-
Immigration Reform:
-
Watching CNN [i]State of the Union[/i] this morn:
Quote from Lindsay Graham
Shame on us. Shame on us a Republicans.
…
Is it [i]really[/i] the position of the Republican party to drive these million people out?!….
I’ve never been more disappointed in my Country, my Party, and my President.
-
Republicans officially release their plan:
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell unveiled his partys long-awaited plan on immigration on Wednesday, telling reporters, We must make America somewhere no one wants to live.
Appearing with House Speaker John Boehner, McConnell said that, in contrast to President Obamas Band-Aid fixes, the Republican plan would address the root cause of immigration, which is that the United States is, for the most part, habitable.
For years, immigrants have looked to America as a place where their standard of living was bound to improve, McConnell said. Were going to change that.
Boehner said that the Republicans plan would reduce or eliminate immigration magnets, such as the social safety net, public education, clean air, and drinkable water.
The Speaker added that the plan would also include the repeal of Obamacare, calling healthcare catnip for immigrants.
Attempting, perhaps, to tamp down excitement about the plan, McConnell warned that turning America into a dystopian hellhole that repels immigrants wont happen overnight.
Our crumbling infrastructure and soaring gun violence are a good start, but much work still needs to be done, he said. When Americans start leaving the country, well know that were on the right track.
In closing, the two congressional leaders expressed pride in the immigration plan, noting that Republicans had been working to make it possible for the past thirty years.
[link=http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/republicans-unveil-immigration-plan]http://www.newyorker.com/…nveil-immigration-plan[/link]
I believe they have the will and capacity to see it through
-
Just so Noah is able to grasp it, the above article from the New Yorker is a satirical, fictional piece, and not the Real GOP plan. I’m sure they’ll come up with something at least a little better. Eventually…
-
-
-
Obama flouting the Constitution is a serious matter. The president is not authorized to legislate. In fact the president is sworn in to “faithfully execute the law”. This is the exact opposite of what Obama did.
The constitutional remedy for this is impeachment, which nobody has an appetite for. Short of impeachment, Congress can withhold funding, but this will not be easy or clean. I think that at this point, Obama gets a Pyrrhic victory. In the long-term, however this will be seen to have been a huge error.
The precedents being set by this Administration are very troubling. Whole sell-out of the legislature, Parliamentary treachery, incessant lying and deception, recess appointments, gutting of century old Senate filibuster rules, weaponizing the IRS and DOJ. This is the type of thing you see in Banana Republics.
The newly elected GOP dominated Congress was coming in with great hope of doing things mandated by the people. Obama ambushed them, before they could even be sworn in. Very cynical, although not surprising for the man who gave us us: “You can keep your doctor”, “Not a smidgen of corruption”, Amnesty does not “conform with my appropriate rile as the President”, “My position on immigration action through executive orders hasn’t changed” .
-
I’d say the President certainly did execute the law. As in beheading it.
-
Congress pass a BILL
I’m just a bill and I sitting here on capitol hill-
Quote from Noah’sArk
Congress pass a BILL
Regarding the short term politics:[b]What Happens Next On Immigration?[/b]
“The move has vast implications for millions of individuals and their families, with short- and long-term impacts on the nations economy, political demographics and Washingtons perpetual power struggle. President Obama is offering his opponents in Congress a giant dare. Hes daring Republicans to offer their sharpest reactions. Everything from government shutdowns to lawsuits to, yes, impeachment will be in the mix, with the driving consensus that the party needs to do something to register its extreme disapproval. Hes daring them to offer and pass a different set of policies. The fact that the substance of the executive order wont take effect for six months gives the new GOP majority in Congress another half year to do what Congress hasnt been able to do over the decade immigration reform has been on the agenda. ”
[url]http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/11/what-happens-next-on-immigration-the-note/[/url]
-
What is the purpose of immigration policies that only apply to people who can’t cheat the policies?
Why do we even have “borders”?
These are critical questions, the crux of the issue.
-
-
-
Quote from DoctorDalai
I’d say the President certainly did execute the law. As in beheading it.
Stop it!! Stop slandering my President!!
President Obama is a brave and unifying political force with the backing of all the American people, at least the one’s that count. There should be open borders. It is simply ethnocentric to believe your franchise and vote should be more important than a hospitality worker and his/her whole family, just because they were born in another country. What next? Would you deny them the ability to get social assistance?
This executive option the President has so thoughtfully implemented means not only anyone can come to the country,but undoubtedly that more people can vote. The humble tend to vote for the right people and that’s all the justification the President needs. Case closed…talk to the hand please and get over your euro-centrism.
Now that President Obama has done this much to get guest workers the franchise, now he has the justification to pardon en masse the black and brown political prisoners in the tyrannical American judicial system. We all the President has the ability to pardon. Now the President has little in the way of further justification to extend the franchise to all prisoners. So haha=Go Democrats!!!!-
[b]What should the GOP do about immigration reform[/b]
Obama has made his move unilaterally. Now the GOP has to calculate a response.I found this piece a clear articulation of why the Republicans are constrained when it comes to actual [i]legislative[/i] options.
[link=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/120437/immigration-political-nightmare-republicans]http://www.newrepublic.co…-nightmare-republicans[/link][b]The Reason Republicans Can’t Pass Anything on Immigration[/b]
Their political dilemma here is pretty obvioius. They cant endorse a path to citizenship, or even just legal status for undocumented persons, because the conservative base wouldn’t tolerate it. Ideas that attempt to find some middle ground, like Carsons proposal, dont fully address the problem. What the base really wants is to deport almost everyone living in the U.S. illegallysomething that’s not possible, as a practical matter, and would be political suicide if somehow it did work. Even those Hispanics sympathetic to the Republican Party now would abandon it.
Simply put, the GOP cannot pass anything on immigration without incurring significant political repercussions. For instance, legislation that beefs up border security and increases high-skilled immigrationwhich is what the GOP [i]could[/i] passwould leave their effective policy towards the undocumented immigrants in the U.S. as deportation. Is that really a better political position than they find themselves in now? I doubt it. At least now Republicans can deflect some of the blame for blocking immigration reform by saying Obama poisoned the well. (Yes, its ridiculous, but it will work with some voters.)
The problem for Republicans is not that Obama could take executive action on immigration. Its that immigration is a political nightmare for them, no matter what. As Voxs Ezra Klein has explained, Obama has a plan to address our immigration system. Republicans dontand due to the politics of it, they wont have one anytime soon.So that leaves lawsuits, ranting, and gridlock on non-immigration-related issues as the GOP’s go to plays. And as the “race to the Right” comes with the primary season the rhetoric will only get uglier.
-
Which means the GOP can’t govern because they won’t. We will see instead gimmicks & grandstanding like proposals for budget appropriations proposals to vote on every month and more threats of government shutdown that will probably lead to government shutdown(s) and we will hear more about impeachment, possibly another impeachment trial in the next 2 years. As Cruz keeps saying, the last shutdown did not harm the GOP since they just won a landslide victory.
This is how second rate governments are made & operate.-
I’m thinking the republicans only option is to accept Obama’s unilateral action and pass something that says basically…….
Ok those here can now stay legally on some type of pathway to citizenship but no more after this point illegal immigration will be tolerated
Of course this creates a huge problem with business as many depend on cheap labor from illegals but……this is their only course of action if they want a “WIN” on this issues
Otherwise Obama eats their lunch and we move on to some other showdown
-
-
-
-
-
-
[url]http://fusion.net/story/30301/mitt-romney-obama-immigration-plan-could-cause-border-rush/[/url]
An interesting “pivot” by Mitt Romney. (Some might say complete flip-flop).
He now recommends that the GOP “swallow hard” and pass permanent clarification of our immigration laws so that people know where they stand,”.From “self deportation” to “amnesty” in 25 months.
____
As for the possible GOP path forward, one of the Presidential moderates could decide to be bold and really start to push in public. Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio could be at the vanguard and have some pre-exsiting credibility that Romney does not possess. One of them [i]could[/i] try the higher risk strategy of going to middle early in hopes to reboot the GOP platform ahead of the heat of the primary season.
-
The ball is in the republicans court
They need to do something other than point fingers and blame the other side
Can they lead? Or are they just negative whiners? That’s the question
Should be interesting
-
-
to play devil’s advocate some may say Obama should say ok y’all can have pipeline but give me immigration/minimum wage/hands off obamacare and passage for my nominees
-
Quote from Noah’sArk
to play devil’s advocate some may say Obama should say ok y’all can have pipeline but give me immigration/minimum wage/hands off obamacare and passage for my nominees
The Republicans don’t Keystone badly enough to give any one of those things in exchange, no less all of them.
-
Republicans would rather self destruct in a blaze of glory than compromise. Their constituency demands that. In 2008 Boehner & McConnell decided that any compromise risked a repeat of the Clinton years when Clinton took the lead in so many compromises. That attitude is still strongly in evidence with so many Republican pundits and advisors arguing against “responsible” governing by the GOP because such a thing is “a trap.”
We have 2 years of ineffective government to look forward to with games initiated by Congress for our pleasure and entertainment. So will Congress fund this or that law or Agency & will any renewal be monthly? Will we have a shutdown or shutdowns? There are a lot of cheerleaders for shutdown & defunding government, the apotheosis of “Starve the Beast.”-
[link=http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141932/gregory-clark/the-american-dream-is-an-illusion]http://www.foreignaffairs…n-dream-is-an-illusion[/link] – An interesting and depressing read about modern immigration policy, though I need to verify some of its content.
-
Quote from NYC
[link=http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141932/gregory-clark/the-american-dream-is-an-illusion]http://www.foreignaffairs…n-dream-is-an-illusion[/link] – An interesting and depressing read about modern immigration policy, though I need to verify some of its content.
That’s a long read and an interesting thesis. I’ll have to give a full review when I’m done working.
Thanks for the post.
-
Very interesting article
I’m pretty sure in fact almost certain that similar arguments were made at the turn of the last century in reference to immigrants of Eastern European decent
Before 1880 most European immigrants were English speaking Irish English etc. they were able to assimilate easier because they were skilled and knew the language
After 1880 the influx of immigrants were Eastern European …….it was thought by many they would not easily assimilate into America because they spoke other languages and were largely unskilled…… And of course we all know they proved that hypothesis wrong within a few generations
-
-
Quote from NYC
[link=http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/141932/gregory-clark/the-american-dream-is-an-illusion]http://www.foreignaffairs…n-dream-is-an-illusion[/link] – An interesting and depressing read about modern immigration policy, though I need to verify some of its content.
I don’t agree with the general theme and arguments of the article which seems to be, of all who come here propertyless, most will not become affluent, meaning in the upper 3% or higher.
This is a very broad generalization that discounts & glosses over a lot and sets a very high goal in the 1st place. But people do arrive here propertyless and do attain middle class which IMO, is their real goal, not to become fabulously rich. Not everyone will become an Andy Grove but not everyone has Grove’s talents & opportunities.
I think the dream has diminished compared to other comparisons, specifically like some countries in Europe & even Canada. Compared to many Latin American countries we are better for many reasons. Could we do better? Hell yes.-
Frumious,
My initial reaction was similar to yours, but the article has grown on me. The article is not about material well-being, rather class and relative social status. I have no doubt that many current immigrants are materially much better off as the result of immigration, but will significant percentages move up the social ladder?
Looking back at my propertyless, immigrant relatives (they didn’t own land, but they weren’t poor or illiterate–had money to pay passage and buy land in America), I’d say my paternal family has consistently occupied the mid rungs of society–prosperous but not rich and by no means, aristocrats or members of the establishment.
Also, in thinking of my education and former jobs, it strikes me how many of the med students I know, even minorities, came from the middle and upper middle class. 50% of the African American students were children of African Immigrants, frequently with professional parents. 75% of the Latino students were from mid to upper classes, mostly South America, with professional immigrant parents. 90% of Asian students were the children of immigrant professionals. We were relatively diverse in terms of ethnicity and religion, but not class… At the end of the day, our MDs, though offering many greater material prosperity, were just cementing our class status. I really worry about those at the bottom, immigrant or native, black or white, as the odds are so against them.
-
-
-
-
-
-
[link=http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1218_usss_pmp.pdf]http://www.dhs.gov/sites/…s/14_1218_usss_pmp.pdf[/link]
See pages 2 and 3 regarding the fence. Seems a similar argument has been made along our southern border. Hypocrites. Or at least fools and manipulators.-
[url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2015/01/08/morning-plum-after-terror-attack-gop-rethinks-showdown-over-homeland-security/[/url]
In the wake of the horrific terror attack in France, there are fresh signs this morning that Republicans are rethinking whether to stage a confrontation around funding of the Department of Homeland Security (which funds immigration enforcement) to block President Obamas executive action shielding millions from deportation.
Our leadership and I just got out of the meeting and had discussions about how to proceed, {Chairman of House Homeland Security Committee GOP Rep. Michael} McCaul said on CNNs Situation Room Wednesday night. We want to stop this executive action, but I think the responsible individuals like myself have no desire to shut down this department. Its too important to the national security interest of the United States.
I think this incident today highlights why thats necessary, he later added, referring to the attack by masked gunmen on Charlie Hebdo, a satirical newspaper in Paris, that killed 12 people.
Will be interesting to see what alternative response comes out of party deliberations.
-
Democrats holding the line on the DHS funding bill. Say they won’t agree to any bill with other (read: “Immigration”) provisions attached.
[link=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Latest-News-Wires/2015/0204/Immigration-debate-Is-there-a-path-to-compromise]http://www.csmonitor.com/…e-a-path-to-compromise[/link]
-
Whether Obamacare repeal or immigration repeal or repeal [u]fill-in-the-blank[/u], what does the GOP stand for except making empty gestures & shaking their fists at the Universe? After wet fantasies about taking over Congress after 6 years what is the plan? You’d think they could have or would have developed a Plan by now?
So there is no Replace in the Repeal and Replace Plan (& they can’t even repeal), there is no replace plan for immigration, improving the economy, the War(s) on Terrorism. Nothing. They can’t even justify vaccinations, seeing them as nothing more than Government over-reach that [u][i]could[/i][/u] cause “mental” problems. And this is said by a Republican doctor in Congress yet!
American Democracy is becoming a laughing-stock. Has become.
We need a vaccine against stupidity and ignorance.-
DHS shut down more and more likely.
It would be a bizarre pseudo shut-down if it happens. Since 200,000 of the 230,000 employees are considered “essential”, they would mandated to show up for work just without pay.
Furloughs would be mostly administrative.
-
Where is the outcry for the Democrats “shutting down the government”?
-
Quote from aldadoc
Where is the outcry for the Democrats “shutting down the government”?
There isn’t one. And I don’t think there will be one.
The country doesn’t like the government being held hostag, unleashing chaos in an attempt to pursue unrelated agenda items.
The GOP will be blamed disproportionately should DHS shut down. Boehner and McConnell are both on record saying that they won’t allow a shut down to happen… and that is because they know they will have down side of the political fallout.
You’re now starting to see a bit of schism between Boehner and McConnell as it looks like th e GOP Senate might want the House to go back a find a more moderate bill that can 60 votes in the Senate, but Boehner seems to have no interest in that.
-
Quote from aldadoc
Where is the outcry for the Democrats “shutting down the government”?
[link=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/15/boehner-dhs-netanyahu_n_6687362.html]http://www.huffingtonpost…tanyahu_n_6687362.html[/link]
Well, John Boehner agrees with you and is crying out about the potential shutdown being the fault of Democrats.
But no one else is.Conservative commentators today were certainly thinking differently:
Dana Perino: “This is not going to end with the Republicans looking like heroes and they will get blamed by the White House, by the media, by Democrats. They will blame each other.”
George Will: “The Republicans don’t seem to understand it. The House keeps sending to the Senate a bill it knows cannot be passed by the Senate. And when Mr. Boehner said to you the House has to do its work, that’s not its work to send this futile gesture to make the Republican base feel good. We can’t explain to the Republican base how the system works. Well, they better learn how to explain that. That’s called leadership.”
-
If the Republicans grow a pair and stick to their principles, they will get the support of the counry in this issue. The Republican bill fully funds DHS, minus the funds for Obama’s unconstitutional executive decree to allow illegal immigration..
This is consistent with their mandate. The Washington press, inclusive of Chris Wallace and George Will (with whom I usually agree) are out of touch with the country.I want to see them ask Harry Reid why he’s holding the country hostage through filibuster. Oh! Maybe we can use the Reid rules and disarm the filibuster. Time to grow a pair, a la Walker.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/dhs-funding-gop-senate-house-bill-115075.html]http://www.politico.com/s…house-bill-115075.html[/link]
Mitch McConnell looks back to Boehner in the House for a new bill as Dems beat back the DHS funding measure that looked to roll back Obama’s immigration actions.
I think its clearly stuck in the Senate, we cant get on it, we cant offer amendments to it, McConnell told reporters. And the next step is obviously up to the House.
But House Republicans are refusing to take up the DHS hot potato, stressing repeatedly that their chamber has done its job and its up to senators to find the requisite Democratic support to clear the must-pass funding bill. DHS funding runs just through Feb. 27, and Senate Democrats say they wont support anything short of a funding bill that is free of immigration riders.-
[link=http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-11/when-will-boehner-and-mcconnell-cave-]http://www.bloombergview….er-and-mcconnell-cave-[/link]
[b]
When Will Boehner and McConnell Cave?[/b][/h1]
{T}hese (partial) shutdown showdowns always end. In this case, it may be before the department is set to close, or sometime later in March or even April. And some final agreement will be supported, however reluctantly, by the Republican House speaker, the Republican Senate majority leader and the Democratic president.
John Boehner and Mitch McConnell know that. So they also know Tea Party types will blame one or both of them as sellouts and squishes. If they had only fought longer or with sufficient grit (the demagogues will say), the Democrats would have caved, and Republicans could have claimed a complete victory.
…
Meanwhile, every day that immigration — the issue causing the impasse — is in the news is another day that Hispanic voters deepen their alliance with Democrats. And there’s always the (fairly high) risk that some Republican back-bencher will worsen that damage by saying something unfortunate.
So strong incentives are in place for Boehner and McConnell to cave earlier than later — even as they play a game of chicken over who will pay the price.
-
-
[link=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/02/17/texas-immigration-ruling-white-house-response/23553173/]http://www.usatoday.com/s…use-response/23553173/[/link]
Federal Judge blocks Obama Executive Action on Immigration.
DHS Secretary puts action on hold pending appeal. -
wow the GOP are thumbing their nose at Jeb who really does want to be Pres..
-
[link=http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/17/politics/poll-dhs-funding-gop/]http://www.cnn.com/2015/0…/poll-dhs-funding-gop/[/link]
Republicans in Congress would shoulder the blame for a shutdown at the Department of Homeland Security if they are unable to enact a new spending bill to keep the agency running, according to a new CNN/ORC poll. The survey finds 53% of Americans would blame the Republicans in Congress if the department must shut down, while 30% would blame President Barack Obama. Another 13% say both deserve the blame.
-
[link=http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/235729-white-house-makes-aggressive-push-for-courts-approval-on-immigration]http://thehill.com/homene…pproval-on-immigration[/link]
[b]White House makes aggressive legal push on immigration[/b]On Thursday, the Justice Department asked a federal appeals court to lift an order by a Texas judge that blocked the programs from taking effect.
The preliminary injunction from U.S. District Court Judge Andrew Hanen on Feb. 16 forced the administration to delay the executive actions. It came just 48 hours before the first applications would have been accepted. In an emergency stay request to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Justice Department called Hanens ruling unprecedented and wrong.
The stakes are high. If the court overturns Hanens ruling, the Obama administration could begin implementing the programs. But if it sides with the Texas judge, the legal battle could continue, possibly for months.-
Judge Hanen is not too happy with being lied to.
[link=http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415750/real-price-lies-kevin-d-williamson]http://www.nationalreview…ies-kevin-d-williamson[/link]“[i]Can I trust what the president says? Thats a yes-or-no question.[/i]
I think we can expect some sanctions against DOJ.
-
Larry Kudlow — just one of many commentators that know the GOP needs to get around 40% of the Latino vote to compete for the Presidency in 2016.
[url=http://www.cnbc.com/id/102664193]”If the GOP doesn’t put together a sensible immigration policy it will lose the 2016 presidential election.[/url]
“But unfortunately, the Republican desire for immigration reform and inclusive outreach in general has splintered. That’s why I fear the GOP may blow an election it absolutely should win.
Making matters tougher for the GOP, Hillary Clinton has come out with a very strong, ultra-liberal immigration policy. It emphasizes a path to citizenship and charges that Republicans will never make immigrants more than “second class” Americans. She would include illegals, the parents of illegals, the 11 million undocumented workers, and immigrants who have already been deported. She might even go farther than Obama with executive actions. ”
-
Hillary is a good politician. She was 100% against illegal immigrants before she was 100% for them.
-
I don’t think that “Hillary flip-flopped” will be an adequate response politically unless it also was accompanied by a major shift in current GOP policy.
Yes, it is a change in position. But it is a I don’t think that “Hillary flip-flopped” will be an adequate response politically unless it also was accompanied by a major shift in current GOP policy. She will be easily and quickly forgiven.
Republicans would be wise to come up with a more fully articulated response.
-
Yes, that’s right. Liberal don’t flip flop, they evolve.
Only conservatives flip flop. Like I said, Hilliary is a good
professional politician.-
Quote from IR_CONSULT
Yes, that’s right. Liberal don’t flip flop, they evolve.
Only conservatives flip flop. Like I said, Hilliary is a good
professional politician.Only conservatives are bothered by changing opinions. We have ALL changed our minds about something growing up, even if for only crass political expediency. And sometimes crass reality intrudes, even if it takes decades. Consider homosexuality:
“Even in purely non-religious terms, homosexuality represents a misuse of the sexual faculty. It is a pathetic little second-rate substitute for reality — a pitiable flight from life. As such, it deserves no compassion, it deserves no treatment as minority martyrdom, and it deserves not to be deemed anything but a pernicious sickness.”
From Time magazine in 1966.
If you don’t evolve you are rigid and unthinking or dead. Or rigid and dead.-
“Only conservatives are bothered by changing opinions”.
Do you know how many responses I could pull up in these
threads where liberals are calling conservatives flip-floppers
because they changed their minds on a topic?
You are about as delusional as they come. -
[url=http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Politics-Voices/2015/0512/Hillary-Clinton-sets-immigration-trap-Republicans-don-t-fall-for-it-yet] Hillary Clinton sets immigration trap, Republicans don’t fall for it (yet)[/url]
[img]http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/epicrapbattlesofhistory/images/e/e9/Its-a-trap-what-happens-when-advertisers-dont-meet-twitters-spending-quotas.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20141202083121[/img]
Thats what many are now saying about Mrs. Clintons recent move on immigration. In Nevada recently, she went further than President Obama in calling for a pathway to citizenship for millions of immigrants living in the country illegally. It was a not-very-transparent effort to goad her Republican rivals into espousing hard-line immigration policies that play well with their partys conservative base, but are objectionable to the increasingly diverse electorate.She went to Nevada and talked about immigration, went to the left of President Obama and was essentially saying, I dare you to say something that will make Latino voters not like you.
Clintons campaign is trying to get the GOP field to define itself as conservative so that the partys eventual nominee has trouble later courting moderates.
But much of the Republican field is wise to Clinton. Leading candidates such as ex-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and his one-time protégé, Sen. Marco Rubio, largely have avoided talking about her policy ideas. And the GOP candidates have been mindful of potential media-baited traps.
-
Quote from IR_CONSULT
“Only conservatives are bothered by changing opinions”.
Do you know how many responses I could pull up in these
threads where liberals are calling conservatives flip-floppers
because they changed their minds on a topic?
You are about as delusional as they come.Are conservatives complaining of being hoist by their own petard?
Yeah.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Whether or not a politician is punished for changing positions isn’t really a conservative/liberal thing.
A number of factors come into play:
If the politician’s views change in line with public sentiment they are more likely to be seen as “evolving” rather than flip-flopping because the rest of country had the same transformation.
If the politician’s individual constituency favors the change the politician will more likely be viewed as “representing the will of the people” than flip-flopping.
Then there is a temporal component. The faster the change comes, the more likely it is to be viewed as self-serving. (The Romney “etch-a-sketch” “you shake it up and start all over again” from the primary to the general is a good example).
Then I would ask where the nation as a whole is one the curve of change. For the most part progressives will take political damage on the front end of the curve. When only a small number of left-wings progressives favored same sex marriage those democrats who came out strongly in favor sufferred politically in the early decade of the debate as being “out of step” with the country.
Conservatives on the other hand, suffer on the back end of the curve as their constituency want to hold to the old way while the bulk of popular opinion has moved away from them.
For all of those reasons above, there will be little if any political downside for Hillary Clinton’s change on her views on Immigration policy. -
[url=http://themoderatevoice.com/207844/trump-to-nbcs-chuck-todd-undocumented-immigrants-have-to-go/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+themoderatevoice+%28The+Moderate+Voice%29]Trump: Undocumented Immigrants Have to Go[/url]
Trump is beyond the Romney position. He’s gone past “self deportation” to active deportation.
Donald Trump would reverse President Obamas executive orders on immigration and deport all undocumented immigrants from the U.S. as president, he said in an exclusive interview with NBCs Chuck Todd.Were going to keep the families together, but they have to go, he said in the interview, which will air in full on NBCs Meet the Press this Sunday.
Pressed on what hed do if the immigrants in question had nowhere to return to, Trump reiterated: They have to go. We will work with them. They have to go. Chuck, we either have a country, or we dont have a country, he said.
This hard-line should further endear him to the Republican Partys political base and the all-important and supremely powerful radio and conservative talk show hosts. It should also resonate with that part of the United States electorate that wants a quick easy fix to the undocumented immigrants problem, particularly those whove never even met one and are willing to buy into political rhetoric (which includes Trumps) that paint them as criminals and rapists.
Great with the GOP base. But not so good with the general public:
[link=http://www.wsj.com/articles/pew-poll-americans-favor-legalizing-people-unlawfully-in-u-s-1433426401]Pew Poll: Americans Favor Legalizing People Unlawfully in U.S.[/link]
As immigration emerges as a major issue ahead of the 2016 presidential race, a new poll found broad public support for legalizing people who are in the U.S. unlawfully. But other attitudes about immigration are mixed, according to the survey by the independent Pew Research Center.
More than seven out of 10, or 72%, of those polled believe illegal immigrants in the U.S. should be allowed to remain here, if they meet certain conditions. That result is consistent with Pew polls in the past two years that also found strong support for legalization across political party lines.
-
And on the other end of the spectrum:
[url=http://www.cbsnews.com/news/kasich-wont-rule-out-path-to-citizenship-for-undocumented-immigrants/]Kasich won’t rule out path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants[/url]
Republican presidential candidate John Kasich defended millions of immigrants in the U.S. illegally as “people who are contributing significantly” to the nation, taking on a divisive issue Wednesday as he promised to redefine conservatism during his latest New Hampshire appearance.
Introducing himself to many New Hampshire voters for the first time this week, he offered a pragmatic approach to national politics likely to antagonize some of his party’s more conservative voters. He quickly dismissed a questioner during an afternoon town hall-style meeting who suggested immigrants in the country illegally are a burden on the system.
“A lot of these people who are here are some of the hardest-working, God-fearing, family-oriented people you can ever meet,” Kasich said to a smattering of polite applause.
-
That is a slap in the face of those who patiently waited to immigrate legally. And it is an affront to the memory of those who died because the US arbitrarily closed the doors to immigration. I am speaking specifically of hundreds of thousands of Jews who were refused entry during WWII by anti-Semitic Democrats, from FDR on down. They would have been self-sufficient, productive members of society. Unlike a significant plurality of those flooding across the porous borders today.
Read [link=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2015/08/america_and_the_holocaust_the_past_as_prologue.html]http://www.americanthinke…_past_as_prologue.html[/link] and be ashamed of your beloved Democrats.-
Ah yes … reaching back 70 years for Democrats on Immigration …. resonates just about as strongly (read: not at all) as complaints about Democrats and civil rights in the early 60s
-
Wait, wait, wait. You are against discrimination now? Just for Jews?
Last I recall you thought the golf course “across the street” who discriminated against Jews was just ducky. Part of their 1st Amendment rights.
Noting that Americans were against the immigration of large numbers of Jewish refugees is a leftist talking point, not a right talking point. But by compensation, America did support the creation of Israel so there would be somewhere to put these unwanted & smelly refugees.
As for “Democrats,” many of the anti-Semites were the like of Henry Ford and Father Coughlin for example. I don’t think they were Democrats.
[link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josiah_DuBois]Josiah DuBois[/link] wrote the famous “Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews,” which Treasury Secretary [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgenthau,_Jr.]Henry Morgenthau, Jr.[/link], used to convince President [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Roosevelt]Franklin Roosevelt[/link] to establish the [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Refugee_Board]War Refugee Board[/link] in 1944. [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randolph_Paul]Randolph Paul[/link] was also a principal sponsor of this report, the first contemporaneous Government paper attacking America’s dormant complicity in [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust]The Holocaust[/link].
Entitled “Report to the Secretary on the Acquiescence of This Government in the Murder of the Jews”, the document was an indictment of the [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._State_Department]U.S. State Department[/link]’s diplomatic, military, and immigration policies. Among other things, the Report narrated the State Department’s inaction and in some instances active opposition to the release of funds for the Jews in Nazi-occupied Europe, and condemned immigration policies that closed American doors to Jewish refugees from countries then engaged in their systematic slaughter.
The catalyst for the Report was an incident involving 70,000 Jews whose evacuation from Romania could have been procured with a $170,000 bribe. The Foreign Funds Control unit of the Treasury, which was within Pauls jurisdiction, authorized the payment of the funds, the release of which both the President and Secretary of State [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cordell_Hull]Cordell Hull[/link] supported. From mid-July 1943, when the proposal was made and Treasury approved, through December 1943, a combination of the State Departments bureaucracy and the British Ministry of Economic Warfare interposed various obstacles. The Report was the product of frustration over that event.
[b]On January 16, 1944, Morgenthau and Paul personally delivered the paper to [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_D._Roosevelt]President Roosevelt[/link], warning him that Congress would act if he did not. The result was Executive Order 9417 creating the [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Refugee_Board]War Refugee Board[/link] composed of the Secretaries of State, Treasury and War. [/b]Issued on January 22, 1944, the Executive Order declared that “it is the policy of this Government to take all measures within its power to rescue the victims of enemy oppression who are in imminent danger of death and otherwise to afford such victims all possible relief and assistance consistent with the successful prosecution of the war.”
You over-simplify and blur a lot of lines, Dalai. It’s hard to keep up & in focus.
-
Too bad what few actions there were were too little and too late. It WAS the Democratic-run government that prevented the entry of the Jews and other “undesirables”. Spin it until you’re dizzy but thats how it was.
And keeping me off the golf-course is quite a bit different than refusing the refugees entry to the country when their lives literally depended on it.-
Dergon hints at this but times have changed. As I understand it in the 40’s and the past in general white people weren’t that comfortable with blacks, Jews, etc… It doesn’t seem relevant to the current immigration debate. I kind of like the Donald Trump idea. Big wall with a door for people that want to come legally.
-
walls lead to tunnels as we have already see with el chepe and in Israel
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Dergon hints at this but times have changed. As I understand it in the 40’s and the past in general white people weren’t that comfortable with blacks, Jews, etc… It doesn’t seem relevant to the current immigration debate. I kind of like the Donald Trump idea. Big wall with a door for people that want to come legally.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[link=http://www.history.ucsb.edu/faculty/marcuse/classes/33d/projects/usholo/LaurenAntisemPage.htm]http://www.history.ucsb.e…/LaurenAntisemPage.htm[/link]
[link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism_in_the_United_States]https://en.wikipedia.org/…m_in_the_United_States[/link]
According to Gilman and Katz, antisemitism increased dramatically in the 1930s with demands being made to exclude American Jews from American social, political and economic life.
[b]During the 1930s and 1940s, right-wing demagogues linked the Depression of the 1930s, the New Deal, President [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Delano_Roosevelt]Franklin Roosevelt[/link], and the threat of war in Europe to the machinations of an imagined international Jewish conspiracy that was both communist and capitalist. A new ideology appeared which accused “the Jews” of dominating Franklin Roosevelts administration, of causing the Great Depression, and of dragging the US into WW2 against a new Germany which deserved nothing but admiration. Roosevelt’s “[link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal]New Deal[/link]” was derisively referred to as the “Jew Deal”.[link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism_in_the_United_States#cite_note-GilmanKatz10-21][21][/link][/sup][/b]
[b]
[/b]
Father Charles Coughlin, a radio preacher, as well as many other prominent public figures, condemned “the Jews,” and [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford]Henry Ford[/link] reprinted [i][link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion]The Protocols of the Elders of Zion[/link][/i] in his newspaper.[link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism_in_the_United_States#cite_note-22][22][/link][/sup] [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_L._K._Smith]Gerald L. K. Smith[/link], a Disciples of Christ minister, was the founder (1937) of the Committee of One Million and publisher (beginning in 1942) of The Cross and the Flag, a magazine that declared that “Christian character is the basis of all real Americanism.” Other antisemitic agitators included [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fritz_Julius_Kuhn]Fritz Julius Kuhn[/link] of the [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German-American_Bund]German-American Bund[/link], [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Dudley_Pelley]William Dudley Pelley[/link], and the Rev. [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_Winrod]Gerald Winrod[/link].
Antisemitism in the United States was also indicated by national public opinion polls taken from the mid nineteen thirties to the late nineteen forties. The results showed that over half the American population saw Jews as greedy and dishonest. These polls also found that many Americans believed that Jews were too powerful in the United States. Similar polls were also taken, one of which posed that 3540 percent of the population was prepared to accept an anti-Jewish campaign.
In a 1938 poll, approximately 60 percent of the respondents held a low opinion of Jews, labeling them “greedy,” “dishonest,” and “pushy.”[link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism_in_the_United_States#cite_note-24][24][/link][/sup] 41 percent of respondents agreed that Jews had “too much power in the United States,” and this figure rose to 58 percent by 1945. In 1939 a [link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elmo_Roper]Roper[/link] poll found that only thirty-nine percent of Americans felt that Jews should be treated like other people. Fifty-three percent believed that “Jews are different and should be restricted” and ten percent believed that Jews should be deported.[link=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_antisemitism_in_the_United_States#cite_note-Smitha-25][25][/link][/sup] [b]Several surveys taken from 1940 to 1946 found that Jews were seen as a greater threat to the welfare of the United States than any other national, religious, or racial group.[/b]
-
No doubt true. But then FDR and friends jumped right in there.
If you’ve found similar polls for the opinions about Jews today, don’t post them. I don’t think they will be very encouraging.
-
-
Keep digging, GOP! 🙂
[url=http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/08/19/ia-radio-host-jan-mickelson-enslave-undocumente/205020]IA Radio Host Jan Mickelson: Enslave Undocumented Immigrants Unless They Leave[/url]
Iowa radio host and influential conservative kingmaker Jan Mickelson unveiled an immigration plan that would make undocumented immigrants who don’t leave the country after an allotted time “property of the state,” asking, “What’s wrong with slavery?” when a caller criticized his plan.
On the August 17 edition of his radio show, Mickelson announced that he had a plan to drive undocumented immigrants out of Iowa that involved making those who don’t leave “property of the state” who are forced into “compelled labor,” like building a wall on the US-Mexican border. Listen (emphasis added in transcript.
…”anyone who is in the state of Iowa that who is not here legally and who cannot demonstrate their legal status to the satisfaction of the local and state authorities here in the State of Iowa, become property of the State of Iowa.’ So if you are here without our permission, and we have given you two months to leave, and you’re still here, and we find that you’re still here after we we’ve given you the deadline to leave, then you become property of the State of Iowa. And we have a job for you. And we start using compelled labor, the people who are here illegally would therefore be owned by the state and become an asset of the state rather than a liability and we start inventing jobs for them to do.”
-
WOW
I am speechless-
Insanity.
-
-
-
[url=http://www.businessinsider.com/republicans-could-have-avoided-the-whole-donald-trump-disaster-2015-8]Republicans could have avoided the whole Donald Trump disaster[/url]
In July of 2013, House Speaker John Boehner strongly suggested that he would hold a vote on some kind of bill that included legalization, in order to “find out” whether it could pass the House. In January of 2014, House GOP leaders rolled out a set of broad principles that included a path to legal status.These were real steps forward for a party whose nominee had embraced self-deportation less than two years earlier. In the spring of 2014, Boehner even mocked fellow Republicans for their reluctance to embrace reform, mimicking them as follows: “Ohhhh. Don’t make me do this. Ohhhh. This is too hard.”
{but conservatives revolted}
To be fair, it’s hard to know for certain if passing reform then would have led to less fertile soil for Trump-ism to take root later. It’s a counter-factual, and Trump-ism appears to have many causes. But it’s hardly an unreasonable suggestion. Imagine if House Republicans had simply held a vote on the Senate immigration bill, passing it with a lot of Dems, or had passed their own proposals and entered into conference negotiations that resulted in a bill that included legalization. The resulting measure would have meant enormous new investments in border security that would have carried and this is a crucial point bipartisan buy-in.
The party has long been split between those who can’t accept legalization under any circumstances (or unless some undefined ideal of border security has been attained first), and those who are willing to enter with Democrats into some kind of compromise that exchanges more border investments for concurrent legalization, under strict conditions. The former group of Republicans got their way. The latter group of Republicans didn’t. They declined to pursue that compromise. Even though they themselves knew that their punt could result in an outcome like the one Trump has bought us today.
-
When are you guys going to understand that the silent majority is there, is real, and the elites are going to pay?
Trump is popular not because he’s crazy. It’s because what he says makes sense. He’s gonna get Democratic votes too. Why? He’s better for jobs and most Americans, even union guys also realize he’s a no BS guy that tells it how it is.
Watch.-
When are you going to realize this more than a year from the election. And most of this is just noise
The primaries haven’t even started yet and the crazies are dominating the talk
The only election trump will win is the Midwest Jerry springer fan club election. That’s it. He wont win Jack Squat Nationwide-
Quote from kpack123
When are you going to realize this more than a year from the election. And most of this is just noise
The primaries haven’t even started yet and the crazies are dominating the talk
The only election trump will win is the Midwest Jerry springer fan club election. That’s it. He wont win Jack Squat Nationwide
Maybe. There are some who are betting Trump could win. Or at least disrupt everything. The Establishment is losing control if they haven’t already by loosing the demons it though it could control. Sounds like an old story.
[link=https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/roundtable-is-the-republican-establishment-losing-control-of-the-party/]https://fivethirtyeight.c…-control-of-the-party/[/link]-
Yup
4 years ago Newt Santorum and 9-9-9 were all going to win too
a few years back Pat Buchanan was going to win
The crazies always control the Republican party before the primaries start
-
But who is coming out the other end if not Trump & what will the platform be? Trump just dragged the GOP even further to the Right. Even The Federalist asks as the conservative writer Ben Domenech wrote in an essay last week, Are Republicans for freedom or white identity politics?
-
-
-
-
Quote from Cigar
When are you guys going to understand that the silent majority is there, is real, and the elites are going to pay?
Nixon? You are using Nixon’s gimmick phrase? What’s next a new variation of CREEP? Enemies list? Plumbers? Operation Sandwedge?
We know how that turned out.
-
-
-
Quote from Cigar
When are you guys going to understand that the silent majority is there, is real, and the elites are going to pay?
Trump is popular not because he’s crazy. It’s because what he says makes sense. He’s gonna get Democratic votes too. Why? He’s better for jobs and most Americans, even union guys also realize he’s a no BS guy that tells it how it is.
Watch.
Donald Trump could get a majority …. of white men.
But that’s about it. He has no hope with the black vote. He will lose the Latino vote by 50 points points or more. He will lose women by 10 points.
Should Donald Trump somehow end up the GOP nominee all of that translates into a landslide Democratic electoral victory. -
NPR: [url=http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/09/15/440524281/from-california-a-warning-to-republicans-on-anti-immigration-rhetoric]California’s Prop 187 serves as a warning to Republicans on national immigration policy[/url]
{GOP) talk about immigration echoes what Californians heard in the 1990s. That’s when Proposition 187, a ballot measure viewed as strongly anti-immigrant, was a key to the re-election of California’s Republican Gov. Pete Wilson. Anyone who was in California in 1994 probably remembers the infamous campaign commercial for Wilson’s re-election. “They keep coming,” intoned the narrator over grainy black and white video of people dashing into traffic, as they cross the border from Mexico. “Two million illegal immigrants in California,” he says over ominous music.
…
And over the past two decades, Republican registration in California has plummeted. It’s now just 28 percent. Political scientist David Damore traces the party’s decline to the 187 campaign. Now all California statewide offices from governor to insurance commissioner are held by Democrats. Democrats also have overwhelming majorities in both houses of the state Legislature and in California’s congressional delegation.
…
But with Donald Trump leading in the polls, it’s undeniable that the talk about illegal immigration has struck a chord with part of the Republican base, said {GOP political strategist Reed} Galen. “Do I believe that it has the ability to derail the party?” he asks. “Absolutely. Is it a long-term concern? Absolutely.” But in the short term it’s hard to get candidates to think about anything but winning the nomination.
-
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/10/us/politics/appeals-court-deals-blow-to-obamas-immigration-plans.html]Appeals Court Deals Blow to Obamas Immigration Plans[/url]
A federal appeals court said Monday that President Obama could not move forward with his plans to overhaul immigration rules by providing up to five million people with work permits and protection from deportation. A three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, ruled 2 to 1 against an appeal by the Obama administration, saying a lawsuit brought by 26 states to block Mr. Obamas actions was likely to succeed at trial.
The ruling is the latest blow to the presidents efforts to circumvent congressional inaction on immigration by using the power of his office to reshape the way immigration laws are enforced.
Writing for the two judges in the majority, Judge Jerry E. Smith found that Texas had established that it was in a strong legal position to bring the lawsuit because it would be harmed by new costs for issuing drivers licenses to immigrants. He also found that the program would undercut the will of Congress. Congress did not intend to make immune from judicial review an agency action that reclassifies millions of illegal aliens in a way that imposes substantial costs on states, Judge Smith wrote. He rejected the administrations argument that the program was just an expansion of an immigration enforcement policy intended to make efficient use of limited resources.
-
It was expected.
-
It was expected.
-
So the costs of issuing licenses is harmful to states, but the cost of requiring licenses to vote is not harmful to individuals…meanwhile bringing them out of the shadow to obtain a license would be a boom to the insurance industry and would increase the number with “skin in the game”.
Other than that the ruling is essentially moot since Congresss does not appropriate sufficient funds to deport non-violent illegal immigrants anyway-
Trump praises Eisenhower’s [url=http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/11/11/455613993/it-came-up-in-the-debate-here-are-3-things-to-know-about-operation-wetback] “Operation Wetback”[/url] during the debate.
Keep on digging, GOP. Kasich and Bush with the only reasonable positions on immigration.
-
-
-
-
