Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Humanitarian crisis at US border (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Rove!
- Start date
jonessed
Footballguy
You would think they would be more concerned with their urban killing fields.Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
Hot Diggity Dog
Footballguy
No the community they are from votes democratic reliable at a 90 plus percentage rate. #### them and their problems.You would think they would be more concerned with their urban killing fields.Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
timschochet
Footballguy
Yeah #### the little children. Great attitude.No the community they are from votes democratic reliable at a 90 plus percentage rate. #### them and their problems.You would think they would be more concerned with their urban killing fields.Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
timschochet
Footballguy
Link? I think he was speaking about the Dream Act, and illegal immigrants who have served in the military, NOT the children at the border.Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
timschochet
Footballguy
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-readies-executive-action-to-legalize-millions-of-undocumented-immigrants/2014/08/01/222ae2e8-18f8-11e4-85b6-c1451e622637_story.html
President Obama is preparing to announce new measures that would potentially allow millions of illegal immigrants to remain in the United States without fear of deportation, a politically explosive decision that could jolt Washington just weeks before the midterm elections, according to people who have been in touch with the White House.
Administration officials have told allies in private meetings that both the current surge of Central American children crossing the border and Congress’s failure this year to pass a broader immigration overhaul have propelled the president toward taking action on his own by summer’s end.
Obama aides have discussed a range of options that could provide legal protections and work permits to a significant portion of the nation’s more than 11 million undocumented residents, said Democratic lawmakers and immigrant advocates who have met recently with White House officials. Ideas under consideration could include temporary relief for law-abiding undocumented immigrants who are closely related to U.S. citizens or those who have lived in the country a certain number of years — a population that advocates say could reach as high as 5 million.
Some Senate Democrats running for reelection in traditionally conservative states, such as Arkansas and Louisiana, have expressed misgivings about Obama going too far on his immigration order, fearing it will not play well among voters in their states.
But supporters of executive action said the president has little to lose by embracing a broad legalization program that could become a signature achievement in a second term defined by legislative gridlock on Capitol Hill.
Though politically charged, such a move would allow Obama to present a sharp contrast with Republicans — who have remained staunchly opposed to loosening immigration enforcement — and cement Hispanic support for the Democratic Party for years to come, supporters said.
Obama appeared to relish the differences between the two parties that were evident Friday, as the Republican-led House struggled to pass a border funding measure and then voted to roll back Obama’s 2012 program that deferred deportations of many immigrants who had been brought to the country illegally as children. Obama’s program has been popular with Hispanic voters and was seen as a key factor in his ability to win 70 percent of that crucial electorate in his reelection.
Calling the House measure “extreme and unworkable,” Obama signaled in a news conference that he believes Congress has opened the door for him to act.
“House Republicans suggested that since they don’t expect to pass a bill I can sign, that I should go ahead and act on my own to solve the problem,” Obama said.
The anticipation that Obama is preparing to sign off on a major expansion of the 2012 relief program — which has delayed deportations of more than 550,000 younger immigrants — has prompted Republicans to begin framing such a move as more evidence of an imperial White House intent on circumventing Congress.
The House GOP already has approved a lawsuit accusing Obama of abusing his authority, focused on the administration’s implementation of his signature health-care law. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a leading opponent of loosening immigration laws, warned this week that a large-scale “administrative amnesty” would trigger a confrontation with Congress, saying in a floor speech: “Do not do this, Mr. President. You cannot do this.”
White House officials emphasized that Obama has not made a final decision, noting that aides are still working on a formal menu of options for him on potential policy changes. But the president’s general counsel, chief domestic policy adviser and Homeland Security secretary have been closely involved with the internal deliberations, as the administration maps out the implications of the president’s next move.
During a series of private meetings at the White House, Obama’s advisers have peppered immigration lawyers and advocates with questions in an attempt to define a broader population of immigrants that might be eligible for a similar kind of relief that was granted to the young immigrants in 2012, a program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
The discussions, according to those involved, have included a focus on the estimated 4 million to 5 million illegal immigrants whose children are either U.S. citizens or current beneficiaries of the 2012 deferred action program. Another area of focus was on how long an immigrant must live in the United States to establish deep ties.
“They didn’t say no to the things we were raising,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, who attended one of the meetings last week. “The conversation was about the need for the program to be as bold as possible.”
Hispanic lawmakers and labor leaders also have urged Obama and his top aides to pursue a broad legalization. Additional support could come from business leaders should Obama decide to use his executive powers to make more foreign-worker visas available for high-tech and agriculture firms.
Lawmakers and activists have argued that the political upsides far outweigh the potential backlash from critics.
“The president is going to get the same amount of grief from the right no matter what he does, whether it’s small or whether it’s bold,” said Richard L. Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, which has been aligned with immigration advocates. “The difference is, if it’s small, it’s not going to energize his base. If it’s bold, it will.”
Administration lawyers are examining complicated legal questions in assessing just how far the president can go to replicate the deferred-action program he put in place in 2012 for young people.
That initiative allows immigrants who arrived as children before 2007 to apply for two-year waivers on their deportations and gain work permits and, in some cases, drivers’ licenses. But while children are less culpable for their parents’ decision to bring them to the United States illegally, the same argument cannot be made for the adults themselves.
Janet Napolitano, the former Homeland Security secretary, said in an interview that officials determined the program was legal because it applied discretion to a specific category in order to alleviate administrative backlogs and did not provide an across-the-board change in legal status. Additional administration policies called for prioritizing deportations of immigrants who had committed felonies or were seen as safety or security risks.
“The question was, ‘What can you do that’s not just blanket amnesty? What can you do within existing law?’ ” said Napolitano, now the president of the University of California system. The program “was an individual, case-by-case review, but it’s done for a category.”
The administration has ruled out protecting all of the nation’s undocumented immigrants. Congress has allocated resources to deport about 400,000 immigrants a year, and the Obama administration has averaged about that many, according to government statistics.
Inside the West Wing, there was renewed urgency after House Republicans feuded this week over providing emergency funding to deal with the influx of tens of thousands of foreign minors who have entered the country illegally this year. Obama and his aides have begun to make the case that the administration’s limited resources are better spent on the border crisis than deporting immigrants who have lived in the country for years and established deep ties here.
“That will create space for him to go big on administrative action,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, an immigrant rights group. “It could be one of the defining moments of his second term, if not his presidency.”
Republicans “want to take away the single greatest victory for the immigrant rights movement in the last two decades,” said Lorella Praeli, director of advocacy for United We Dream. “I don’t think the president has any option to do anything other than something that’s big and bold.”
President Obama is preparing to announce new measures that would potentially allow millions of illegal immigrants to remain in the United States without fear of deportation, a politically explosive decision that could jolt Washington just weeks before the midterm elections, according to people who have been in touch with the White House.
Administration officials have told allies in private meetings that both the current surge of Central American children crossing the border and Congress’s failure this year to pass a broader immigration overhaul have propelled the president toward taking action on his own by summer’s end.
Obama aides have discussed a range of options that could provide legal protections and work permits to a significant portion of the nation’s more than 11 million undocumented residents, said Democratic lawmakers and immigrant advocates who have met recently with White House officials. Ideas under consideration could include temporary relief for law-abiding undocumented immigrants who are closely related to U.S. citizens or those who have lived in the country a certain number of years — a population that advocates say could reach as high as 5 million.
Some Senate Democrats running for reelection in traditionally conservative states, such as Arkansas and Louisiana, have expressed misgivings about Obama going too far on his immigration order, fearing it will not play well among voters in their states.
But supporters of executive action said the president has little to lose by embracing a broad legalization program that could become a signature achievement in a second term defined by legislative gridlock on Capitol Hill.
Though politically charged, such a move would allow Obama to present a sharp contrast with Republicans — who have remained staunchly opposed to loosening immigration enforcement — and cement Hispanic support for the Democratic Party for years to come, supporters said.
Obama appeared to relish the differences between the two parties that were evident Friday, as the Republican-led House struggled to pass a border funding measure and then voted to roll back Obama’s 2012 program that deferred deportations of many immigrants who had been brought to the country illegally as children. Obama’s program has been popular with Hispanic voters and was seen as a key factor in his ability to win 70 percent of that crucial electorate in his reelection.
Calling the House measure “extreme and unworkable,” Obama signaled in a news conference that he believes Congress has opened the door for him to act.
“House Republicans suggested that since they don’t expect to pass a bill I can sign, that I should go ahead and act on my own to solve the problem,” Obama said.
The anticipation that Obama is preparing to sign off on a major expansion of the 2012 relief program — which has delayed deportations of more than 550,000 younger immigrants — has prompted Republicans to begin framing such a move as more evidence of an imperial White House intent on circumventing Congress.
The House GOP already has approved a lawsuit accusing Obama of abusing his authority, focused on the administration’s implementation of his signature health-care law. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), a leading opponent of loosening immigration laws, warned this week that a large-scale “administrative amnesty” would trigger a confrontation with Congress, saying in a floor speech: “Do not do this, Mr. President. You cannot do this.”
White House officials emphasized that Obama has not made a final decision, noting that aides are still working on a formal menu of options for him on potential policy changes. But the president’s general counsel, chief domestic policy adviser and Homeland Security secretary have been closely involved with the internal deliberations, as the administration maps out the implications of the president’s next move.
During a series of private meetings at the White House, Obama’s advisers have peppered immigration lawyers and advocates with questions in an attempt to define a broader population of immigrants that might be eligible for a similar kind of relief that was granted to the young immigrants in 2012, a program called Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals.
The discussions, according to those involved, have included a focus on the estimated 4 million to 5 million illegal immigrants whose children are either U.S. citizens or current beneficiaries of the 2012 deferred action program. Another area of focus was on how long an immigrant must live in the United States to establish deep ties.
“They didn’t say no to the things we were raising,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, who attended one of the meetings last week. “The conversation was about the need for the program to be as bold as possible.”
Hispanic lawmakers and labor leaders also have urged Obama and his top aides to pursue a broad legalization. Additional support could come from business leaders should Obama decide to use his executive powers to make more foreign-worker visas available for high-tech and agriculture firms.
Lawmakers and activists have argued that the political upsides far outweigh the potential backlash from critics.
“The president is going to get the same amount of grief from the right no matter what he does, whether it’s small or whether it’s bold,” said Richard L. Trumka, president of the AFL-CIO, which has been aligned with immigration advocates. “The difference is, if it’s small, it’s not going to energize his base. If it’s bold, it will.”
Administration lawyers are examining complicated legal questions in assessing just how far the president can go to replicate the deferred-action program he put in place in 2012 for young people.
That initiative allows immigrants who arrived as children before 2007 to apply for two-year waivers on their deportations and gain work permits and, in some cases, drivers’ licenses. But while children are less culpable for their parents’ decision to bring them to the United States illegally, the same argument cannot be made for the adults themselves.
Janet Napolitano, the former Homeland Security secretary, said in an interview that officials determined the program was legal because it applied discretion to a specific category in order to alleviate administrative backlogs and did not provide an across-the-board change in legal status. Additional administration policies called for prioritizing deportations of immigrants who had committed felonies or were seen as safety or security risks.
“The question was, ‘What can you do that’s not just blanket amnesty? What can you do within existing law?’ ” said Napolitano, now the president of the University of California system. The program “was an individual, case-by-case review, but it’s done for a category.”
The administration has ruled out protecting all of the nation’s undocumented immigrants. Congress has allocated resources to deport about 400,000 immigrants a year, and the Obama administration has averaged about that many, according to government statistics.
Inside the West Wing, there was renewed urgency after House Republicans feuded this week over providing emergency funding to deal with the influx of tens of thousands of foreign minors who have entered the country illegally this year. Obama and his aides have begun to make the case that the administration’s limited resources are better spent on the border crisis than deporting immigrants who have lived in the country for years and established deep ties here.
“That will create space for him to go big on administrative action,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of America’s Voice, an immigrant rights group. “It could be one of the defining moments of his second term, if not his presidency.”
Republicans “want to take away the single greatest victory for the immigrant rights movement in the last two decades,” said Lorella Praeli, director of advocacy for United We Dream. “I don’t think the president has any option to do anything other than something that’s big and bold.”
timschochet
Footballguy
Wow. This would be incredibly brave and gutsy of Obama. 
I can't link a local news broadcast. I'd be curious to know how you know about this particular statement and its context. Because the local news was talking about the controversy around here over Rahm agreeing to take in a bunch of these particular kids NOT the Dream Act and illegal immigrants who served in the military.Link? I think he was speaking about the Dream Act, and illegal immigrants who have served in the military, NOT the children at the border.Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
Or are you just talking out your ### again?
Gary Coal Man
Footballguy
1. It's pretty obvious that Dog wasn't talking about "the little children" at the border, but instead was sarcastically saying what the Senator may be thinking: #### the black people in the "urban killing fields" because they'll vote Democrat anyway.Yeah #### the little children. Great attitude.No the community they are from votes democratic reliable at a 90 plus percentage rate. #### them and their problems.You would think they would be more concerned with their urban killing fields.Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
2. Pull your head out of your ### and stop falling for propaganda if you think the border crisis is almost exclusively little children.
Sure you may have misconstrued Dog and mistakes do happen, but at least you still got your sanctimony in.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Perhaps. Likely also illegal. And certainly hypocritical of him to continually berate the GOP House for passing bills that they know won't pass the Senate, while giving the Senate a pass for passing bills that they know won't pass the House.Wow. This would be incredibly brave and gutsy of Obama.
timschochet
Footballguy
I googled **** Durbin and your quote, and what I came up with is a couple articles from a May speech in which he called illegals who served in the armed forces a "pool of talent". He was promoting the Dream Act.I can't link a local news broadcast. I'd be curious to know how you know about this particular statement and its context. Because the local news was talking about the controversy around here over Rahm agreeing to take in a bunch of these particular kids NOT the Dream Act and illegal immigrants who served in the military.Or are you just talking out your ### again?Link? I think he was speaking about the Dream Act, and illegal immigrants who have served in the military, NOT the children at the border.Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
timschochet
Footballguy
When the Senate passed immigration reform, I think there was reasonable expectation that the House might pass it too at the time. The media regarded it as a hard but not impossible fight. I don't see the relevance between that and some of the ridiculous votes the Housr has had for show. I don't know enough to judge whether or not Obama's action would be illegal. I hope you're wrong.Perhaps. Likely also illegal. And certainly hypocritical of him to continually berate the GOP House for passing bills that they know won't pass the Senate, while giving the Senate a pass for passing bills that they know won't pass the House.Wow. This would be incredibly brave and gutsy of Obama.
So, nothing to do with his comments yesterday.I googled **** Durbin and your quote, and what I came up with is a couple articles from a May speech in which he called illegals who served in the armed forces a "pool of talent". He was promoting the Dream Act.I can't link a local news broadcast. I'd be curious to know how you know about this particular statement and its context. Because the local news was talking about the controversy around here over Rahm agreeing to take in a bunch of these particular kids NOT the Dream Act and illegal immigrants who served in the military.Or are you just talking out your ### again?Link? I think he was speaking about the Dream Act, and illegal immigrants who have served in the military, NOT the children at the border.Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
Hot Diggity Dog
Footballguy
Thank you. And importing a pool of talent further neglects the pool of talent we have here. The huge unemployment problems in the African American community could be helped if we shut down the border and created a higher demand for labor in trades and jobs where you can be trained on the job, thus giving poor African Americans a chance to earn a living while learning a skill that some of them would use to start businesses, move up the socioeconomic ladder etc. But hey what do I know? I'm not a senator.Gary Coal Man said:1. It's pretty obvious that Dog wasn't talking about "the little children" at the border, but instead was sarcastically saying what the Senator may be thinking: #### the black people in the "urban killing fields" because they'll vote Democrat anyway.2. Pull your head out of your ### and stop falling for propaganda if you think the border crisis is almost exclusively little children.timschochet said:Yeah #### the little children. Great attitude.Hot Diggity Dog said:No the community they are from votes democratic reliable at a 90 plus percentage rate. #### them and their problems.jonessed said:You would think they would be more concerned with their urban killing fields.Christo said:Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
Sure you may have misconstrued Dog and mistakes do happen, but at least you still got your sanctimony in.
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
How about poor people in general?Thank you.And importing a pool of talent further neglects the pool of talent we have here. The huge unemployment problems in the African American community could be helped if we shut down the border and created a higher demand for labor in trades and jobs where you can be trained on the job, thus giving poor African Americans a chance to earn a living while learning a skill that some of them would use to start businesses, move up the socioeconomic ladder etc. But hey what do I know? I'm not a senator.Gary Coal Man said:1. It's pretty obvious that Dog wasn't talking about "the little children" at the border, but instead was sarcastically saying what the Senator may be thinking: #### the black people in the "urban killing fields" because they'll vote Democrat anyway.2. Pull your head out of your ### and stop falling for propaganda if you think the border crisis is almost exclusively little children.timschochet said:Yeah #### the little children. Great attitude.Hot Diggity Dog said:No the community they are from votes democratic reliable at a 90 plus percentage rate. #### them and their problems.jonessed said:You would think they would be more concerned with their urban killing fields.Christo said:Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
Sure you may have misconstrued Dog and mistakes do happen, but at least you still got your sanctimony in.
timschochet
Footballguy
The point is, I couldn't find any of his comments from yesterday. But it seems odd that he would refer to children in that manner. (Though I would agree with him if he did.)Christo said:So, nothing to do with his comments yesterday.timschochet said:I googled **** Durbin and your quote, and what I came up with is a couple articles from a May speech in which he called illegals who served in the armed forces a "pool of talent". He was promoting the Dream Act.Christo said:I can't link a local news broadcast. I'd be curious to know how you know about this particular statement and its context. Because the local news was talking about the controversy around here over Rahm agreeing to take in a bunch of these particular kids NOT the Dream Act and illegal immigrants who served in the military.Or are you just talking out your ### again?timschochet said:Link? I think he was speaking about the Dream Act, and illegal immigrants who have served in the military, NOT the children at the border.Christo said:Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
timschochet
Footballguy
Strongly disagree with this assertion.Thank you.And importing a pool of talent further neglects the pool of talent we have here. The huge unemployment problems in the African American community could be helped if we shut down the border and created a higher demand for labor in trades and jobs where you can be trained on the job, thus giving poor African Americans a chance to earn a living while learning a skill that some of them would use to start businesses, move up the socioeconomic ladder etc. But hey what do I know? I'm not a senator.Gary Coal Man said:1. It's pretty obvious that Dog wasn't talking about "the little children" at the border, but instead was sarcastically saying what the Senator may be thinking: #### the black people in the "urban killing fields" because they'll vote Democrat anyway.2. Pull your head out of your ### and stop falling for propaganda if you think the border crisis is almost exclusively little children.timschochet said:Yeah #### the little children. Great attitude.Hot Diggity Dog said:No the community they are from votes democratic reliable at a 90 plus percentage rate. #### them and their problems.jonessed said:You would think they would be more concerned with their urban killing fields.Christo said:Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
Sure you may have misconstrued Dog and mistakes do happen, but at least you still got your sanctimony in.
When you limit immigration in order to "protect" jobs already here, it's no different from attempting to limit free trade in order to protect jobs already here. In both cases, you're effectively taxing the consumer, and creating a black market and corruption. Open immigration is an essential element of capitalism. Without it, you're imposing a statist society.
jonessed
Footballguy
We are already taxing the consumer by supplementing income.
You continuously pick and choose what parts of free market capitalism you feel like supporting. There is a balance between handouts/safety nets and immigration. The more social welfare there is the more expensive importing poverty becomes.
Scandinavia is already at a net negative. For every immigrant they take in they collectively get poorer.
I'm all for increasing immigration of educated people. That's a win/win. I see no reason why we should make it so easy for poor people to migrate and so difficult for educated people. It makes no sense.
You continuously pick and choose what parts of free market capitalism you feel like supporting. There is a balance between handouts/safety nets and immigration. The more social welfare there is the more expensive importing poverty becomes.
Scandinavia is already at a net negative. For every immigrant they take in they collectively get poorer.
I'm all for increasing immigration of educated people. That's a win/win. I see no reason why we should make it so easy for poor people to migrate and so difficult for educated people. It makes no sense.
timschochet
Footballguy
This is true. My argument is that so long as we support the foundations, it pays for the rest.
The welfare system that so many conservatives care about; that's not a foundation. Free medical care, public schools, Social Security, welfare- these are unimportant to the system. They are all investments which have a net positive value. The foundations to capitalism are free trade, relatively low taxation, and relatively low regulation. So long as we have these in play, the system will continue to thrive.
Immigration is an essential element of free trade. Your call for educated immigrants is irrelevant, because the market will decide that.
jonessed
Footballguy
Dondante
Footballguy
Unless you depend on their votes. Or in tim's case, the attention derived from poorly crafted arguments about their significance.
timschochet
Footballguy
Sorry you think my arguments are poorly crafted. I will try to post some better ones, from minds far sharper than mine. Starting with this from The Cato Institute:
The Conservative Case for Immigration Reform
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/conservative-case-immigration-reform
The debate over immigration reform, intensified by the surge of unaccompanied child migrants at the U.S.–Mexico border, has many conservatives worried. Republican strategist Lanhee Chen explained that conservative opposition to immigration reform in the United States “is a very visceral reaction to what America should be about.” According to conservative opponents of immigration reform, immigrants will change America.
Reforming our immigration system to allow more immigration would indeed mark a significant change. But far from representing a liberal diversion from American principles, such reform would marginally change America back to the way it used to be.
It’s important to understand how America’s immigration laws have changed over time. The first naturalization law, passed in 1790, did not put any restrictions on immigration. It wasn’t until 1882 that Congress, in its first major legislative restriction, passed a blanket ban on Chinese immigrants. Over the next 40 years, Congress passed laws banning immigration of the Japanese and illiterates, and it imposed low quotas on immigration from European countries whose members were supposedly “unassimilable” — all at the insistence of nationalists, labor unions, progressives, and eugenicists.
“The U.S. should deregulate worker migration and allow more legal immigration.”
Few people would argue for a return to the completely free immigration system set up by the Founders, or for the kind of restrictions that existed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Sensible approaches to immigration, however, are to be found in our not-so-distant past.
During the 1950s, the Bracero guest-worker visa program channeled migrants into a legal and regulated market, shrinking the illegal-immigrant population by 90 percent. The Border Patrol handed visas to migrant workers when they entered and sometimes even gave illegal immigrants work visas after they were discovered working on American farms. Instead of building fences or putting troops on the border, the Bracero program welcomed migrants willing to work in the legal migration system of the time. Such a system does not exist today.
Some small reforms and a few tweaks to our current system — such as allowing migrant workers to easily switch jobs, removing quotas, removing or streamlining minimum-wage regulations that apply to migrants, and allowing more sectors of the economy to hire migrant workers — could recreate a workable migration system like the one we had in the heyday of the Eisenhower administration.
Conservatism is not an ideology that opposes all change. It is a reformist ideology that supports measured and practical changes based on our experiences, history, and institutions. It opposes social experiments that radically depart from the past but seeks to adjust our laws to better fit the realities of today, with a firm grounding in our institutions and traditions. Such a pragmatic and measured approach should lead conservatives to support immigration reform — at least in the direction of allowing more lawful immigration and guest-worker visas.
The immigration restrictions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were a vast social-engineering experiment that departed from America’s traditional open immigration policy. In contrast, allowing immigration to mostly be guided by the market would be a rejection of the social-engineering impulse that arose out of the Progressive era.
Those restrictions caused the percentage of the country that was foreign-born to fall from around 14 percent in 1920 to 4.4 percent in 1965. Falling immigration levels over that period allowed for mass unionization, and, as historian Vernon M. Briggs Jr. argues, thereby enabled the New Deal and Great Society programs to be enacted.
Furthermore, opponents of immigration reform should consider that from 1860 to 1920 about 14 percent of America’s population was foreign-born — compared with 13 percent today. American institutions and traditions aided in the assimilation of immigrants and their descendants in the past. The fast rate of cultural, linguistic, and economic assimilation among today’s immigrants found by Duke University’s Jacob Vigdor indicates that those American institutions and traditions of assimilation are thriving — even for the 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants here.
Conservatives who oppose deregulating the immigration system have some allies on the other side of the political spectrum. While America’s labor unions support legalizing the unlawful immigrants already here, they have supported even more restrictions on future migration of workers. Unions can bargain only by limiting the supply of workers available to employers, which is the root of their longstanding opposition to looser immigration policies.
American history and the opposition to worker migration from the Left indicate that the conservative approach to reforming immigration should be to deregulate worker migration to allow more workers to come legally.
Such an approach has two benefits. The first is that it drives a wedge between Democratic politicians, who want to liberalize future immigration, and their labor-union supporters, who want to further restrict immigration. The second is that it embraces the most important aspect of America’s traditional immigration system: the principle that this country is willing to accept immigrants who will work.
Increasing immigration levels would be a return to the status quo that reigned for most of our nation’s existence. Rather than opposing this return to normality, conservatives should embrace it and push for deregulation that allows foreign workers to legally migrate here.
The Conservative Case for Immigration Reform
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/conservative-case-immigration-reform
The debate over immigration reform, intensified by the surge of unaccompanied child migrants at the U.S.–Mexico border, has many conservatives worried. Republican strategist Lanhee Chen explained that conservative opposition to immigration reform in the United States “is a very visceral reaction to what America should be about.” According to conservative opponents of immigration reform, immigrants will change America.
Reforming our immigration system to allow more immigration would indeed mark a significant change. But far from representing a liberal diversion from American principles, such reform would marginally change America back to the way it used to be.
It’s important to understand how America’s immigration laws have changed over time. The first naturalization law, passed in 1790, did not put any restrictions on immigration. It wasn’t until 1882 that Congress, in its first major legislative restriction, passed a blanket ban on Chinese immigrants. Over the next 40 years, Congress passed laws banning immigration of the Japanese and illiterates, and it imposed low quotas on immigration from European countries whose members were supposedly “unassimilable” — all at the insistence of nationalists, labor unions, progressives, and eugenicists.
“The U.S. should deregulate worker migration and allow more legal immigration.”
Few people would argue for a return to the completely free immigration system set up by the Founders, or for the kind of restrictions that existed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Sensible approaches to immigration, however, are to be found in our not-so-distant past.
During the 1950s, the Bracero guest-worker visa program channeled migrants into a legal and regulated market, shrinking the illegal-immigrant population by 90 percent. The Border Patrol handed visas to migrant workers when they entered and sometimes even gave illegal immigrants work visas after they were discovered working on American farms. Instead of building fences or putting troops on the border, the Bracero program welcomed migrants willing to work in the legal migration system of the time. Such a system does not exist today.
Some small reforms and a few tweaks to our current system — such as allowing migrant workers to easily switch jobs, removing quotas, removing or streamlining minimum-wage regulations that apply to migrants, and allowing more sectors of the economy to hire migrant workers — could recreate a workable migration system like the one we had in the heyday of the Eisenhower administration.
Conservatism is not an ideology that opposes all change. It is a reformist ideology that supports measured and practical changes based on our experiences, history, and institutions. It opposes social experiments that radically depart from the past but seeks to adjust our laws to better fit the realities of today, with a firm grounding in our institutions and traditions. Such a pragmatic and measured approach should lead conservatives to support immigration reform — at least in the direction of allowing more lawful immigration and guest-worker visas.
The immigration restrictions of the late 19th and early 20th centuries were a vast social-engineering experiment that departed from America’s traditional open immigration policy. In contrast, allowing immigration to mostly be guided by the market would be a rejection of the social-engineering impulse that arose out of the Progressive era.
Those restrictions caused the percentage of the country that was foreign-born to fall from around 14 percent in 1920 to 4.4 percent in 1965. Falling immigration levels over that period allowed for mass unionization, and, as historian Vernon M. Briggs Jr. argues, thereby enabled the New Deal and Great Society programs to be enacted.
Furthermore, opponents of immigration reform should consider that from 1860 to 1920 about 14 percent of America’s population was foreign-born — compared with 13 percent today. American institutions and traditions aided in the assimilation of immigrants and their descendants in the past. The fast rate of cultural, linguistic, and economic assimilation among today’s immigrants found by Duke University’s Jacob Vigdor indicates that those American institutions and traditions of assimilation are thriving — even for the 11 to 12 million illegal immigrants here.
Conservatives who oppose deregulating the immigration system have some allies on the other side of the political spectrum. While America’s labor unions support legalizing the unlawful immigrants already here, they have supported even more restrictions on future migration of workers. Unions can bargain only by limiting the supply of workers available to employers, which is the root of their longstanding opposition to looser immigration policies.
American history and the opposition to worker migration from the Left indicate that the conservative approach to reforming immigration should be to deregulate worker migration to allow more workers to come legally.
Such an approach has two benefits. The first is that it drives a wedge between Democratic politicians, who want to liberalize future immigration, and their labor-union supporters, who want to further restrict immigration. The second is that it embraces the most important aspect of America’s traditional immigration system: the principle that this country is willing to accept immigrants who will work.
Increasing immigration levels would be a return to the status quo that reigned for most of our nation’s existence. Rather than opposing this return to normality, conservatives should embrace it and push for deregulation that allows foreign workers to legally migrate here.
timschochet
Footballguy
Also, for those who want to read it, here is yet another study from the Cato Institute on the fiscal costs of immigration, including illegal immigration:
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-21-fix.pdf
Like most previous studies, it contradicts most of the ridiculous assertions that people like Sarnoff have made in this thread.
http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-21-fix.pdf
Like most previous studies, it contradicts most of the ridiculous assertions that people like Sarnoff have made in this thread.
Stinger Ray
Footballguy
I didn't see any mention of "illegal" immigrants in that. It seems they only reference immigrants.
Also, did you read the summary?
"The economic benefits of immigration are unambiguous and large, but the fiscal effects
are dependent upon the specifics of government policy over a long time period, which means that
the net fiscal impact of immigration could be negative while the economic benefit is
simultaneously positive. Looking at the results of all of these studies,the fiscal impacts of
immigration are mostly positive, but they are all relatively small. They are rarely more than 1
percent of GDP in dynamic models"
"there is no strong fiscal case for or against sustained large-scale immigration"
timschochet
Footballguy
well yeah. One of the main arguments that Sarnoff has made is that a fiscal case can be made AGAINST illegal immigration. I dispute that.
Stinger Ray
Footballguy
And maybe I missed it but I didn't see any mention of "illegal" immigrants in that study.
Dondante
Footballguy
I'm all for bringing in people that want to work. Wait, no I'm not.
I'm all for opening our borders to those who:
1. can read and write in English
2. will read and write in English
3. will buy insurance
4. will buy property
5. can afford to buy property
6. will pay a higher tax rate than native Americans (based on country of origin)
7. will not support futbol
I'm all for opening our borders to those who:
1. can read and write in English
2. will read and write in English
3. will buy insurance
4. will buy property
5. can afford to buy property
6. will pay a higher tax rate than native Americans (based on country of origin)
7. will not support futbol
timschochet
Footballguy
Because libertarian think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Reason Foundation don't make that distinction.
timschochet
Footballguy
Why is any of this important? Especially the English part. What if they speak Spanish only? Why does that bother you so much?
Stinger Ray
Footballguy
And how do you know that?
It still skews the data of the impact of illegal immigration if they do. Of all the studies they referenced only two mentions illegals and one is from 1995. “Illegal Aliens: National Net Cost Estimate Vary Widely" from the General Accounting Office.
The other Congressional Budget Office. December 2007. “The Impact of Unauthorized Immigrants on the Budgets of State and Local Governments.” A CBO Paper
Last edited by a moderator:
So, let's think about this logically. Say the net benefit of legal immigration is 2% of GDP. And this report says the benefit of immigration is 1%. That would logically mean that the effect of illegal immigration would be negative, would it not? So how do you expect anyone to take this report seriously when in this thread the scope is illegal immigration ONLY? IOW, a report that covers ALL types of immigration is worthless in a discussion about illegal immigration only.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dondante
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Then maybe you should stop relying on them to support your argument for illegal immigration?
timschochet
Footballguy
I use them to bolster my argument for more open immigration. But they are also strongly for immigration reform (the amnesty kind).
Dondante
Footballguy
Because I have experience with a lot of these folks who can't comply with my rules and it's not good for America. I don't know why it seems like a good idea for this to be a safe haven for immigrants if it means everyone else has to work harder for these people's safety and wellbeing. Come on over and help out, but get insurance, speak the language, buy property and more than anything - pay taxes. A lot of taxes. They should be viewed very much like the legalization of marijuana - a golden opportunity.
Stinger Ray
Footballguy
Because of this from the summary of that study??
"there is no strong fiscal case for or against sustained large-scale immigration"
Last edited by a moderator:
Loan Sharks
Not a Wolf
You know, it's pretty bad when I don't even have to bother to fact check to know that Tim just sighted another article to support his argument that doesn't support his argument. I see this and just assume Stinger is right and Tim did it again.
It's especially egregious since Tim's entire argument is supposedly based upon the economic benefits of immigration. But, you know, does anyone really give him any credibility on this issue? I don't.
Sarnoff
Footballguy
I like how Tim keeps posting "proof" that actually proves the exact opposite of his argument. Makes my work so much easier.
The point is, I couldn't find any of his comments from yesterday. But it seems odd that he would refer to children in that manner. (Though I would agree with him if he did.)Christo said:So, nothing to do with his comments yesterday.timschochet said:I googled **** Durbin and your quote, and what I came up with is a couple articles from a May speech in which he called illegals who served in the armed forces a "pool of talent". He was promoting the Dream Act.Christo said:I can't link a local news broadcast. I'd be curious to know how you know about this particular statement and its context. Because the local news was talking about the controversy around here over Rahm agreeing to take in a bunch of these particular kids NOT the Dream Act and illegal immigrants who served in the military.Or are you just talking out your ### again?timschochet said:Link? I think he was speaking about the Dream Act, and illegal immigrants who have served in the military, NOT the children at the border.Christo said:Illinois' Senior Senator called these kids "an amazing pool of talent" today. Sure, thing, ****.
Politician Spock
Footballguy
Tim = #34 --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nr9hjssWwM
I like how Tim keeps posting "proof" that actually proves the exact opposite of his argument. Makes my work so much easier.
Tom Skerritt
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
Sarnoff
Footballguy
Tim = #34 --> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Nr9hjssWwM
I like how Tim keeps posting "proof" that actually proves the exact opposite of his argument. Makes my work so much easier.
Great block by the punter at the end there to keep the opponent from tackling #34 before he went in for the safety 
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
That must have been Gunz.Tim = #34 -->
I like how Tim keeps posting "proof" that actually proves the exact opposite of his argument. Makes my work so much easier.
timschochet
Footballguy
Sigh. The mockery of what I have attempted to argue here, is so predictable, but it's also so tiresome...
You get mocked because your arguments don't hold up to scrutiny. We've tried to point out the shortcomings of your "arguments" but if you're so obstinate that you can't understand the critiques there's really nothing left to do but mock you.
Sarnoff
Footballguy
You misunderstanding the very foundation of your argument is so predictable, but you're also so tiresome.
Similar threads
