Politics

[phgreek]

DAVID VITTER LOSES!
AND WILL NOT SEEK REELECTION TO SENATE NEXT YEAR!

well, there's one the Ds won...we'll see how fiscally screwed up they are in a few years

 

[phgreek]

Disappointing is an understatement here.

College Students Say Remembering 9/11 is Offensive to Muslims - The Daily Beast

"The everything-is-offensive brand of campus activism has struck a new low: Students at the University of Minnesota killed a proposed moment of silence for 9/11 victims due to concerns—insulting, childish concerns—that Muslim students would be offended."

shocker there...stupid people with a "voice".

 

[Buster Bluth]

well, there's one the Ds won...we'll see how fiscally screwed up they are in a few years

What's he going to do, spend 4-6 trillion on wars and not pay for a dime of it while simultaneously cutting taxes and handling out a trillion each in Wall Street bailout and buying votes in Florida via medicare expansion?

 

[NDgradstudent]

Isn't the reactionary and childish Congress the group trying to fundamentally transform our immigration/refugee policy?

Our immigration policy is fundamentally transforming our country- and our liberties. We learned a couple days ago that a shocking 38% of non-whites and 40% of people aged 18-34 are comfortable with restricting speech 'offensive to minorities.'

These numbers will increase as mass immigration continues, and libertarians will still fail to make any connection between immigration and statism.

 

[Cackalacky]

What's he going to do, spend 4-6 trillion on wars and not pay for a dime of it while simultaneously cutting taxes and handling out a trillion each in Wall Street bailout and buying votes in Florida via medicare expansion?

I lol'd because it's true and people who hate Dems have such short memories.

 

[Ultimate Penn St. Hater]

So what you are saying is that Josh Duggar went to the David Vitter school of family values?

Yes. Phonies.

 

[pkt77242]

well, there's one the Ds won...we'll see how fiscally screwed up they are in a few years

LOL. Have you looked at what Jindal and the Republicans have done to them fiscally? I believe that it is similar to dropping a bar of soap in prison.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

shocker there...stupid people with a "voice".

This new group of people (many of whom are young, college cry babies) are what I call the "Professionally Offended."

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

Our immigration policy is fundamentally transforming our country- and our liberties. We learned a couple days ago that a shocking 38% of non-whites and 40% of people aged 18-34 are comfortable with restricting speech 'offensive to minorities.'

These numbers will increase as mass immigration continues, and libertarians will still fail to make any connection between immigration and statism.

No country can take mass numbers of people from "there" to "here" without "there" completely becoming "here." Ask the citizens of Eurabia.

 

[NDgradstudent]

The Washington Times reports:

Illegal immigrant children, non-Mexicans surge across border at record rate

From the story:

Indeed, in court documents the administration has admitted both the smuggling cartels and would-be crossers pay close attention to U.S. policies, and any perceived relaxation of enforcement entices more of them to undertake the perilous journey.

That’s exactly what illegal immigrants themselves are telling Border Patrol agents when they’re caught, according to an Associated Press report last month. The migrants say they believe that under Mr. Obama’s policies, they will earn a “permiso,” or free pass, if they can reach the U.S. border.

They are right, of course. The President and his party want to elect a new people, and they are doing so.

 

[IrishinSyria]

The Washington Times reports:



From the story:



They are right, of course. The President and his party want to elect a new people, and they are doing so.

So let's be clear.

According to the article:

Some 25,000 illegal immigrants from El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala have been caught in the first seven weeks of the fiscal year, which began Oct. 1 — an increase of 58 percent. The number of Chinese, Brazilians, Indians and, strikingly, Cubans, has each surged by more than 100 percent, and the number from Pakistan, while small overall, has spiked from 6 at this point last year to 31 now — an increase of more than 400 percent

meanwhile, the number of illegal Mexican immigrants in the country has fallen by 1.3 million since 2007.

So a couple things. First, the absolute number of illegal immigrants is way down. Second of all, these numbers are reporting an increase in arrests. If anything, that just shows that enforcement is up.

But you think this president's plan is to "elect a new people", presumably by letting undesirables sneak into the country? Leaving aside the undertones of that sentiment, you must think he's incredibly incompetent if his plan is to dramatically alter the demographics of the US and enforcement is harsher and their are fewer illegals than there were under his predecessor.

 

[NDgradstudent]

But you think this president's plan is to "elect a new people", presumably by letting undesirables sneak into the country? Leaving aside the undertones of that sentiment, you must think he's incredibly incompetent if his plan is to dramatically alter the demographics of the US and enforcement is harsher and their are fewer illegals than there were under his predecessor.

They aren't undesirable to your party: instead, they are regarded more as unregistered Democrats than undocumented immigrants. This isn't some sinister conspiracy theory- Democrats openly celebrate the "Browning of America" and the political changes that will accompany it (including, presumably, the end of the freedom of speech).

I assume that people, like non-human animals, respond to incentives. They wouldn't take huge risks if they thought they couldn't cross the border and/or that they wouldn't be allowed to stay here. But as the portion of the article I quoted said, they expect to be allowed to stay because of current non-enforcement. Also, they have children when they come, and those automatically become citizens.

This is not policy failure; this is policy.

 

[pkt77242]

They aren't undesirable to your party: instead, they are regarded more as unregistered Democrats than undocumented immigrants. This isn't some sinister conspiracy theory- Democrats openly celebrate the "Browning of America" and the political changes that will accompany it (including, presumably, the end of the freedom of speech).

I assume that people, like non-human animals, respond to incentives. They wouldn't take huge risks if they thought they couldn't cross the border and/or that they wouldn't be allowed to stay here. But as the portion of the article I quoted said, they expect to be allowed to stay because of current non-enforcement. Also, they have children when they come, and those automatically become citizens.

This is not policy failure; this is policy.

LOL. Mexicans were coming here illegally long before Obama, his enforcement or lack there of has nothing (or little) to do with it. What it has to do with is how readily available things like jobs are here vs conditions back home.

Mexican Immigration Declining; More Are Returning Than Arriving : The Two-Way : NPR

If Obama's lack of enforcement entices people to come here, then why have we had more people return to Mexico then come here since the financial crisis?

 

[NDgradstudent]

LOL. Mexicans were coming here illegally long before Obama, his enforcement or lack there of has nothing (or little) to do with it. What it has to do with is how readily available things like jobs are here vs conditions back home.

Mexican Immigration Declining; More Are Returning Than Arriving : The Two-Way : NPR

If Obama's lack of enforcement entices people to come here, then why have we had more people return to Mexico then come here since the financial crisis?

Obviously, illegal immigration is not really measured. We have no idea how many people are coming in for sure and in total, but Border Patrol has reported increased apprehensions without increased enforcement across all sectors. Also, it is common for them to come here, have a baby, and then go home and get back in by means of the endless "family reunification" visa programs (which cover very distant relatives).

Lax enforcement is certainly not unique to Obama, but it is particularly extraordinary and pronounced under Obama. Corporations want cheap labor, and they usually get what they want. The Democrats get voters and GOP donors get cheap nannies and waiters. Ordinary GOP voters, blacks and Hispanics already living here get screwed.

Any proposal to ramp up enforcement would be rejected by Democrats. If the illegals don't want to come here, as you say, and the Democrats don't want new voters, then why would they reject enforcement of our laws?

 

[Buster Bluth]

MRW I read an NDgrad post

 

[IrishinSyria]

Obviously, illegal immigration is not really measured. We have no idea how many people are coming in for sure and in total, but Border Patrol has reported increased apprehensions of non-Mexicans without increased enforcement across all sectors. Also, it is common for them to come here, have a baby, and then go home and get back in by means of the endless "family reunification" visa programs (which cover very distant relatives).

Lax enforcement is certainly not unique to Obama, but it is particularly extraordinary and pronounced under Obama. Corporations want cheap labor, and they usually get what they want. The Democrats get voters and GOP donors get cheap nannies and waiters. Ordinary GOP voters, blacks and Hispanics already living here get screwed how are people getting screwed? All of the academic research suggests that immigration is a net benefit to the economy.

Any proposal to ramp up enforcement would be rejected by Democrats enforcement has been ramped up under Obama. He's deported more illegals than any president in history.. If the illegals don't want to come here, as you say, and the Democrats don't want new voters, then why would they reject enforcement of our laws there's a difference between "rejecting enforcement" and "using discretion in how we apply our laws"?

bolded

 

[IrishinSyria]

They aren't undesirable to your party: instead, they are regarded more as unregistered Democrats than undocumented immigrants. This isn't some sinister conspiracy theory- Democrats openly celebrate the "Browning of America" and the political changes that will accompany it (including, presumably, the end of the freedom of speech).

I assume that people, like non-human animals, respond to incentives. They wouldn't take huge risks if they thought they couldn't cross the border and/or that they wouldn't be allowed to stay here. But as the portion of the article I quoted said, they expect to be allowed to stay because of current non-enforcement. Also, they have children when they come, and those automatically become citizens.

This is not policy failure; this is policy.

O no, not more brown people in America.

NDGRADSTUDENT's ideal America:


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MQe5ShxM2DI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Cackalacky]

#ConcernedAnglican

 

[pkt77242]

Obviously, illegal immigration is not really measured. We have no idea how many people are coming in for sure and in total, but Border Patrol has reported increased apprehensions without increased enforcement across all sectors. Also, it is common for them to come here, have a baby, and then go home and get back in by means of the endless "family reunification" visa programs (which cover very distant relatives).

Lax enforcement is certainly not unique to Obama, but it is particularly extraordinary and pronounced under Obama. Corporations want cheap labor, and they usually get what they want. The Democrats get voters and GOP donors get cheap nannies and waiters. Ordinary GOP voters, blacks and Hispanics already living here get screwed.

Any proposal to ramp up enforcement would be rejected by Democrats. If the illegals don't want to come here, as you say, and the Democrats don't want new voters, then why would they reject enforcement of our laws?

Actually the U.S. has a pretty good idea of how many illegal immigrants are here (obviously it isn't an exact number) and Mexico knows about how many people are leaving (again not an exact number).

Also people come here for jobs. Plain and simple, that most illegal immigrants (but not all) come here for jobs.

Lastly, enforcement isn't an issue with Democrats, but enforcement without giving the people here already a path to citizenship is a problem. The problem is that the GOP wants to increase enforcement and then maybe some day down the road deal with the people already here (or people like Trump want to deport them all, which is laughable).


*By enforcement I mean at the border, not trying to round up the millions already here.

 

[NDgradstudent]

Lastly, enforcement isn't an issue with Democrats, but enforcement without giving the people here already a path to citizenship is a problem. The problem is that the GOP wants to increase enforcement and then maybe some day down the road deal with the people already here (or people like Trump want to deport them all, which is laughable).

So they can stay if they sneak past the Border Patrol. But enforcement is not an issue with Democrats? Obama is not using "discretion," he is exempting 5 million illegals from the immigration law under the DACA program.

Obviously, the GOP would be stupid to repeat the 1986 disaster and accept amnesty now for promises of enforcement later. These are never met, and so we need a new amnesty- again, and again, and again, until the Sun explodes. The bottom line is that enforcement works, as Eisenhower knew and as Arizona has proved.

What you are saying is that you regard the enforcement of current immigration law as so objectionable that you will hold it hostage until we agree to exempt 11 million people from it. Extraordinary, but when you remember the driving political purpose behind this, it makes sense.

 

[pkt77242]

So they can stay if they sneak past the Border Patrol. But enforcement is not an issue with Democrats? Obama is not using "discretion," he is exempting 5 million illegals from the immigration law under the DACA program.

Obviously, the GOP would be stupid to repeat the 1986 disaster and accept amnesty now for promises of enforcement later. These are never met, and so we need a new amnesty- again, and again, and again, until the Sun explodes. The bottom line is that enforcement works, as Eisenhower knew and as Arizona has proved.

What you are saying is that you regard the enforcement of current immigration law as so objectionable that you will hold it hostage until we agree to exempt 11 million people from it. Extraordinary, but when you remember the driving political purpose behind this, it makes sense.

LOL. First off Operation Wetback was horrible (remember we even shipped some U.S. Citizens to Mexico). Then you use Arizona as a place where enforcement works? Funny shit there. I live in AZ and our "enforcement" is about racial profiling and discrimination. You have got to be fucking kidding me. Then again I shouldn't be surprised.


Since you posted the Wikipedia link, here is the perfect quote from it: "In terms of apprehensions, Operation Wetback was immediately successful. However, this success would be short lived, as the program would fail to limit the number of workers entering the United States from Mexico illegally"

 

[IrishinSyria]

Deporting 12 million people would amount to one of the largest forced migrations in history.

Also fucking LOL at citing "operation Wetback" as support for the idea that what we need is mass deportations. From the wiki you linked to:

In terms of apprehensions, Operation Wetback was immediately successful. However, this success would be short lived, as the program would fail to limit the number of workers entering the United States from Mexico illegally.[43]

One of the biggest problems caused by the program was the deportation of Mexicans to unfamiliar places, where they would struggle to find their way home or to continue to support their families.[47] Over 25% of apprehended Mexicans were returned to Veracruz on cargo ships, while others were transported by land to southern cities in Mexico.[48] Those apprehended were often deported without receiving the opportunity to recover their property in the U.S. or to contact their families, and they were stranded without any food or employment when they entered Mexico.[49] Deported Mexicans faced extreme conditions and were sometimes left in the desert; 88 deported workers died in 112 degree heat in July 1955.[

he Korean War and Red Scare also prompted tighter border security to prevent communist infiltration.

You seriously used a McCarthyism era program that was a humanitarian nightmare, expensive to administer, ineffective, and ultimately stopped as your model for US immigration policy?

 

[IrishinSyria]

I mean, did you not read the wiki page or did you think we wouldn't click the link?

 

[phgreek]

Actually the U.S. has a pretty good idea of how many illegal immigrants are here (obviously it isn't an exact number) and Mexico knows about how many people are leaving (again not an exact number).

Also people come here for jobs. Plain and simple, that most illegal immigrants (but not all) come here for jobs.

Lastly, enforcement isn't an issue with Democrats, but enforcement without giving the people here already a path to citizenship is a problem. The problem is that the GOP wants to increase enforcement and then maybe some day down the road deal with the people already here (or people like Trump want to deport them all, which is laughable).


*By enforcement I mean at the border, not trying to round up the millions already here.

Help me out with the bolded...because that sure seems not to be the case.

 

[pkt77242]

Help me out with the bolded...because that sure seems not to be the case.

Ok, for many Democrats (though not all), we are for enforcing the borders, but we don't want to try and deport people already living here. You could probably get more than half of Democrats to agree (which is a good amount because it is like herding cats) that we need to enforce our borders and would be willing to increase funding for things like the Border Patrol as long as we set up something to make the people already here legal.

It does a few things.
1. It will help prevent people from coming with the increased spending on border patrol (though it will never completely stop it).

2.. It allows people who are already here and have established a life here to stay, paying a small fine, getting finger printed, going through background checks, etc.

3. It allows our border patrol to focus on dangerous criminals instead of someone who has been living here 10 years and holding steady jobs. IMHO this is one of the keys of enforcement. Just as we don't want cops pulling over everyone driving 2 miles over the speed limit, because we want them to focus on the dangerous criminals (i.e. people driving 20 over the speed limit, driving drunk, etc.), the same thing applies here.

4. Punish companies that hire illegal immigrants. Large fines, plus maybe some jail time for executives should cure it.

5. It just isn't feasible from a time or money standpoint to deport every illegal immigrant here (or even half of them).

 

[IrishLax]

Ok, for many Democrats (though not all), we are for enforcing the borders, but we don't want to try and deport people already living here. You could probably get more than half of Democrats to agree (which is a good amount because it is like herding cats) that we need to enforce our borders and would be willing to increase funding for things like the Border Patrol as long as we set up something to make the people already here legal.

It does a few things.
1. It will help prevent people from coming with the increased spending on border patrol (though it will never completely stop it).

2.. It allows people who are already here and have established a life here to stay, paying a small fine, getting finger printed, going through background checks, etc.

3. It allows our border patrol to focus on dangerous criminals instead of someone who has been living here 10 years and holding steady jobs. IMHO this is one of the keys of enforcement. Just as we don't want cops pulling over everyone driving 2 miles over the speed limit, because we want them to focus on the dangerous criminals (i.e. people driving 20 over the speed limit, driving drunk, etc.), the same thing applies here.

4. Punish companies that hire illegal immigrants. Large fines, plus maybe some jail time for executives should cure it.

5. It just isn't feasible from a time or money standpoint to deport every illegal immigrant here (or even half of them).

So you support people here working steady jobs, but you want to throw the people that hired them in jail?

 

[pkt77242]

So you support people here working steady jobs, but you want to throw the people that hired them in jail?

When it comes to large corporation fines don't mean anything (just look at the banks and all of the fines that they keep paying and there are plenty of other companies such as oil companies that fit this profile), because they can profit more by breaking the law and paying the fines (or in some cases the execs that broke the law aren't even there by the time that the company gets punished) than by following the law. While I use to be against punishing the executives, I have come around to the idea that they need to be individually punished as well. Maybe a fine (that they have to personally pay the first time) with jail the second time around, while also fining the company for every offense.

 

[IrishLax]

When it comes to large corporation fines don't mean anything (just look at the banks and all of the fines that they keep paying and there are plenty of other companies such as oil companies that fit this profile), because they can profit more by breaking the law and paying the fines (or in some cases the execs that broke the law aren't even there by the time that the company gets punished) than by following the law. While I use to be against punishing the executives, I have come around to the idea that they need to be individually punished as well. Maybe a fine (that they have to personally pay the first time) with jail the second time around, while also fining the company for every offense.

I guess I'm not understanding where you're drawing the line. In what scenario does an executive deserve jail time and how much? Is it only for "big business"?

If a meat packing plant hires illegals because no Americans are willing to do a job, the owners should go to jail?

What about a contractor who's a legal immigrant and hires his buddy (who is undocumented) to work on his crew?

What about someone who hires some day laborers and doesn't ask for papers? Or a couple that hires a cleaning lady? Would you send someone to jail for "negligence"?

IMO, I agree with points 1, 2, 3, and 5. But I have no idea why anyone deserves to go to jail for giving someone a job. I can't think of a single scenario where that would be reasonable to me.

 

[Cackalacky]

We should just legitimize the braceros again and call it a day.

 

[phgreek]

Ok, for many Democrats (though not all), we are for enforcing the borders, but we don't want to try and deport people already living here. You could probably get more than half of Democrats to agree (which is a good amount because it is like herding cats) that we need to enforce our borders and would be willing to increase funding for things like the Border Patrol as long as we set up something to make the people already here legal.

It does a few things.
1. It will help prevent people from coming with the increased spending on border patrol (though it will never completely stop it).

2.. It allows people who are already here and have established a life here to stay, paying a small fine, getting finger printed, going through background checks, etc.

3. It allows our border patrol to focus on dangerous criminals instead of someone who has been living here 10 years and holding steady jobs. IMHO this is one of the keys of enforcement. Just as we don't want cops pulling over everyone driving 2 miles over the speed limit, because we want them to focus on the dangerous criminals (i.e. people driving 20 over the speed limit, driving drunk, etc.), the same thing applies here.

4. Punish companies that hire illegal immigrants. Large fines, plus maybe some jail time for executives should cure it.

5. It just isn't feasible from a time or money standpoint to deport every illegal immigrant here (or even half of them).

I'm not going to get into what is affordable or feasible, because a) without a willingness to look at total ownership costs of illegal immigration, you can't begin to develop/evaluate a plan. Both sides of the aisle manipulate information associated with this issue such that no one really knows or can know what we are honestly dealing with... B) in the absence of clear data we fall back to humanitarian concerns...but those are strictly one way...anyone who is here as an illegal is somehow more important than people who are and have been here their entire lives...legally.

As to rather I think the Democrats would get behind anything in numbers remotely approaching what you are saying...in a way approaching fiscal responsibility...we will see. I don't see it. I mean we still have people on this board who think it isn't a problem...guessing that is reflective of a number of liberal/progressive/democrats.