream Act was too soft. Doing a stint in the military is legit, but 2 years of college?? How is that a sacrifice?
I've heard nothing about the guest worker program (which in my mind should be the very heart of the bill) since it got tossed over to the AFL-CIO and Chamber of Commerce to work out.
I think without a truly tight border amnesty is just another way of incentivizing illegal immigration. This is our third now, isn't it? Wanna bet how long before the next one?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2013, 07:50:13 PM
The fact that "some of the politicians voting for the bill might have political motivations" is a dishonest characterization of my stated position. I said so far the primary argument advanced so far has been winning the Latino vote.
My characterization may not be accurate but it is much more justiable that the claim that the primary argument advanced for the bill is winning the Latino vote.
To take one example - I just looked at Marco Rubio's website. He has all sorts of arguments for the bill: improving border security and interior enforcement, generating jobs, boosting entrepeneurship, dealing with undocumented workers humanely.
Winning Latino votes is not mentioned.
It's odd to refer to something as "the primary argument" when it isn't being argued.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 11, 2013, 07:58:00 PM
My characterization may not be accurate but it is much more justiable that the claim that the primary argument advanced for the bill is winning the Latino vote.
To take one example - I just looked at Marco Rubio's website. He has all sorts of arguments for the bill: improving border security and interior enforcement, generating jobs, boosting entrepeneurship, dealing with undocumented workers humanely.
Winning Latino votes is not mentioned.
It's odd to refer to something as "the primary argument" when it isn't being argued.
Of course it's being argued. It's impossible to get through an article or TV news story about immigration without mention of connection to Latino votes.
Whereas you're probably the fifth person to look at Marco Rubio's web site.
It's not his primary argument to the public, but it does seem to be the pro-amnesty GOP politicians' primary pitch to fellow Republicans. And I don't doubt that it's their primary motivation (along with appeasing their corporate donors).
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2013, 08:02:03 PM
Of course it's being argued. It's impossible to get through an article or TV news story about immigration without mention of connection to Latino votes.
So it is being argued by pundits who are analyzing motivations on political talk and news shows. Not by the people advocating the policy.
I am not questioning that Marco Rubio and bill supporters hope to get Latino votes. Why shouldn't they want that?
But I have no reason whatsoever to question the genuineness of Rubio's (and the other backers') policy arguments for the bill.
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 08:03:13 PM
It's not his primary argument to the public, but it does seem to be the pro-amnesty GOP politicians' primary pitch to fellow Republicans. And I don't doubt that it's their primary motivation (along with appeasing their corporate donors).
I know they are Republicans, but isn't it possible they vote a certain way, at least sometimes, because they feel it's the right thing to do?
Let's take another example Yi mentioned on page 1 - the Cuban boycott.
The problem with the boycott is not that it is motivated by a desire to pander to the Miami Cuban vote.
The problem with the boycott is that it is a stupid and counter-productive policy.
The pandering aspect is only interesting as an ancillary matter, as a possible explanation of how someone could convince themselves to back a policy in the face of seemingly overwhelming evidence of complete and utter failure.
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 09:27:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 08:03:13 PM
It's not his primary argument to the public, but it does seem to be the pro-amnesty GOP politicians' primary pitch to fellow Republicans. And I don't doubt that it's their primary motivation (along with appeasing their corporate donors).
I know they are Republicans, but isn't it possible they vote a certain way, at least sometimes, because they feel it's the right thing to do?
Absolutely. Particularly if it's something you happen to agree with them on :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 11, 2013, 07:50:13 PM
I think without a truly tight border amnesty is just another way of incentivizing illegal immigration. This is our third now, isn't it? Wanna bet how long before the next one?
Let's examine those incentives a little more rigorously.
I assume that the primary motivation for most illegals is economic: they can make more money in the gray labor market here than in their country of origin, even after subtracting out transport costs and risks of incarceration and deportation.
Formally, that would be modelled by looking at the net present value of net income flows expected from dwelling illegally in the US as against the equivalent NPV for staying in Mexico.
In calculating an NPV, one has to know the discount rate. Since we are talking about subjective preference, this could vary a lot, but my guess is most illegal migrants have pretty high discount rates - they are focusing on what they can earn now and in the near future, not 10-20 years from now.
With that background, how does the possible potential for future amnesty impact incentives. First of all, it is uncertain as to when or if it will happen or what the eligibility criteria are - so any benefits must be separtely discounted for that. Second, the next amnesty if it occurs will probably not be for another 10 years or so. Third, if it follows the pattern on the one in the bill, many of the benefits of the amnesty don't kick in until another 10 years have passed. Fourth, to take advantage of the amnesty requires significant payments in terms of penalties and taxes that reduce the expected return to the amnesty. Put it all together you have an uncertain option that carries significant cost to exercise and is not likely to lead to significant benefits until about 15-20 years in the future. So the impact in terms of increasing NPV of crossing the border is probably quite small.
Or put another way in English, I doubt that a prospective migrant literally "on the fence" is going to be tipped over into migration by the prospect that sometime 10 year from now, he might be able to earn the right to become a permanent US resident 10 years after that if he jumps through a bunch of hoops, fills out lots of paperwork, and pays a bunch of fees and taxes. I think it is far more likely that learning that wages for picking berries are being raised $.10 an hour for the next 2 months is going to have a bigger impact.
Now take that incentive effect and weight it against the benefits of amnesty now - higher investment in physical and human capital and more new small business formation due to settled expectations and higher payments to the fisc.
Looks like a slam dunk to me.
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 09:34:02 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on July 11, 2013, 09:27:34 PM
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 08:03:13 PM
It's not his primary argument to the public, but it does seem to be the pro-amnesty GOP politicians' primary pitch to fellow Republicans. And I don't doubt that it's their primary motivation (along with appeasing their corporate donors).
I know they are Republicans, but isn't it possible they vote a certain way, at least sometimes, because they feel it's the right thing to do?
Absolutely. Particularly if it's something you happen to agree with them on :P
From the political point of view, this is Rubio's issue, and his chance to shine. By sinking this bill I think it harms in chance to win a Republican Primary. From the democratic point of view (at least from mine), this is good for Dems since he is the strongest of the "conservative" candidates in the nest Presidential election. Actually passing the bill, I don't see a major gain for Democrats, besides doing the right thing. Sure it would be a win for Obama, but he won't be President forever.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 11, 2013, 09:24:55 PM
So it is being argued by pundits who are analyzing motivations on political talk and news shows. Not by the people advocating the policy.
I am not questioning that Marco Rubio and bill supporters hope to get Latino votes. Why shouldn't they want that?
But I have no reason whatsoever to question the genuineness of Rubio's (and the other backers') policy arguments for the bill.
Exactly. I think it's a bit like David Cameron on gay marriage. I've no doubt he thought it would be an easy way for the Tories to show how they've changed and the media were overwhelmingly interested in its role in Tory modernisation. But I also think he sincerely believes that marriage is a really good thing that the government should encourage and that he believes that gays should be able to marry like anyone else.
There's political considerations in there, of course, but I think that can be mixed with 'purer' motives in such a way that even Rubio probably wouldn't be able to say how much of his conviction is driven by political or policy considerations.
On securing the border I think this is relevant:
http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/23/net-migration-from-mexico-falls-to-zero-and-perhaps-less/
I think the combination of more border security and an improved domestic economy have probably had an effect.
I don't understand the problem with the word 'reform' either. I mean it's commonly used by the press. Even the Guardian will refer to the government's 'welfare reforms' or 'education reforms' or their really hated 'NHS reforms'. Similarly the Telegraph has no problem deriding the Lib Dems' attempted 'constitutional reforms'. I don't think 'reform' implies that it's necessarily a good thing.
Joan: Your purported rigor appears to consist entirely of the assumption of a high discount rate. Not sure it obtains. Illegals are usually supporting families at home (not a short-term undertaking), or often have families once they're here. Another consideration is the desirability of US citizenship: people around the world are lining up for a shot at the American dream.
Shelf: The only UK media I am read regularly is The Economist. I can't recall them ever using that to describe proposed legislation in that way.
And I know for a fact that no one in the press ever talked about the chances of tax reform passing when referring to Bush's tax cuts or about the chances of intelligence reform passing when talking about the Patriot Act. To be fair, not every piece of legislation Obama has proposed has gotten labelled in this way either; I've only noticed it with immigration.
Quote from: derspiess on July 11, 2013, 07:26:19 PM
Quote from: Valmy on July 11, 2013, 04:46:50 PM
Are the illegals even really a concern?
Not to you, Languish, and others, no. But it is for a lot of other folks.
Um...ok any particular reason you are ignoring my entire point there and just taking my question out of context?
I think this is the part where you clarify your point and tell me how I took it out of context.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on July 12, 2013, 12:44:04 PM
Joan: Your purported rigor appears to consist entirely of the assumption of a high discount rate.
No it doesn't. It only assumes *a* discount rate. Because any reasonable discount rate is going to make the benefits of an amnesty that far out quite small.
Now as a matter of fact, I do think the discount rate is even higher than usual for the reasons stated and I haven't seen anything convincing to the contrary. Yes illegals may be supporting families. But that means supporting children and migrants thinking about how to support their children are thinking about what happens in the next 0-5 years (i.e. getting food on the table and roof over everyone's head), not 15+ years when most of all of those children will have been reared and left the household.
As for the "dream" of American citizenship or permanent residency, I would need to see some data or hard argument that establishes that migrants place a value on that above and beyond the benefit it brings of the unquestioned right to work above the table.
I do find it curious that your otherwise homo economicus leanings seem to have deserted you on this issue. For example, speculating on the value of "dreams" over cash flow. Or for that matter, reconciling your position re mimumum wages that preventing otherwise voluntary exchanges creates deadweight loss with the notion that labor contracts voluntarily entered into should be blocked simply because it involves crossing an invisible line drawn up by dipomats 170 years ago.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 12, 2013, 03:55:53 PM
simply because it involves crossing an invisible line drawn up by dipomats 170 years ago.
You had me till this part. This is a bit much.
The economic effects of restricting immigration are similar to those of raising the minimum wage: lower total employment, less output, but possibly higher wage levels for those that are employed. And for the same basic reason: the policy is stopping trades of labor power for money that would otherwise occur in the absence of the policy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 12, 2013, 03:55:53 PM
No it doesn't. It only assumes *a* discount rate. Because any reasonable discount rate is going to make the benefits of an amnesty that far out quite small.
Now as a matter of fact, I do think the discount rate is even higher than usual for the reasons stated and I haven't seen anything convincing to the contrary. Yes illegals may be supporting families. But that means supporting children and migrants thinking about how to support their children are thinking about what happens in the next 0-5 years (i.e. getting food on the table and roof over everyone's head), not 15+ years when most of all of those children will have been reared and left the household.
As for the "dream" of American citizenship or permanent residency, I would need to see some data or hard argument that establishes that migrants place a value on that above and beyond the benefit it brings of the unquestioned right to work above the table.
I do find it curious that your otherwise homo economicus leanings seem to have deserted you on this issue. For example, speculating on the value of "dreams" over cash flow. Or for that matter, reconciling your position re mimumum wages that preventing otherwise voluntary exchanges creates deadweight loss with the notion that labor contracts voluntarily entered into should be blocked simply because it involves crossing an invisible line drawn up by dipomats 170 years ago.
QuoteSince we are talking about subjective preference, this could vary a lot, but my guess is most illegal migrants have pretty high discount rates - they are focusing on what they can earn now and in the near future, not 10-20 years from now.
People all the time make decisions that bear fruit 10-20 years in the future: medical school, getting into the right pre-school, not to mention all the legal immigrants who come to this country so that their children can have a better life. I see no reason to believe that illegal immigrants to the US would think and behave any differently.