Time to play the illegal immigration card (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

Today, Reince Priebus, head of the RNC, made the following statement:

Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee (RNC), says it’s “un-American" for President Barack Obama to consider implementing an executive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens across the country. “It’s unconstitutional, illegal, and we don’t support it,” Priebus replied when a Tea Party activist asked him about the president’s plans for an executive amnesty on a conference call hosted by TheTeaParty.net on Monday evening. “I don’t support it. It is wrong,” Priebus said. "It is un-American for a president to try and do such a thing. I want to make it clear: There is no part of me, there is not a molecule in my body that agrees with the president on executive amnesty.”

Priebus promised the hundreds of activists on the call that the Republican Party, if it takes the Senate on Nov. 4 in the upcoming midterm elections, will do everything in its power to stop Obama from proceeding on the executive amnesty. Priebus even boldly predicted that Republicans can and will succeed in stopping Obama if elected on Nov. 4.

“While I can’t speak for the legislature, I’m very confident we will stop that,” Priebus said. “We will do everything we can to make sure it doesn’t happen: Defunding, going to court, injunction. You name it. It’s wrong. It's illegal. And for so many reasons, and just the basic fabric of this country, we can’t allow it to happen and we won’t let it happen. I don’t know how to be any stronger than that. I’m telling you, everything we can do to stop it we will.”

 

[timschochet]

The only dilemma I have here is who is lying worse, the Republicans or the Democrats? I think it's the Democrats.

The Democrats are lying when they say they care about this issue. They don't. Any kind of "amnesty" (which, for unity's sake, let's define as giving illegal immigrants the right to stay in this country and work towards becoming citizens, without fear of deportation) would result in two things: the disappearance of the main reason for Latinos to support the Democratic party (because according to polling many if not most Latinos are both socially and fiscally conservative), and the defection of a sizable portion of blue-collar white Democrats (let's call them "Reagan Democrats") who will abandon the party over this issue.

Therefore, it is to the advantage of the Democrats not to move too quickly on this issue but to keep it in play as long as possible. That's why even if Obama were to issue an executive order legalizing a few thousand illegals, perhaps those who have served in the military, (and I'm not even sure he has the guts for that), he'll never grant amnesty to several million. I don't care what he promises. He'll do just enough to drive the right wing of the Republican party berserk, so as to make himself look moderate. And that's all he'll do. Any other promise by the Democrats is a lie. They'll only support "comprehensive immigration reform" so long as the Republican base has the power to kill it. If the Dems were to at some point once again have control of both houses and the Presidency, amnesty will be off the table as an issue (as it was, mysteriously, in 2009 and 2010.)

The Republicans, specifically the Republican leadership, is lying because while they will oppose attempts at amnesty, they will never enact any change to the status quo. No matter what they say about building a fence or deporting illegals, that will never happen for the simple reason that the Chamber of Commerce likes having illegals come in and do work for low wages. But they can't admit that to their base, so they will continue to tell the base exactly what they want to hear: that this issue will be fixed.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Thanks Posty.

 

[StrikeS2k]

It's funny. I was thinking to myself earlier this morning...."There aren't a lot of active political threads in the FFA. Tim has to be dieing not having one to fight in. I bet he starts one today." And there you go.....

 

[timschochet]

It's funny. I was thinking to myself earlier this morning...."There aren't a lot of active political threads in the FFA. Tim has to be dieing not having one to fight in. I bet he starts one today." And there you go.....

I'm not trying to start a fight here. I'm actually quite curious to find out what you think of my second post, Strike. Read it through; you may agree with it.

 

[Plorfu]

Nice font. Way to mix things up.

 

[StrikeS2k]

It's funny. I was thinking to myself earlier this morning...."There aren't a lot of active political threads in the FFA. Tim has to be dieing not having one to fight in. I bet he starts one today." And there you go.....

I'm not trying to start a fight here. I'm actually quite curious to find out what you think of my second post, Strike. Read it through; you may agree with it.

Of course I don't agree with it. I think that if the Dems/Obama would actually do something constructive towards closing the border we could have a serious discussion about "comprehensive immigration reform." But we got burned once before, as you well know, and I don't think any conservatives worth a crap would, or should, touch the issue until we have a more secure border.

None of this changes the fact that I predicted you would start a political thread and you did, simply because you HAVE to have one to argue in. Everything that will be posted in this thread has been posted before. But you have to have a political thread to argue in. It's all a game to you.

 

[DocHolliday]

The dems knew that they would need every vote possible this year so there was no way Obama was going to irritate his illegal immigrant voters. The only way Obama even considers closing the borders as part of an immigration deal with the GOP in 2015 is if he wants to irritate Hillary and Bill a little.

 

[timschochet]

The dems knew that they would need every vote possible this year so there was no way Obama was going to irritate his illegal immigrant voters. The only way Obama even considers closing the borders as part of an immigration deal with the GOP in 2015 is if he wants to irritate Hillary and Bill a little.

He'll never do that, and not because it would annoy the Latino base, but because it would annoy the Chamber of Commerce, which Obama is every bit as beholden to as the Republican leadership. (Damn, I'm almost sounding like a populist here! But unfortunately it's true.)

Obama, who I have been arguing of late shares a strong resemblance to Richard Nixon, treats the Latino base the same way Nixon used to treat the religious right. Nixon used to say, "Let them squawk. In the end, on election day, they're not going anywhere."

 

[RCon]

So... how is this any different than almost every other issue? Both parties promise a load of #### which they have no intention of ever doing. Same as it ever was.

 

[squistion]

The Democrats are lying when they say they care about this issue. They don't. Any kind of "amnesty" (which, for unity's sake, let's define as giving illegal immigrants the right to stay in this country and work towards becoming citizens, without fear of deportation) would result in two things: the disappearance of the main reason for Latinos to support the Democratic party (because according to polling many if not most Latinos are both socially and fiscally conservative),

Not really socially conservative, as you claim - Kos of Daily Kos had an article on this last year:

For the millionth time, no, Latinos are not socially conservative

The New Republic, in an otherwise unexceptional piece about Fox News trying to market itself better to Latinos:

There are other issues too, like abortion and religion, where Hispanics’ views tend to align more closely with the GOP. After the presidential election, a Hispanic Leadership Network poll of four swing states found an average gap of 13 points between Latinos who considered themselves conservative and Latinos who actually voted for Romney. Ailes wants these people not just visiting Fox News Latino, but watching Fox News, too.“I happen to think that the Latino audience is an essentially traditional audience and will go to Fox News for traditional American values,” Ailes says.

It's one thing for Ailes to live in fantasy land. He runs Fox News, after all. It's another thing for the New Republic to repeat this as though it was fact. The reality on choice:

Exit poll results found that about two-thirds of Hispanics (66%) said that abortion should be legal while 28% disagreed. Among all voters, a somewhat smaller majority (59%) would allow legal abortions while 37% were opposed

.

The reality on marriage equality:

Hispanic voters were more likely than other voters to say they would approve if their state recognized same-sex marriage, according to preliminary exit poll results.

Nearly six-in-ten Latino voters (59%) said their state should legally recognize same-sex marriage while 32% said their state should not. But among all voters, about half (48%) favored legalization of gay marriage while nearly the same share said they would oppose it (47%).

That's not conjecture, or what Ailes "thinks," but hard, cold reality. The 2012 exit polls were clear that Latinos are far more liberal than the nation at large, and the reason is simple: Latinos are young. The median age of a natural-born Latino is 18. And as we know, the kids aren't #######s, no matter how much Ailes they were with his euphemistic "traditional American values."

And that's just the social stuff. Remember that on economic matters, Latinos are far more hostile toward capitalism than Occupy protesters. This is not a constituency that will be embracing Fox News anytime soon.

 

[timschochet]

Thanks squisition. Food for thought, certainly. I always believed Latinos were far more socially conservative, especially in terms of abortion- I believed they tended to be traditional Catholics on that issue. Guess I may have been wrong.

But even if I am wrong about that, let's look at the numbers: 40% of Latinos voted for George Bush in 2000 and 2004. In 2008 and 2012, 30% of Latinos voted for McCain and Romney. That 10% difference, according to most experts, is mainly due to the illegal immigration issue. If you take that issue off the board, and the 1-10% returns to voting for the Republican candidate, it would open up all sorts of avenues for a GOP win that weren't there before.

Or, to be more specific, consider Texas. Given the firmness of our red and blue states, along with demographic growth, there is NO path to the Presidency for Republicans without Texas. None. Right now Texas is the great equalizer to California- really the only one left for Republicans. George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 won 45% of the Latino vote in Texas. But in 2008 and 2012, Obama won 70% of that vote, matching the rest of the nation. This of course did not cause Texas to move into the Blue column. But it will. By 2024, possibly as early as 2020, if 70% of Latinos in Texas are voting Democratic, then Texas will be a blue state. And that, for all practical purposes, will be the end of the Republican party as a national party.

A lot of very smart people on both sides know this to be true. Which is why Republicans, despite what they promise the base, are truly eager to "solve" this issue in time enough for that 70% figure not to become cemented by Latinos (the way that ever since 1964 Blacks have largely voted Democrat.) Meanwhile Democrats would prefer for this issue to go and on and on, with never a permanent solution, but always so that Latinos will vote Democrat...

 

[timschochet]

Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didn’t harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didn’t have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because they’re illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then what’s the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

This is a popular argument among those who feel as you do, but it really has nothing to do with this thread.

My simple response to you would be that I don't believe you. I think that if you were 100% convinced that illegal immigrants were absolutely beneficial to our society, with no drawbacks, you would be for making them legal right away. Clinging to the issue of legality in that circumstance would be extremely irrational.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Tim,

I notice you never responded to my critique in the other illegal immigration thread regarding your stance on securing the border. You've been opposed to that in every illegal immigration thread since I joined this board. Yet, in that thread you said you'd be for it IF, AND ONLY IF, we opened the border to all worthy immigrants. I find that to be an extremely d*ckish stance, and said so in that thread. Just bringing this up again since you chose to start yet another thread on a topic which already has numerous available for bumping, as I did with the thread the other night.

 

[Bucky86]

I am outraged!

 

[identikit]

The dems knew that they would need every vote possible this year so there was no way Obama was going to irritate his illegal immigrant voters. The only way Obama even considers closing the borders as part of an immigration deal with the GOP in 2015 is if he wants to irritate Hillary and Bill a little.

He'll never do that, and not because it would annoy the Latino base, but because it would annoy the Chamber of Commerce, which Obama is every bit as beholden to as the Republican leadership. (Damn, I'm almost sounding like a populist here! But unfortunately it's true.)

Obama, who I have been arguing of late shares a strong resemblance to Richard Nixon, treats the Latino base the same way Nixon used to treat the religious right. Nixon used to say, "Let them squawk. In the end, on election day, they're not going anywhere."

I've always thought they were at the very least Eskimo brothers.

 

[Joe T]

Excellent cutting and pasting in here.

 

[timschochet]

Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didnt harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didnt have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because theyre illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then whats the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

This is a popular argument among those who feel as you do, but it really has nothing to do with this thread.My simple response to you would be that I don't believe you. I think that if you were 100% convinced that illegal immigrants were absolutely beneficial to our society, with no drawbacks, you would be for making them legal right away. Clinging to the issue of legality in that circumstance would be extremely irrational.

If I tell you that a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then theyre bound not to respect our laws, so theyre much more likely to become criminal. Theyre swarming our prisons. We dont have enough space for them, and the cost is horrendous. The cost to our hospitals may be even worse. The illegals swarm the emergency rooms, with no money, so who ends up paying? The taxpayer, of course, and we cant afford it.

you just completely changed the subject. Are we still talking about if illegals were beneficial you would still be against them? Or have you moved on to illegals not being beneficial? Which is it?

 

[timschochet]

Tim,

I notice you never responded to my critique in the other illegal immigration thread regarding your stance on securing the border. You've been opposed to that in every illegal immigration thread since I joined this board. Yet, in that thread you said you'd be for it IF, AND ONLY IF, we opened the border to all worthy immigrants. I find that to be an extremely d*ckish stance, and said so in that thread. Just bringing this up again since you chose to start yet another thread on a topic which already has numerous available for bumping, as I did with the thread the other night.

how should I respond? I stated my position. I'm sorry you find it dickish, I guess?

 

[squistion]

Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didn’t harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didn’t have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because they’re illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then what’s the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

This is a popular argument among those who feel as you do, but it really has nothing to do with this thread.

My simple response to you would be that I don't believe you. I think that if you were 100% convinced that illegal immigrants were absolutely beneficial to our society, with no drawbacks, you would be for making them legal right away. Clinging to the issue of legality in that circumstance would be extremely irrational.

If I tell you that a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then they’re bound not to respect our laws, so they’re much more likely to become criminal. They’re swarming our prisons. We don’t have enough space for them, and the cost is horrendous. The cost to our hospitals may be even worse. The illegals swarm the emergency rooms, with no money, so who ends up paying? The taxpayer, of course, and we can’t afford it.

What is this high percentage you speak of? I live in L.A. and was not aware that a high percentage of all crimes here were being committed by illegal immigrants.

 

[timschochet]

Even if, somehow in a fantasy world, you could make the argument that illegals were good for our society, that they didn’t harm us in any way but actually benefited us, that they didn’t have any cost to our prisons, our schools, our hospitals; even if all this were true, I would still be against them, because they’re illegal. They broke the law by coming here. And if you allow the law to be broken by their presence, then what’s the point of any of our laws? Why not just live in a lawless society?

This is a popular argument among those who feel as you do, but it really has nothing to do with this thread.

My simple response to you would be that I don't believe you. I think that if you were 100% convinced that illegal immigrants were absolutely beneficial to our society, with no drawbacks, you would be for making them legal right away. Clinging to the issue of legality in that circumstance would be extremely irrational.

If I tell you that a high percentage of crimes committed in southern California are by illegal immigrants, which they are, you might not see a connection, but I do: if they are already illegal, then they’re bound not to respect our laws, so they’re much more likely to become criminal. They’re swarming our prisons. We don’t have enough space for them, and the cost is horrendous. The cost to our hospitals may be even worse. The illegals swarm the emergency rooms, with no money, so who ends up paying? The taxpayer, of course, and we can’t afford it.

What is this high percentage you speak of? I live in L.A. and was not aware that a high percentage of all crimes here were being committed by illegal immigrants.

Actually it's completely bogus. After having committed the misdemeanor of coming to this country without documents, the large majority of illegal immigrants are actually as law-abiding as American citizens; some studies believe they are even MORE law-abiding. Although the studies are certainly there, you don't need them to reach this conclusion; common sense will do. The average illegal immigrant works much longer, much harder hours than the average citizen so there is less leisure time to commit crimes. When we combine this with the very real fear that most illegals have of deportation, anyone can see why they should be more law abiding.

 

[StrikeS2k]

Tim,

I notice you never responded to my critique in the other illegal immigration thread regarding your stance on securing the border. You've been opposed to that in every illegal immigration thread since I joined this board. Yet, in that thread you said you'd be for it IF, AND ONLY IF, we opened the border to all worthy immigrants. I find that to be an extremely d*ckish stance, and said so in that thread. Just bringing this up again since you chose to start yet another thread on a topic which already has numerous available for bumping, as I did with the thread the other night.

how should I respond? I stated my position. I'm sorry you find it dickish, I guess?

Really, I just wanted to see if you'd whine that I misrepresented your position. I'm glad you didn't. This is the perfect example as to why I believe this is all just a game to you. Why is securing our border tied to a policy of letting all illegals come here if they want? It shouldn't be. If securing our border is a good idea it's a good idea. It's the same thing as with voter ID. Suddenly you're opposed to it due to your perceived motivations of those pushing for the bills. Again, if Voter ID is a good idea it's a good idea.

In this forum we're not proposing specific laws. We're talking about concepts. Don't worry about the politicians. When I read your stance on something like securing the border all I can think about is that you should be a politician. It's too bad because if we could agree that securing the border is a good thing then we could talk about what comprehensive immigration reform should look like. Or if we could agree that voter ID is a good thing we could talk about how we would implement it without affecting poor/minority voters. But there's always a gotcha with you. And that's why I believe all these threads are just a game to you.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim, the key word here is "executive."

You're talking about the amnesty issue. Preibus is talking about the chief executive creating his own laws like a monarch.That is undemocratic, it's even antidemocratic.

Two completely different issues.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, the key word here is "executive."

You're talking about the amnesty issue. Preibus is talking about the chief executive creating his own laws like a monarch.That is undemocratic, it's even antidemocratic.

Two completely different issues.

he's playing to the anti illegal base . Nobody really gives a crap about executive orders unless they have an effect you don't like. Then all of a sudden the President becomes a dictator.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim, the key word here is "executive."

You're talking about the amnesty issue. Preibus is talking about the chief executive creating his own laws like a monarch.That is undemocratic, it's even antidemocratic.

Two completely different issues.

he's playing to the anti illegal base . Nobody really gives a crap about executive orders unless they have an effect you don't like. Then all of a sudden the President becomes a dictator.

Lawrence Tribe

Jeffrey Toobin.

Countless legal academics.

Millions of people who care about our democracy. Yes, presidents acting without Congressional authority is a very big deal.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, the key word here is "executive."

You're talking about the amnesty issue. Preibus is talking about the chief executive creating his own laws like a monarch.That is undemocratic, it's even antidemocratic.

Two completely different issues.

he's playing to the anti illegal base . Nobody really gives a crap about executive orders unless they have an effect you don't like. Then all of a sudden the President becomes a dictator.

Lawrence Tribe

Jeffrey Toobin.

Countless legal academics.

Millions of people who care about our democracy. Yes, presidents acting without Congressional authority is a very big deal.

Saints, how would you specifically distinguish Obama's use of executive orders from previous Presidents?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Tim, the key word here is "executive."

You're talking about the amnesty issue. Preibus is talking about the chief executive creating his own laws like a monarch.That is undemocratic, it's even antidemocratic.

Two completely different issues.

he's playing to the anti illegal base . Nobody really gives a crap about executive orders unless they have an effect you don't like. Then all of a sudden the President becomes a dictator.

Lawrence Tribe

Jeffrey Toobin.

Countless legal academics.

Millions of people who care about our democracy. Yes, presidents acting without Congressional authority is a very big deal.

Saints, how would you specifically distinguish Obama's use of executive orders from previous Presidents?

Not in number but in quality. There are certain areas that presidents have plenary powers and certain areas where Congress does. I cannot recall any single law that any president has flouted and manipulated and contorted as much as the ACA.

However, in terms of this:

President Barack Obama to consider implementing an executive amnesty for millions of illegal aliens across the country.

What is he talking about? Is that actually a possibility?

Because if the president reacts to a Republican Senate being elected by simply doing what Congress does not want in an area that it has plenary power over, then I cannot imagine a more resounding defying of the will of the people.