Immigration Reform (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

First, the numbers from Tuesday:

75% of Latinos nationwide voted for Obama, the highest percentage ever (in 1996, 71% voted for Clinton.)

87% of Latinos in Colorado voted for Obama.

82% of Latinos in Ohio voted for Obama.

Obama has promised to place immigration reform high on his agenda. (He promised it last time as well, but I suspect that this time he will do it. He guaranteed it on Univision and when speaking to Latino leaders.) What the majority of Latinos want is amnesty for the 12-15 million illegal immigrants in this country. What Obama will offer them is a "Path to Citizenship", similar to the McCain-Kennedy bill of 2006 which Bush pushed for, but which collapsed in the House.

In the past, conservatives who have opposed this have been divided in their response: some argue for NO amnesty, NO path to citizenship. Others say they will consider a path to citizenship, but only AFTER the borders are secure. And since, short of building a fence, the borders will likely never be secure, this seems to be a permanent delay. Since 2006, McCain has adopted this POV, especially during his campaign for Senator in 2010. However, the results of Tuesday has sobered many Republicans- can they really allow Latinos to continue to vote Democrat in such large numbers?

On the other hand, Rush Limbaugh argued this morning that even if Republicans agreed to immigration reform, it wouldn't matter, because Latinos vote liberal because they mostly are liberal. This statement by Rush is in complete contradiction to the popular supposition that Latinos would tend to be conservative and vote that way if not for this issue. Rush argued that conservatives should hold their ground on immigration out of principle, and whatever is to be is to be.

Thoughts? How do you expect this to go down? I imagine that, after the budget, it will be THE national discussion in the coming year.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding Rush's comments: much as I dislike him, and despite the fact that I am on the opposite side of most conservatives on this issue, I think there is some validity to his point. First, I recognize that for many people opposed to some sort of amnesty, the key issue is not Latinos or the effects of immigration, but rather whether we are to be a nation of laws. I understand this, and respect it. Those that think this way and are opposed to illegal immigration, for the most part, are principled in their opposition. (There are, of course, racists also opposed, but it is unfair to characterize all opposition as racist.)

Second, though I doubt Rush is right when he claims that most Latinos are liberal anyhow, it may be too late to bring them in large numbers to the Republican party. Just as the 1964 election entrenched blacks ever since as Democrats, so the actions of the Republican party over the last several years, especially in Arizona and Alabama, may have entrenched Latinos to the Democrats. Even if the GOP were to support immigration reform, it may not be enough to break the voting stranglehold which currently exists.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

7 minutes before bumping your own thread. Impressive.

 

[timschochet]

7 minutes before bumping your own thread. Impressive.

It wasn't a bump. It was a separate thought that I didn't want to crowd the OP with.

 

[HellToupee]

I think the die has been cast. Would the Latino community migrate over if Rs agree or still look at it as a gift from the Ds?

 

[timschochet]

I think the die has been cast. Would the Latino community migrate over if Rs agree or still look at it as a gift from the Ds?

That's one question. Another question is this: if the Republican establishment (guys like Boehner) agree to this, will it be the last straw for the Tea Party? You know how they feel about this issue.

 

[jonessed]

There won't be an amnesty, but a path to citizenship for those already here is certainly possible. At least for people that can prove they came here as children.

It will have to come with some legitimate constraints in the future though. I don't believe people want a revolving amnesty door.

We really need an entire remake of our immigration policies. We make it really hard for educated people to come here and/or stay here and really easy for uneducated people. It doesn't make any sense.

 

[derek245583]

I am pretty clueless on this whole thing but how are illegal immigrants allowed to vote?

Why would a self pro claimed illegal immigrant think he deserves amnesty?

 

[snogger]

My problem with Amnesty now and in the past when Regan did it is you are basically rewarding people for breaking the law.. Your telling them, sneak into our country, work for a while and sooner or later we will offer you a path to citizenship. just seems to me..

I've always believed we need to allow more visa applications and Huntsman's ideas on college graduates being given a path to citizenship sounds good also.

Work-based immigration programs like the H-1B visa, which is a temporary program for workers with special skill sets, have to be expanded. Foreign graduates of American universities simply have to be given the opportunity to pursue U.S. citizenship. Beyond that, we must move from passively opening our arms to immigrants to actively seeking them.

Let's start by making sure that graduates of elite foreign universities who receive degrees in mathematics, science or engineering can immigrate to the U.S. if they so choose. Every U.S. Embassy should work with the private sector to continuously identify and recruit local talent. Such initiatives won't only bring talent here—they will allow us to deny it to our competitors.

But a blanket Amnesty for all that have avoided the law long enough to earn a path to citizenship, IMO, is not the right message to send.

 

[snogger]

There won't be an amnesty, but a path to citizenship for those already here is certainly possible. At least for people that can prove they came here as children.

It will have to come with some legitimate constraints in the future though. I don't believe people want a revolving amnesty door.

We really need an entire remake of our immigration policies. We make it really hard for educated people to come here and/or stay here and really easy for uneducated people. It doesn't make any sense.

to the Jon Huntsman fan club

 

[timschochet]

I am pretty clueless on this whole thing but how are illegal immigrants allowed to vote?Why would a self pro claimed illegal immigrant think he deserves amnesty?

1. Illegal immigrants are not allowed to vote.2. It doesn't matter what illegals think they deserve. What matters is what the legal Latino population in this country wants. Most of them want amnesty for illegals.

 

[Mello]

Unfortunately there's no other real option now. The GOP has talked big about immigration while doing nothing so their corporate masters could profit off of the cheap labor. Now their kids and their kids are citizens and make up a large part of the population. I think they'll cave on this to try to please Latinos while doing nothing to stop new illegals from arriving so cheap labor can continue to come in and undercut Americans.

 

[lod01]

Wake me when the word 'illegal' in the phrase 'illegal immigrant' is taken seriously.

 

[whoknew]

Regarding Rush's comments: much as I dislike him, and despite the fact that I am on the opposite side of most conservatives on this issue, I think there is some validity to his point. First, I recognize that for many people opposed to some sort of amnesty, the key issue is not Latinos or the effects of immigration, but rather whether we are to be a nation of laws. I understand this, and respect it. Those that think this way and are opposed to illegal immigration, for the most part, are principled in their opposition. (There are, of course, racists also opposed, but it is unfair to characterize all opposition as racist.)

Why do you respect that point? Its not a good one. We are only a "nation of laws" insofar as the laws make sense and are just. If they aren't, we should break those laws and challenge them.

Nobody here would claim that we should follow a separate but equal law because we are a "nation of laws."

 

[timschochet]

Unfortunately there's no other real option now. The GOP has talked big about immigration while doing nothing so their corporate masters could profit off of the cheap labor. Now their kids and their kids are citizens and make up a large part of the population. I think they'll cave on this to try to please Latinos while doing nothing to stop new illegals from arriving so cheap labor can continue to come in and undercut Americans.

You believe that corporations, by hiring illegal immigrants for cheap wages, are denying jobs to American citizens who want them?

 

[Mello]

Unfortunately there's no other real option now. The GOP has talked big about immigration while doing nothing so their corporate masters could profit off of the cheap labor. Now their kids and their kids are citizens and make up a large part of the population. I think they'll cave on this to try to please Latinos while doing nothing to stop new illegals from arriving so cheap labor can continue to come in and undercut Americans.

You believe that corporations, by hiring illegal immigrants for cheap wages, are denying jobs to American citizens who want them?

Yes

 

[whoknew]

Wake me when the word 'illegal' in the phrase 'illegal immigrant' is taken seriously.

This is the weirdest argument. Its only "illegal" because some people passed some bad immigration laws. Those can be changed at any time. There's nothing inherently wrong in one person moving from one piece of land to another.And just because something is "illegal" doesn't make it wrong.

 

[jonessed]

I think the die has been cast. Would the Latino community migrate over if Rs agree or still look at it as a gift from the Ds?

It shouldn't really matter. They should look at it as an opportunity to fix a broken system and Obama should present it to them that way.For anything productive to be accomplished Obama is going to have to go to Republicans first for a framework and work with them. If he takes the fight straight to the media first then the chances of a deal are pretty slim. The Republicans are just going to entrench. The same goes for taxes.With a new election everybody gets a new start. Since we elected the same government I don't actually expect much to change, but Obama's approach is going to dictate the next four years. If either side starts waging war through the media we're ####ed. Nothing is going to get done. I put the onus on Obama becaus he is ultimately the leader, but it goes for both sides.

 

[timschochet]

Regarding Rush's comments: much as I dislike him, and despite the fact that I am on the opposite side of most conservatives on this issue, I think there is some validity to his point. First, I recognize that for many people opposed to some sort of amnesty, the key issue is not Latinos or the effects of immigration, but rather whether we are to be a nation of laws. I understand this, and respect it. Those that think this way and are opposed to illegal immigration, for the most part, are principled in their opposition. (There are, of course, racists also opposed, but it is unfair to characterize all opposition as racist.)

Why do you respect that point? Its not a good one. We are only a "nation of laws" insofar as the laws make sense and are just. If they aren't, we should break those laws and challenge them.

Nobody here would claim that we should follow a separate but equal law because we are a "nation of laws."

I respect it because it's far different from separate but equal. We have laws about who gets to come to this country. I believe those laws should be changed, but most Americans (at least in the past) don't, and we are a Democratic Republic with the right to impose whatever restrictions we want on immigration. Restrictions on immigration are not the same, IMO, as racial laws (though certainly many Latinos perceive it that way.)If, under the existing law, we discover an illegal immigrant, then he or she is here because the law was broken. There are many Americans who believe that it is important to uphold the law, and I respect that viewpoint.

 

[timschochet]

Unfortunately there's no other real option now. The GOP has talked big about immigration while doing nothing so their corporate masters could profit off of the cheap labor. Now their kids and their kids are citizens and make up a large part of the population. I think they'll cave on this to try to please Latinos while doing nothing to stop new illegals from arriving so cheap labor can continue to come in and undercut Americans.

You believe that corporations, by hiring illegal immigrants for cheap wages, are denying jobs to American citizens who want them?

Yes

Fair enough. We disagree on this point. However, were we to do away with minimum wage, this issue would be moot anyhow.

 

[timschochet]

I think the die has been cast. Would the Latino community migrate over if Rs agree or still look at it as a gift from the Ds?

It shouldn't really matter. They should look at it as an opportunity to fix a broken system and Obama should present it to them that way.For anything productive to be accomplished Obama is going to have to go to Republicans first for a framework and work with them. If he takes the fight straight to the media first then the chances of a deal are pretty slim. The Republicans are just going to entrench. The same goes for taxes.

With a new election everybody gets a new start. Since we elected the same government I don't actually expect much to change, but Obama's approach is going to dictate the next four years. If either side starts waging war through the media we're ####ed. Nothing is going to get done. I put the onus on Obama becaus he is ultimately the leader, but it goes for both sides. These things can be worked out behind closed doors.

See and this presents another question. What exactly will Obama's goal be here? I agree with you that if he wants to solve this issue he needs to work with the Republicans as never before. But on the other hand, if he wants to make the Republicans look bad, and perhaps entrench Latino votes permanently for the Democrats, it would make political sense to simply push for his own POV and force conservatives to say no, or to have a civil war inside the Republican party. On a progressive talk show this morning, I already heard this being gleefully suggested by the host. I really hope that Obama is not that cynical, and if he is, that Latinos will see how they are being used for political purposes here. Guess we'll find out.

 

[snogger]

Regarding Rush's comments: much as I dislike him, and despite the fact that I am on the opposite side of most conservatives on this issue, I think there is some validity to his point. First, I recognize that for many people opposed to some sort of amnesty, the key issue is not Latinos or the effects of immigration, but rather whether we are to be a nation of laws. I understand this, and respect it. Those that think this way and are opposed to illegal immigration, for the most part, are principled in their opposition. (There are, of course, racists also opposed, but it is unfair to characterize all opposition as racist.)

Why do you respect that point? Its not a good one. We are only a "nation of laws" insofar as the laws make sense and are just. If they aren't, we should break those laws and challenge them.

Nobody here would claim that we should follow a separate but equal law because we are a "nation of laws."

I respect it because it's far different from separate but equal. We have laws about who gets to come to this country. I believe those laws should be changed, but most Americans (at least in the past) don't, and we are a Democratic Republic with the right to impose whatever restrictions we want on immigration. Restrictions on immigration are not the same, IMO, as racial laws (though certainly many Latinos perceive it that way.)If, under the existing law, we discover an illegal immigrant, then he or she is here because the law was broken. There are many Americans who believe that it is important to uphold the law, and I respect that viewpoint.

here is what I would do..

For those that are currently working in this country illegally, give them a 3 month "amnesty" window to apply for a work visa.. To do so means increasing the number of Work visa we allow which is what it is needed.

There should be no path to citizenship for them though.. That is the one problem I have with the amnesty plan others have put forth.. we cannot reward those that broke a law that currently exists.

 

[jonessed]

I think the die has been cast. Would the Latino community migrate over if Rs agree or still look at it as a gift from the Ds?

It shouldn't really matter. They should look at it as an opportunity to fix a broken system and Obama should present it to them that way.For anything productive to be accomplished Obama is going to have to go to Republicans first for a framework and work with them. If he takes the fight straight to the media first then the chances of a deal are pretty slim. The Republicans are just going to entrench. The same goes for taxes.

With a new election everybody gets a new start. Since we elected the same government I don't actually expect much to change, but Obama's approach is going to dictate the next four years. If either side starts waging war through the media we're ####ed. Nothing is going to get done. I put the onus on Obama becaus he is ultimately the leader, but it goes for both sides. These things can be worked out behind closed doors.

See and this presents another question. What exactly will Obama's goal be here? I agree with you that if he wants to solve this issue he needs to work with the Republicans as never before. But on the other hand, if he wants to make the Republicans look bad, and perhaps entrench Latino votes permanently for the Democrats, it would make political sense to simply push for his own POV and force conservatives to say no, or to have a civil war inside the Republican party. On a progressive talk show this morning, I already heard this being gleefully suggested by the host. I really hope that Obama is not that cynical, and if he is, that Latinos will see how they are being used for political purposes here. Guess we'll find out.

Exactly. The "fiscal cliff" will work the same way. If he wants to actually get things done most of the work will be done behind closed doors and both sides will vet them publicly from there. If he wants to politicize the issues and entrench the Republicans he will push through the media first. We'll know here in the next month what his second term will look like.

 

[whoknew]

Regarding Rush's comments: much as I dislike him, and despite the fact that I am on the opposite side of most conservatives on this issue, I think there is some validity to his point. First, I recognize that for many people opposed to some sort of amnesty, the key issue is not Latinos or the effects of immigration, but rather whether we are to be a nation of laws. I understand this, and respect it. Those that think this way and are opposed to illegal immigration, for the most part, are principled in their opposition. (There are, of course, racists also opposed, but it is unfair to characterize all opposition as racist.)

Why do you respect that point? Its not a good one. We are only a "nation of laws" insofar as the laws make sense and are just. If they aren't, we should break those laws and challenge them.

Nobody here would claim that we should follow a separate but equal law because we are a "nation of laws."

I respect it because it's far different from separate but equal. We have laws about who gets to come to this country. I believe those laws should be changed, but most Americans (at least in the past) don't, and we are a Democratic Republic with the right to impose whatever restrictions we want on immigration. Restrictions on immigration are not the same, IMO, as racial laws (though certainly many Latinos perceive it that way.)If, under the existing law, we discover an illegal immigrant, then he or she is here because the law was broken. There are many Americans who believe that it is important to uphold the law, and I respect that viewpoint.

If you don't like the separate but equal comparison then pick another one. The bottom line, though, is that if a law is unjust - regardless of what that law is - it should not be respected. Simply because some want to be a "nation of laws" doesn't make an unjust law just.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a person walking from point A to point B. He is free to do so. Its only "illegal" because some men put up a fence and declared that if the person crosses it, he is illegal. Just as easily, we could take down or move that fence and now he's not "illegal."

To make policy, therefore, that denies benefits to someone that broke a law that a) may be unjust (and thus, should be broken) and b) is not based on an underlying harm is silly.

 

[Courtjester]

I know this issue is dear to you Tim, but this issue should be way down on Obama's "to do" list.

He wasted alot of the first two years of his presidency working on a healthcare bill no one likes. If he spends the first two years of this term working on a social issue like this, we are in trouble.

Day one of this term of his presidency (assuming we haven't done the cliff dive) needs to have a list that looks like: jobs (which could include a training/education component), ecomony and an exit strategy for the war. Then maybe, we start to think about social issues like immigration reform.

And we cannot fool ourselves to believe the argument, "but immigration reform could help the economy" because we heard that as a basis for the healthcare reform.

 

[jonessed]

Regarding Rush's comments: much as I dislike him, and despite the fact that I am on the opposite side of most conservatives on this issue, I think there is some validity to his point. First, I recognize that for many people opposed to some sort of amnesty, the key issue is not Latinos or the effects of immigration, but rather whether we are to be a nation of laws. I understand this, and respect it. Those that think this way and are opposed to illegal immigration, for the most part, are principled in their opposition. (There are, of course, racists also opposed, but it is unfair to characterize all opposition as racist.)

Why do you respect that point? Its not a good one. We are only a "nation of laws" insofar as the laws make sense and are just. If they aren't, we should break those laws and challenge them.

Nobody here would claim that we should follow a separate but equal law because we are a "nation of laws."

I respect it because it's far different from separate but equal. We have laws about who gets to come to this country. I believe those laws should be changed, but most Americans (at least in the past) don't, and we are a Democratic Republic with the right to impose whatever restrictions we want on immigration. Restrictions on immigration are not the same, IMO, as racial laws (though certainly many Latinos perceive it that way.)If, under the existing law, we discover an illegal immigrant, then he or she is here because the law was broken. There are many Americans who believe that it is important to uphold the law, and I respect that viewpoint.

If you don't like the separate but equal comparison then pick another one. The bottom line, though, is that if a law is unjust - regardless of what that law is - it should not be respected. Simply because some want to be a "nation of laws" doesn't make an unjust law just.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a person walking from point A to point B. He is free to do so. Its only "illegal" because some men put up a fence and declared that if the person crosses it, he is illegal. Just as easily, we could take down or move that fence and now he's not "illegal."

To make policy, therefore, that denies benefits to someone that broke a law that a) may be unjust (and thus, should be broken) and b) is not based on an underlying harm is silly.

Right. Immigrants can never be illegal because internationally recognized borders are universally unjust. Your position on property rights ought to be a hoot.

 

[RCon]

There is nothing inherently wrong with a person walking from point A to point B. He is free to do so. Its only "illegal" because some men put up a fence and declared that if the person crosses it, he is illegal. Just as easily, we could take down or move that fence and now he's not "illegal."

Do you believe in the concept of land ownership, as applied to individuals rather than nations? If so, is it not my choice whether to allow others on my own property?

 

[pantherclub]

Why do latinos vote liberally? (assuming Rush is right in this regard)

 

[RCon]

GOP should introduce this bill immediately.

For existing illegal immigrants: legalization (not citizenship, but legalization) with the following benefits and restrictions

* Background checks for security purposes

* Live, work, travel to/from the US all legal

* Work must be according to the rules of this country/state (e.g. abide by minimum wage laws, Medicare, income taxes, etc.). Excluded from paying into SS, since they also wouldn't receive SS benefits later.

* Income tax cannot be "negative" (i.e. if credits/deductions put them below zero on income tax owed, they receive nothing from the government)

* Must abide by all laws of state such as auto insurance, health insurance mandates, etc.

* Must pay for schooling for children, perhaps a midway amount such as $5000/year/child (I believe that is significantly less than the government spends per child), plus additional for special needs care

* Must pay for medical services received. Perhaps instead they are mandated to obtain comprehensive health insurance.

* Must pay additional $2500/year per person for 10 years (or perhaps $1500/year for 15 years), after which time they are eligible for citizenship, assuming all other requirements are met

* Conviction of any crime in the 10 (or 15) years leads to automatic deportation

* Illegals caught in the country not abiding by the rules above would be automatically deported, and their home country billed for our costs in capturing/deporting (by billed, I suppose the best we could do would be to subtract the amount from any aid we send that country)

This would be combined with MUCH stricter punishments on businesses that knowingly hire illegals, along the lines of $50K per employee. The only way for a business to claim that it didn't know an employee was illegal would be if the business submitted the employee's paperwork (e.g. SSN or new guest worker equivalent) to the federal government and the feds cleared the employee as a legit worker.

 

[Joe T]

Wake me when the word 'illegal' in the phrase 'illegal immigrant' is taken seriously.

This is the weirdest argument. Its only "illegal" because some people passed some bad immigration laws. Those can be changed at any time. There's nothing inherently wrong in one person moving from one piece of land to another.And just because something is "illegal" doesn't make it wrong.

tell that to the native americans.

 

[derek245583]

I am pretty clueless on this whole thing but how are illegal immigrants allowed to vote?Why would a self pro claimed illegal immigrant think he deserves amnesty?

1. Illegal immigrants are not allowed to vote.2. It doesn't matter what illegals think they deserve. What matters is what the legal Latino population in this country wants. Most of them want amnesty for illegals.

So they think since they didnt get caught coming across the boarder they should get citizenship?Like they werent dumb enough to sew themselves into the seat cushions or some #### and get caught? Is that the message we want to send?

 

[pantherclub]

I am pretty clueless on this whole thing but how are illegal immigrants allowed to vote?

Why would a self pro claimed illegal immigrant think he deserves amnesty?

1. Illegal immigrants are not allowed to vote.2. It doesn't matter what illegals think they deserve. What matters is what the legal Latino population in this country wants. Most of them want amnesty for illegals.

So they think since they didnt get caught coming across the boarder they should get citizenship?



Like they werent dumb enough to sew themselves into the seat cushions or some #### and get caught? Is that the message we want to send?

Honestly at this point what are the other options?

 

[whoknew]

Regarding Rush's comments: much as I dislike him, and despite the fact that I am on the opposite side of most conservatives on this issue, I think there is some validity to his point. First, I recognize that for many people opposed to some sort of amnesty, the key issue is not Latinos or the effects of immigration, but rather whether we are to be a nation of laws. I understand this, and respect it. Those that think this way and are opposed to illegal immigration, for the most part, are principled in their opposition. (There are, of course, racists also opposed, but it is unfair to characterize all opposition as racist.)

Why do you respect that point? Its not a good one. We are only a "nation of laws" insofar as the laws make sense and are just. If they aren't, we should break those laws and challenge them.

Nobody here would claim that we should follow a separate but equal law because we are a "nation of laws."

I respect it because it's far different from separate but equal. We have laws about who gets to come to this country. I believe those laws should be changed, but most Americans (at least in the past) don't, and we are a Democratic Republic with the right to impose whatever restrictions we want on immigration. Restrictions on immigration are not the same, IMO, as racial laws (though certainly many Latinos perceive it that way.)If, under the existing law, we discover an illegal immigrant, then he or she is here because the law was broken. There are many Americans who believe that it is important to uphold the law, and I respect that viewpoint.

If you don't like the separate but equal comparison then pick another one. The bottom line, though, is that if a law is unjust - regardless of what that law is - it should not be respected. Simply because some want to be a "nation of laws" doesn't make an unjust law just.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a person walking from point A to point B. He is free to do so. Its only "illegal" because some men put up a fence and declared that if the person crosses it, he is illegal. Just as easily, we could take down or move that fence and now he's not "illegal."

To make policy, therefore, that denies benefits to someone that broke a law that a) may be unjust (and thus, should be broken) and b) is not based on an underlying harm is silly.

Right. Immigrants can never be illegal because internationally recognized borders are universally unjust. Your position on property rights ought to be a hoot.

This made me laugh.To be clear, I get that they are illegal under current law. My point is that 1) they shouldn't be; 2) I have no problem with them breaking this law; and 3) we should not base policy on the premise of punishing these "illegals" who have done nothing wrong.

 

[whoknew]

There is nothing inherently wrong with a person walking from point A to point B. He is free to do so. Its only "illegal" because some men put up a fence and declared that if the person crosses it, he is illegal. Just as easily, we could take down or move that fence and now he's not "illegal."

Do you believe in the concept of land ownership, as applied to individuals rather than nations? If so, is it not my choice whether to allow others on my own property?

Sure. There are lots of things that private citizens can do that governments can't/shouldn't.

 

[snogger]

I am pretty clueless on this whole thing but how are illegal immigrants allowed to vote?

Why would a self pro claimed illegal immigrant think he deserves amnesty?

1. Illegal immigrants are not allowed to vote.2. It doesn't matter what illegals think they deserve. What matters is what the legal Latino population in this country wants. Most of them want amnesty for illegals.

So they think since they didnt get caught coming across the boarder they should get citizenship?



Like they werent dumb enough to sew themselves into the seat cushions or some #### and get caught? Is that the message we want to send?

Honestly at this point what are the other options?

As mentioned above.. Increase the number of working visa's and open a 3 month Amnesty window for those currently in the country working. But NO path to citizenship.

 

[derek245583]

I am pretty clueless on this whole thing but how are illegal immigrants allowed to vote?

Why would a self pro claimed illegal immigrant think he deserves amnesty?

1. Illegal immigrants are not allowed to vote.2. It doesn't matter what illegals think they deserve. What matters is what the legal Latino population in this country wants. Most of them want amnesty for illegals.

So they think since they didnt get caught coming across the boarder they should get citizenship?



Like they werent dumb enough to sew themselves into the seat cushions or some #### and get caught? Is that the message we want to send?

Honestly at this point what are the other options?

I dont know. I am pretty naive about real world problems.What happens if they "catch" an illegal immigrant? Do they deport them?

 

[pantherclub]

I am pretty clueless on this whole thing but how are illegal immigrants allowed to vote?

Why would a self pro claimed illegal immigrant think he deserves amnesty?

1. Illegal immigrants are not allowed to vote.2. It doesn't matter what illegals think they deserve. What matters is what the legal Latino population in this country wants. Most of them want amnesty for illegals.

So they think since they didnt get caught coming across the boarder they should get citizenship?



Like they werent dumb enough to sew themselves into the seat cushions or some #### and get caught? Is that the message we want to send?

Honestly at this point what are the other options?

As mentioned above.. Increase the number of working visa's and open a 3 month Amnesty window for those currently in the country working.

But NO path to citizenship.

Then the GOP will simply fade away never again regain the Presidency.

 

[Reepicheep]

Here are a bunch of rambling thoughts on this.

Maybe I have my head in the sand, but to me it seems like most immigrants from Mexico et al are trying to escape the lawlessness and bleak opportunities in Mexico. There is a huge incentive for them to try to get here because Mexico is mostly a craphole and the US is basically the Golden Land by contrast. They want to be able to work and make a life for themselves somewhere safe. Principles of small government, economic liberty, and personal responsibility should be an easy sell to these folks.

Part of the concern, I think, is social welfare programs. Nobody wants to add lots of people that are just going to be on the dole. The Libertarian answer is to more or less junk the social welfare programs, but that's unfortunately a non-starter. But either way, I don't think most are coming here to be on the dole. They want to work.

There is no way to make this issue go away, short of a radical transformation of Mexico and the rest of central America. People are always going to want to get here. They are coming and staying because there is work for them here. We need to make way easier for them to do it on the books.

And for the life of me I don't understand what the hangup is with not wanting to provide a path to citizenship for people already here. Many conservative's stance on this seems contradictory. I am pro-life. I think life is good. I think more people means more workers and more ideas and more culture and more economy. I don't think there's anything special about me because of where I was born. So I'm 100% in favor of finding ways to make it easier for more people to gain the opportunities available to Americans. Life is good, including brown life from south of the border.

 

[timschochet]

I am pretty clueless on this whole thing but how are illegal immigrants allowed to vote?

Why would a self pro claimed illegal immigrant think he deserves amnesty?

1. Illegal immigrants are not allowed to vote.2. It doesn't matter what illegals think they deserve. What matters is what the legal Latino population in this country wants. Most of them want amnesty for illegals.

So they think since they didnt get caught coming across the boarder they should get citizenship?



Like they werent dumb enough to sew themselves into the seat cushions or some #### and get caught? Is that the message we want to send?

Honestly at this point what are the other options?

As mentioned above.. Increase the number of working visa's and open a 3 month Amnesty window for those currently in the country working.

But NO path to citizenship.

Then the GOP will simply fade away never again regain the Presidency.

That's what I'm afraid of. Never is a big word. There will be Republican Presidents in the future- perhaps 2 or 3 out of the next 10.But the years where Republicans were a major force, representing 50% of the population? That all goes away in the next few years unless we can resolve this issue.

 

[pantherclub]

If the GOP alienates the Hispanic vote then they are the party of yesteryear. Its pretty simple actually

 

[17seconds]

I'm glad timmy started this thread.

I think this election was the death knell of the idea that we deport everyone. The GOP absolutely has to go after the latino vote and if they let the immigration views of the Tea Party into their platform, they'll never win the presidency. You need at least 40% of the latino vote.

 

[timschochet]

I disagree with WhoKnew. I regard illegal immigration as a crime. It's a crime I'm strongly sympathetic to, but it's breaking the law nonetheless.

I think that for illegals to become eligible for a path to citizenship, they have to admit their crime by paying some sort of fine. They have to be punished in some manner; that's how we show that the law be respected.

That being said: these ideas people have put forward about legalization without citizenship- that's not gonna fly. There can be a time period for giving them full citizenship, but in the end you have to give them full citizenship. Nothing else will be acceptable to the Latinos.

I am also opposed to penalizing employers. We don't have the means, and even if we did, I am not in favor of such an obtrusive government bureaucracy, and it always amazes me that some conservatives are.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

Latinos only made up about 10% of the voters from what I read.

However, Obama carried over 65% of the single women vote in this election. I think they represent about 25% or so of eligible voters.

This seems like a pretty big group that you are ignoring here.

 

[timschochet]

Latinos only made up about 10% of the voters from what I read.However, Obama carried over 65% of the single women vote in this election. I think they represent about 25% or so of eligible voters.This seems like a pretty big group that you are ignoring here.

I'm not ignoring anyone. Latinos are important far beyond their numbers because of where they're located.

 

[Aaron Rudnicki]

I'm not ignoring anyone. Latinos are important far beyond their numbers because of where they're located.

Is immigration reform really the ultimate issue for Latinos everywhere in the US? I'm asking because I don't know.I thought many of them sided with Bush in previous elections.

 

[BassNBrew]

Tim, what are your thoughts on this from a Republican standpoint...

1. Immediately open immigration to anyone wanting to come to this country and issue a work visa. Kids and spouses included. There would be a 30 day waiting period for appropriate documentation to be checked.

2. After paying taxes and social security taxes for 5-10 years, eligible to apply for citizenship or can stay on a visa indefinately. No benefits a citizen. Might consider two to four weeks of unemployment after one year of employment.

3. Must obtain driver's license if driving, insurance, etc. Three citations / misdeamors and you're deported. Must participant in Obamacare.

4. Free schooling for any documented immigrant.

5. Any currently ileagals would have one year to report to an immigration office get get their work visa. At that time they would have to pay a $500 fine for breaking the law and everyone would be all square. Their other option would be to leave and do the 30 day waiting period in their country. After one year you're dep[ort if caught here under an illeagal status. Apply the $500 fines collected to securing the border.

Here's where I'm going with this. Very pro-business and pro-immigrant. The job market will ultimately regulate the immigration flow as needed. Illegals wouldn't be getting perferential treatment for breaking the law. The lower class portion of the Democratic base will hate this based on fear of hispanics taking jobs. So will the lower class of the Rep base, but base but based on exit polling that's a smaller group. It will also be more of an issue in the states that voted Obama than the Rep strongholds. It will create class warfare that will ultimately turn the hisanic vote back to the Reps.

The Dems play these cards with the "war on women" and the Reps with the "taking our guns". Sorry, but it works and you have to play that game to win.

 

[timschochet]

I'm not ignoring anyone. Latinos are important far beyond their numbers because of where they're located.

Is immigration reform really the ultimate issue for Latinos everywhere in the US? I'm asking because I don't know.I thought many of them sided with Bush in previous elections.

Bush, who comes from Texas and speaks Spanish, captured 35% to 40% of the Latino vote.The answer to your question is: yes, but it's only recent. It's a direct response to the Arizona and Alabama laws, and to conservative rhetoric about illegal immigration, which the vast majority of Latinos regard as racially driven. The modern trend actually started in 1994 in California. Governor Pete Wilson, losing in the polls, placed his support behind Prop. 187, which would have removed illegal school children from public schools and denied them health care, and used the populist nativist result to win re-election. This move so alienated the Latino community in California that 75-80% of them have supported Democrats ever since, making California a solid blue state. What's so tragic about this is that Pete Wilson, a moderate, reasonable Republican from the old school, no populist, has actually always been in favor of a path to citizenship. But he was desperate and the California Republicans have paid the price ever since.

 

[BassNBrew]

Latinos only made up about 10% of the voters from what I read.However, Obama carried over 65% of the single women vote in this election. I think they represent about 25% or so of eligible voters.This seems like a pretty big group that you are ignoring here.

You don't need large groups. Romney carried white males. What you need is not to have a majority of the small groups voting at an 80%+ clip against you. You lose 90% of the gay/lesbians vote, 95% of the black vote, 80% of the union vote, and 80% of the latino vote and you'll never win. Most of these groups also don't overlap and many are single issue voters. That's 40% of the voters.

 

[timschochet]

Time, what are your thoughts on this from a Republican standpoint...1. Immediately open immigration to anyone wanting to come to this country and issue a work visa. Kids and spouses included. There would be a 30 day waiting period for appropriate documentation to be checked.2. After paying taxes and social security taxes for 5-10 years, eligible to apply for citizenship or can stay on a visa indefinately. No benefits a citizen. Might consider two to four weeks of unemployment after one year of employment.3. Must obtain driver's license if driving, insurance, etc. Three citations / misdeamors and you're deported. Must participant in Obamacare.4. Free schooling for any documented immigrant.5. Any currently ileagals would have one year to report to an immigration office get get their work visa. At that time they would have to pay a $500 fine for breaking the law and everyone would be all square. Their other option would be to leave and do the 30 day waiting period in their country. After one year you're dep[ort if caught here under an illeagal status. Apply the $500 fines collected to securing the border.Here's where I'm going with this. Very pro-business and pro-immigrant. The job market will ultimately regulate the immigration flow as needed. Illegals wouldn't be getting perferential treatment for breaking the law. The lower class portion of the Democratic base will hate this based on fear of hispanics taking jobs. So will the lower class of the Rep base, but base but based on exit polling that's a smaller group. It will also be more of an issue in the states that voted Obama than the Rep strongholds. It will create class warfare that will ultimately turn the hisanic vote back to the Reps.The Dems play these cards with the "war on women" and the Reps with the "taking our guns". Sorry, but it works and you have to play that game to win.

Personally? I'm in favor, though point #1 should be forbidden to known felons, terrorists, or those who are a threat to public health.But I foresee two major problems. First of all, we can't deport anyone who doesn't pay the fine (though we can certainly threaten to.) We simply don't have the means or money to do so. I believe that most would be willing to pay a fine (I would make it higher, perhaps $2500 or $5000) simply because there are so many benefits to being legal. But mass scale deportation will never happen.The other problem is the existence of unions and minimum wage, which you alluded to. No matter how many people we allow in here legally, there will always be people coming in here illegally anyhow, because they are willing to work for wages the market demands far below the minimum wage. This is the problem whenever you attempt to fix prices or wages: you immediately create a black market.

 

[timschochet]

Latinos only made up about 10% of the voters from what I read.However, Obama carried over 65% of the single women vote in this election. I think they represent about 25% or so of eligible voters.This seems like a pretty big group that you are ignoring here.

You don't need large groups. Romney carried white males. What you need is not to have a majority of the small groups voting at an 80%+ clip against you. You lose 90% of the gay/lesbians vote, 95% of the black vote, 80% of the union vote, and 80% of the latino vote and you'll never win. Most of these groups also don't overlap and many are single issue voters. That's 40% of the voters.

Plus among the groups you listed, the union vote and the Latino vote are far more important than the rest, because of their location in the "battleground" states.