Immigration Reform (1 Viewer)

[Woogie Lee]

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?

 

[BassNBrew]

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.

By deportation, I mean we don't look for people, but if they're stopped for a traffic infraction and don't have a license, they're held until it can be verified. No verification mean a ride back to the border.I don't want a big, just a token one. They came here because it's a better place. You have to keep this low to win back the latino vote and not come off as oppressive.You're going to have to change your opinion on punishing people who hire illeagals. Beyond the wages, it's a safety and health issue. Can't turn your head to that. I might open up a certain sector such as agriculture and small business under 10 employees that could legally pay minimun wage less $2Note I just pandered to small business and the farmers.

 

[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.

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

I wasn't saying that no one should have a path to citizenship.. just not a direct path for those that are here currently illegally. Those here already can get work visa and then, after a time to be determined could get in line for citizenship.But they would go to the back of line of those that are following the legal way already.

By doing this and also opening the door for more visa workers and following Jon huntsman's idea on path to us citizenship for others it can do nothing but improve the feelings latino's currently harbor towards Republicans.

 

[timschochet]

John Boehner announced tonight that "comprehensive immigration reform" would be a priority for the House next year. No specifics. Mark Levin is going absolutely ballistic on the radio, attacking Boehner for "betraying the conservative cause."

 

[rascal]

Yes it needs to be addressed, but not until the fiscal cliff is solved.

 

[timschochet]

After listening to some of the Sunday talk this morning: it sounds like moderate "establishment" Republican types are willing and perhaps even eager to go along with immigration reform, while the Tea Party, more conservative types are still stubbornly arguing against it. This remains highly problematic for the GOP. The fact that the base is resistant probably means that the Republicans won't initiate the bill, no matter how much Boehner might want to. Obama will be the one initiating the reform, and even if enough Republicans vote for it to get it passed (which is beginning to sound more likely) others will oppose it, and loudly. In the end it will be perceived by the Latino voters as Obama's deal, and an achievement of the Democratic party. In this sense, the parallels to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 are enormous.

I can't emphasize enough what a catastrophe it was for the GOP that they couldn't push through the immigration reform bill in 2006, largely because of the House Republicans- they didn't call themselves the Tea Party back then, but that's what they were. That bill, sponsored by John McCain and pushed for by President Bush, would have forever altered the perception of Latinos and the Republican party. It might have even changed the results of this current election- I think that's a reasonable possibility. Now, it's probably too late for the Republicans, whatever they do.

 

[32 Counter Pass]

As long as the Republican continues to embrace the religious right and tea party =

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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..

This reward those that take initiative. We don't really want only those that play by the rules.

... 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.

Sure it does. Those in power don't care if those that can't compete with them enter the nation. Educated immigrants are competition. That is why they are only allowed in industries where there are shortages, and in nowhere near enough numbers to create competition.

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, ...

You guys are projecting again. Here we have a bunch of Republicans are trying to determine immigration policy based on how it furthers the interest of the party rather the nation and then questioning the motives of the "policy wonk" in office.

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 ....

Wrong! Immigration reform is a key component, second only to healthcare in positioning this nation to be able to pay for our long term liabilities.

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. ::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.

We must show that we respect the law, unless of course it is "job creators" breaking it.It is in our best interest to turn the current "illegals" to full participants.

 

[timschochet]

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.

:

:

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.

We must show that we respect the law, unless of course it is "job creators" breaking it.It is in our best interest to turn the current "illegals" to full participants.

The fine I'm envisioning for illegals will be somewhat nominal, enough for them to acknowledge that there was, indeed, wrongdoing. I agree it's a double standard with the employers, but that's the way it is. I see no benefit whatsoever to penalizing them. Agree with the bolded 100%, and always have.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

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.

:

:

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.

We must show that we respect the law, unless of course it is "job creators" breaking it.It is in our best interest to turn the current "illegals" to full participants.

The fine I'm envisioning for illegals will be somewhat nominal, enough for them to acknowledge that there was, indeed, wrongdoing. I agree it's a double standard with the employers, but that's the way it is. I see no benefit whatsoever to penalizing them. Agree with the bolded 100%, and always have.

Can we stop placing asserting pointless points ahead of policy? There is no benefit to penalizing the "illegals" either. It doesn't "teach them a lesson". It won't stop anyone else from following in their footsteps. It won't satisfy the ignorant masses. It is pointless.

 

[timschochet]

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.

:

:

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.

We must show that we respect the law, unless of course it is "job creators" breaking it.It is in our best interest to turn the current "illegals" to full participants.

The fine I'm envisioning for illegals will be somewhat nominal, enough for them to acknowledge that there was, indeed, wrongdoing. I agree it's a double standard with the employers, but that's the way it is. I see no benefit whatsoever to penalizing them. Agree with the bolded 100%, and always have.

Can we stop placing asserting pointless points ahead of policy? There is no benefit to penalizing the "illegals" either. It doesn't "teach them a lesson". It won't stop anyone else from following in their footsteps. It won't satisfy the ignorant masses. It is pointless.

Not pointless because it will help get the bill passed. It will give political cover to many Republicans.

 

[cstu]

I'm in favor of a path to citizenship once the border is secured. However, until that is done any type of amnesty is only going to encourage people to come here illegally.

Bush's plan to secure the border (SBInet) was a billion dollar failure and was scrapped two years ago. Its replacement - integrated fixed towers - are still only in the planning stage so we currently have very little to stop people from crossing the border.

 

[timschochet]

I'm in favor of a path to citizenship once the border is secured. However, until that is done any type of amnesty is only going to encourage people to come here illegally.

Bush's plan to secure the border (SBInet) was a billion dollar failure and was scrapped two years ago. Its replacement - integrated fixed towers - are still only in the planning stage so we currently have very little to stop people from crossing the border.

The borders will never be secured.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'm in favor of a path to citizenship once the border is secured. However, until that is done any type of amnesty is only going to encourage people to come here illegally.Bush's plan to secure the border (SBInet) was a billion dollar failure and was scrapped two years ago. Its replacement - integrated fixed towers - are still only in the planning stage so we currently have very little to stop people from crossing the border.

The only way you stop people from coming illegally is to welcome them at the gates (other than destroying the American dream that is).ETA: Anything else is just for show.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Not pointless because it will help get the bill passed. It will give political cover to many Republicans.

I agree we do a lot of stuff that is pointless other than to give Republicans political cover. Policy wise it still serves no function, but I'll admit that politics is about what is possible, not what is right. But that being said your reasoning here still sounds awfully inconsistent with your objection to sanctioning employers.

 

[cstu]

I'm in favor of a path to citizenship once the border is secured. However, until that is done any type of amnesty is only going to encourage people to come here illegally.Bush's plan to secure the border (SBInet) was a billion dollar failure and was scrapped two years ago. Its replacement - integrated fixed towers - are still only in the planning stage so we currently have very little to stop people from crossing the border.

The only way you stop people from coming illegally is to welcome them at the gates (other than destroying the American dream that is).ETA: Anything else is just for show.

No system will be perfect but I believe we could cut down on 95% of it if we had a comprehensive border control. Even if 100k still get through every year that is a huge improvement.

 

[Courtjester]

I'm in favor of a path to citizenship once the border is secured. However, until that is done any type of amnesty is only going to encourage people to come here illegally.Bush's plan to secure the border (SBInet) was a billion dollar failure and was scrapped two years ago. Its replacement - integrated fixed towers - are still only in the planning stage so we currently have very little to stop people from crossing the border.

The only way you stop people from coming illegally is to welcome them at the gates (other than destroying the American dream that is).ETA: Anything else is just for show.

i disagree.Sure there will be a percentage who are happy to be citizens and jump into the requirements, but there will be a larger percentage who are just going to say Why do I want to do all this (including filing tax returns etc.) when I can just keep coming and going as I have before.This is an issue that shouldn't be a priority NOW because instead of addressing actual figures and facts--to address this issue, we have to get by ideals and emotions exactly like the health care issue before we get to issues.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'm in favor of a path to citizenship once the border is secured. However, until that is done any type of amnesty is only going to encourage people to come here illegally.Bush's plan to secure the border (SBInet) was a billion dollar failure and was scrapped two years ago. Its replacement - integrated fixed towers - are still only in the planning stage so we currently have very little to stop people from crossing the border.

The only way you stop people from coming illegally is to welcome them at the gates (other than destroying the American dream that is).ETA: Anything else is just for show.

i disagree.Sure there will be a percentage who are happy to be citizens and jump into the requirements, but there will be a larger percentage who are just going to say Why do I want to do all this (including filing tax returns etc.) when I can just keep coming and going as I have before.This is an issue that shouldn't be a priority NOW because instead of addressing actual figures and facts--to address this issue, we have to get by ideals and emotions exactly like the health care issue before we get to issues.

And that will change when? When we have no unemployment and are desperate for laborers because we have more retirees than workers? Are there fewer issues of ideals and emotions in tax policy? Entitlements? Defense spending? Energy? Climate Change? The demise of DOMA?

 

[GoFishTN]

What's the status of the DREAM act? If an illegal immigrant is productive in society, as opposed to engaging in criminal activities, I think Republicans should support them becoming citizens.

 

[cstu]

What's the status of the DREAM act? If an illegal immigrant is productive in society, as opposed to engaging in criminal activities, I think Republicans should support them becoming citizens.

The DREAM Act is exactly the type of legislation Republicans should support. Republicans talk a lot about the failure of Democrats to put incentives in the right place, but are missing the boat on this issue due to the hard liners that control the party.

 

[Offa]

From a purely political point of view, I can't see how immigration reform makes sense at all for Republicans.

Latinos are natural Democratic voters without the immigration issue, being more dependent than whites on government programmes that Republicans want to defund. Obamacare was very popular with Latinos because something like 30% of the demographic is without health insurance. So all immigration reform would do is create millions of more Democratic voters. And Republicans, if they only control the House, would have to share the political capital with Obama and the Democrats.

If I was the Republican leadership, I would hold down the fort until 2016, then put a Hispanic on the ticket. If the economy stalls you take the White House and THEN do immigration reform, with the incumbent reaping the benefit for his re-election bid.

 

[glumpy]

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.

I think something along these lines--no matter what the legal considerations have been over the decades the driving factor is cheap labor when and where it's desired. Historically that's been Latino labor based on proximity; now it's grown in large proportion with the Asian immigrants. I think what we have to realize is there is no nationalism at play here with much of the business interests which drive the labor markets. Many of them aren't even restricted to a national scope anymore.

 

[cstu]

From a purely political point of view, I can't see how immigration reform makes sense at all for Republicans.

Latinos are natural Democratic voters without the immigration issue, being more dependent than whites on government programmes that Republicans want to defund. Obamacare was very popular with Latinos because something like 30% of the demographic is without health insurance. So all immigration reform would do is create millions of more Democratic voters. And Republicans, if they only control the House, would have to share the political capital with Obama and the Democrats.

If I was the Republican leadership, I would hold down the fort until 2016, then put a Hispanic on the ticket. If the economy stalls you take the White House and THEN do immigration reform, with the incumbent reaping the benefit for his re-election bid.

Here's the thing - getting rid of Obamacare is a losing proposition now. By 2016 people who want it overturned with be an even smaller minority. Republicans need to come up with a fiscal plan that keeps Obamacare and still balances the budget without drastic spending cuts. Unfortunately, they've made themselves the 'tax cut party' and won't be able to back a realistic plan.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

(Placeholder for Tim's immigration ideas).

 

[Ilov80s]

What are the incentives for the powers that be to change the current immigration policies?

 

[timschochet]

What are the incentives for the powers that be to change the current immigration policies?

This is a case of political pluralism. For Latino Americans, this is the #1 issue. And they're voting increasingly in a bloc, demanding that politicians do something about it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What are the incentives for the powers that be to change the current immigration policies?

This is a case of political pluralism. For Latino Americans, this is the #1 issue. And they're voting increasingly in a bloc, demanding that politicians do something about it.

I think one of the big mistakes in all this is using the word "Latin":

people from Cuba, Brazil, Ecuador, Honduras, Mexico and Dom. Rep. do not all have the same needs, expectations, problems.

IMO, the immigration problem is really a problem with Mexican immigration largely affecting the southwest border states, but especially California.

 

[Schlzm]

What are the incentives for the powers that be to change the current immigration policies?

This is a case of political pluralism. For Latino Americans, this is the #1 issue. And they're voting increasingly in a bloc, demanding that politicians do something about it.

In small noisy pockets, but lumping an entire group of people into this view is reaching. You need to remember that SoCal has a wildly different socioeconomic flow than the rest of the state, let alone the rest of the country.Schlzm

 

[Ilov80s]

What are the incentives for the powers that be to change the current immigration policies?

This is a case of political pluralism. For Latino Americans, this is the #1 issue. And they're voting increasingly in a bloc, demanding that politicians do something about it.

For politicians, is there more reward in perpetually playing lip service to the issue to drum up a Latino bloc or is there more reward in passing immigration reform which may or may not be a success?

 

[RCon]

New plan for immigration reform:

Open borders for anyone who wants to work here (subject to intense background check for security purposes). No welfare, no government payments or subsidies of any kind. Guest workers would pay property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes, but not SS or Medicare, since they would receive no benefits from those. They could take advantage of 401K, 529, and similar plans. They must abide by all laws, including minimum wage and other work rules, as well as requirements for auto insurance and such. No separate path to citizenship, although they could apply for citizenship like anyone else, but no threat of deportation. No voting rights, of course.

Re: health care/insurance, they could purchase group or individual insurance, unsubsidized. On the individual market, insurers would have no restrictions re: pre-existing condition bans/costs.

 

[RCon]

What are the incentives for the powers that be to change the current immigration policies?

This is a case of political pluralism. For Latino Americans, this is the #1 issue. And they're voting increasingly in a bloc, demanding that politicians do something about it.

For politicians, is there more reward in perpetually playing lip service to the issue to drum up a Latino bloc or is there more reward in passing immigration reform which may or may not be a success?

Obviously, there is more reward in the former, especially when corporations are also paying them to do the former.

 

[Ilov80s]

What are the incentives for the powers that be to change the current immigration policies?

This is a case of political pluralism. For Latino Americans, this is the #1 issue. And they're voting increasingly in a bloc, demanding that politicians do something about it.

For politicians, is there more reward in perpetually playing lip service to the issue to drum up a Latino bloc or is there more reward in passing immigration reform which may or may not be a success?

Obviously, there is more reward in the former, especially when corporations are also paying them to do the former.

Dangling fruit that can be picked without ever having to eat it.

 

[timschochet]

New plan for immigration reform:

Open borders for anyone who wants to work here (subject to intense background check for security purposes). No welfare, no government payments or subsidies of any kind. Guest workers would pay property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes, but not SS or Medicare, since they would receive no benefits from those. They could take advantage of 401K, 529, and similar plans. They must abide by all laws, including minimum wage and other work rules, as well as requirements for auto insurance and such. No separate path to citizenship, although they could apply for citizenship like anyone else, but no threat of deportation. No voting rights, of course.

Re: health care/insurance, they could purchase group or individual insurance, unsubsidized. On the individual market, insurers would have no restrictions re: pre-existing condition bans/costs.

I would agree to this- under three conditions, and one thought:

1. We have to be able to treat these people for public health concerns- i.e., tuberculosis.

2. Their children must be allowed to attend public schools.

3. After a certain period of time (10 years?) they would receive automatic citizenship, so long as they obey these rules and commit no felonies.

My thought, Rich, is that if you make them abide by minimum wage requirements you're still going to have millions of illegals. Minimum wage creates a black market for illegal immigration. It would be better simply to do away with minimum wage, or failing that, to allow illegals to receive less than minimum wage for certain jobs.

 

[Schlzm]

New plan for immigration reform:

Open borders for anyone who wants to work here (subject to intense background check for security purposes). No welfare, no government payments or subsidies of any kind. Guest workers would pay property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes, but not SS or Medicare, since they would receive no benefits from those. They could take advantage of 401K, 529, and similar plans. They must abide by all laws, including minimum wage and other work rules, as well as requirements for auto insurance and such. No separate path to citizenship, although they could apply for citizenship like anyone else, but no threat of deportation. No voting rights, of course.

Re: health care/insurance, they could purchase group or individual insurance, unsubsidized. On the individual market, insurers would have no restrictions re: pre-existing condition bans/costs.

I would agree to this- under three conditions, and one thought:1. We have to be able to treat these people for public health concerns- i.e., tuberculosis.

2. Their children must be allowed to attend public schools.

3. After a certain period of time (10 years?) they would receive automatic citizenship, so long as they obey these rules and commit no felonies.

My thought, Rich, is that if you make them abide by minimum wage requirements you're still going to have millions of illegals. Minimum wage creates a black market for illegal immigration. It would be better simply to do away with minimum wage, or failing that, to allow illegals to receive less than minimum wage for certain jobs.

You would be creating a subclass. If we are going to go this route let's just start annexing other countries and go all Starship Troopers style. Service Guarentees Citizenship!Schlzm

 

[RCon]

New plan for immigration reform:

Open borders for anyone who wants to work here (subject to intense background check for security purposes). No welfare, no government payments or subsidies of any kind. Guest workers would pay property taxes, sales taxes, and income taxes, but not SS or Medicare, since they would receive no benefits from those. They could take advantage of 401K, 529, and similar plans. They must abide by all laws, including minimum wage and other work rules, as well as requirements for auto insurance and such. No separate path to citizenship, although they could apply for citizenship like anyone else, but no threat of deportation. No voting rights, of course.

Re: health care/insurance, they could purchase group or individual insurance, unsubsidized. On the individual market, insurers would have no restrictions re: pre-existing condition bans/costs.

I would agree to this- under three conditions, and one thought:

1. We have to be able to treat these people for public health concerns- i.e., tuberculosis.

2. Their children must be allowed to attend public schools.

3. After a certain period of time (10 years?) they would receive automatic citizenship, so long as they obey these rules and commit no felonies.

My thought, Rich, is that if you make them abide by minimum wage requirements you're still going to have millions of illegals. Minimum wage creates a black market for illegal immigration. It would be better simply to do away with minimum wage, or failing that, to allow illegals to receive less than minimum wage for certain jobs.

No problem on #1.

I'd consider #2, although I'd prefer a tax/fee, such as $2000 per year per child.

Absolutely not on #3. That's not compromise, that's blanket amnesty.

Oh, and the rule about children born here being automatic citizens would have to be revoked, obviously.

Re: abandoning minimum wage, that simply creates a black market for labor, not specifically for illegals. I'd love to get rid of minimum wage. But you absolutely can't allow guest workers to receive less than citizens, or they would price citizens out of jobs. Failing removal of minimum wage, just institute a penalty of $100K per incident of businesses paying less than minimum wage, citizen or guest worker.

 

[timschochet]

We are closer than we've ever been Rich, but we're still worlds apart. I have to have Jerusalem as my capital.

 

[RCon]

We are closer than we've ever been Rich, but we're still worlds apart. I have to have Jerusalem as my capital.

We're not close as long as you insist on blanket amnesty. Why should anyone receive special treatment that those who apply normally don't?

 

[Schlzm]

I have to have Jerusalem as my capital.

Then move to Israel and do your two years?Schlzm

ETA: Or move to "palestine" and just squat

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Why can't there be an up or down floor vote on the Rubio bill?

 

[RCon]

The thing is, if you absolutely need a path to citizenship (other than the same path everyone else has), then your motivation clearly isn't economic. The plan I outline above would completely satisfy the free market, economic motives for opening the borders.

Also, one might suggest that if you absolutely need a path to citizenship, then you're not willing to compromise at all. You usually criticize politicians who aren't willing to compromise, but instead maintain a my-way-or-the-highway attitude.

 

[timschochet]

The thing is, if you absolutely need a path to citizenship (other than the same path everyone else has), then your motivation clearly isn't economic. The plan I outline above would completely satisfy the free market, economic motives for opening the borders.

You're correct. I think economically it makes sense but that's not MY motivation. My motivation is inscribed on a statue in New York Harbor...

 

[Politician Spock]

The thing is, if you absolutely need a path to citizenship (other than the same path everyone else has), then your motivation clearly isn't economic. The plan I outline above would completely satisfy the free market, economic motives for opening the borders.

You're correct. I think economically it makes sense but that's not MY motivation. My motivation is inscribed on a statue in New York Harbor...

So you do worship a god (or a goddess).

 

[RCon]

The thing is, if you absolutely need a path to citizenship (other than the same path everyone else has), then your motivation clearly isn't economic. The plan I outline above would completely satisfy the free market, economic motives for opening the borders.

You're correct. I think economically it makes sense but that's not MY motivation. My motivation is inscribed on a statue in New York Harbor...

So what compromise would you propose? It seems like your plan is "my way, period".

 

[timschochet]

The thing is, if you absolutely need a path to citizenship (other than the same path everyone else has), then your motivation clearly isn't economic. The plan I outline above would completely satisfy the free market, economic motives for opening the borders.

You're correct. I think economically it makes sense but that's not MY motivation. My motivation is inscribed on a statue in New York Harbor...

So what compromise would you propose? It seems like your plan is "my way, period".

My way period would be citizenship now for the obe's already here plus open immigration for any who want to come. Instead, I'm reluctantly willing to accept most of what you're offering so long as it provides these people eventual citizenship. I regard that as a compromise.

 

[RCon]

The thing is, if you absolutely need a path to citizenship (other than the same path everyone else has), then your motivation clearly isn't economic. The plan I outline above would completely satisfy the free market, economic motives for opening the borders.

You're correct. I think economically it makes sense but that's not MY motivation. My motivation is inscribed on a statue in New York Harbor...

So what compromise would you propose? It seems like your plan is "my way, period".

My way period would be citizenship now for the obe's already here plus open immigration for any who want to come. Instead, I'm reluctantly willing to accept most of what you're offering so long as it provides these people eventual citizenship. I regard that as a compromise.

My plan does offer them the ability to apply for citizenship, just like anyone else, and no penalty for coming here illegally in the first place. It just doesn't give them preferential treatment. That should be more than enough.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Are there any proposals or alternatives actually teed up in Congress right now?

When and how is this supposed to happen?

Didn't Obama make it part of his platform in 2008?

 

[timschochet]

Are there any proposals or alternatives actually teed up in Congress right now?

When and how is this supposed to happen?

Didn't Obama make it part of his platform in 2008?

There was a plan approved by the Senate by both Republicans (led by Rubio) and Democrats. The House leadership has blocked it.

 

[timschochet]

The thing is, if you absolutely need a path to citizenship (other than the same path everyone else has), then your motivation clearly isn't economic. The plan I outline above would completely satisfy the free market, economic motives for opening the borders.

You're correct. I think economically it makes sense but that's not MY motivation. My motivation is inscribed on a statue in New York Harbor...

So what compromise would you propose? It seems like your plan is "my way, period".

My way period would be citizenship now for the obe's already here plus open immigration for any who want to come. Instead, I'm reluctantly willing to accept most of what you're offering so long as it provides these people eventual citizenship. I regard that as a compromise.

My plan does offer them the ability to apply for citizenship, just like anyone else, and no penalty for coming here illegally in the first place. It just doesn't give them preferential treatment. That should be more than enough.

It isn't. However, I acknowledge that you have moved quite a bit in this issue.

 

[RCon]

The thing is, if you absolutely need a path to citizenship (other than the same path everyone else has), then your motivation clearly isn't economic. The plan I outline above would completely satisfy the free market, economic motives for opening the borders.

You're correct. I think economically it makes sense but that's not MY motivation. My motivation is inscribed on a statue in New York Harbor...

So what compromise would you propose? It seems like your plan is "my way, period".

My way period would be citizenship now for the obe's already here plus open immigration for any who want to come. Instead, I'm reluctantly willing to accept most of what you're offering so long as it provides these people eventual citizenship. I regard that as a compromise.

My plan does offer them the ability to apply for citizenship, just like anyone else, and no penalty for coming here illegally in the first place. It just doesn't give them preferential treatment. That should be more than enough.

It isn't. However, I acknowledge that you have moved quite a bit in this issue.

I don't understand why those already here should receive preferential treatment over those who wish to come here but have abided by the existing laws. It makes no sense.

And, no, I haven't budged much at all. This has pretty much always been my position, and it's an offer that's more than fair. Were the GOP to offer exactly this, Democrats would be bat#### insane to turn it down.

 

[timschochet]

The thing is, if you absolutely need a path to citizenship (other than the same path everyone else has), then your motivation clearly isn't economic. The plan I outline above would completely satisfy the free market, economic motives for opening the borders.

You're correct. I think economically it makes sense but that's not MY motivation. My motivation is inscribed on a statue in New York Harbor...

So what compromise would you propose? It seems like your plan is "my way, period".

My way period would be citizenship now for the obe's already here plus open immigration for any who want to come. Instead, I'm reluctantly willing to accept most of what you're offering so long as it provides these people eventual citizenship. I regard that as a compromise.

My plan does offer them the ability to apply for citizenship, just like anyone else, and no penalty for coming here illegally in the first place. It just doesn't give them preferential treatment. That should be more than enough.

It isn't. However, I acknowledge that you have moved quite a bit in this issue.

I don't understand why those already here should receive preferential treatment over those who wish to come here but have abided by the existing laws. It makes no sense.

And, no, I haven't budged much at all. This has pretty much always been my position, and it's an offer that's more than fair. Were the GOP to offer exactly this, Democrats would be bat#### insane to turn it down.

This is one area where you and I see this completely differently. The people who are seeking citizenship through more conventional means are not being hurt in any way by their proposal. You and others keep acting like the illegals are "cutting in line" but it's not the same line. The ones who come here with papers aren't being slowed at all and won't be by giving a path to citizenship to illegals. It's not "unfair"- the two have NOTHING to do with each other.