If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Examiner)   More than 60% of Republicans oppose the GOP immigration plan, but there are no plans to fence them off   (washingtonexaminer.com) divider line 88
    More: Interesting, GOP, Republicans, Maryland's Eastern Shore, U.S. Citizenship  
•       •       •

621 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Feb 2014 at 3:51 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-03 02:04:14 PM  
The plan is to forward a bill that is just asinine, and then hammer the folks who vote against it in the Primaries, and when they go up against seated Democrats, they can pull out the, "voted against comprehensive immigration reform" as a sound bite, ignoring that the thing is pretty much dead in the water. It's strategic, not meant for actual passage. And the leadership knows it. Well, except for the Congressvmcritters that actually have immigrants in their districts...
 
2014-02-03 02:08:02 PM  
Wait... the GOP has a plan?

/Well, I suppose George Armstrong Custer had a plan.
 
2014-02-03 03:38:41 PM  
blog.sironaconsulting.com

An inside look at the Republican plan for immigration reform
 
2014-02-03 03:53:28 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Wait... the GOP has a plan?

 
2014-02-03 03:54:12 PM  
Can't conservatives just follow Reagan's example? What would be wrong with that?
 
2014-02-03 03:55:20 PM  

hubiestubert: The plan is to forward a bill that is just asinine, and then hammer the folks who vote against it in the Primaries, and when they go up against seated Democrats, they can pull out the, "voted against comprehensive immigration reform" as a sound bite, ignoring that the thing is pretty much dead in the water. It's strategic, not meant for actual passage. And the leadership knows it. Well, except for the Congressvmcritters that actually have immigrants in their districts...



Sounds like a fine example of the fiscal conservative use of our tax dollars.
 
2014-02-03 03:56:05 PM  
The headline is a little friendly if you ask me, by swapping the use of Republican and GOP.

In reality, 60% of Republicans oppose the Republican plan. That's quite telling.
 
2014-02-03 03:57:25 PM  
LOL, nice headline.

The GOTP is only into fences when they want to keep their bullshiat right where it is, fertilizing right where they sleep.

even animals know better than that.

static.someecards.com
 
2014-02-03 03:59:31 PM  

error 303: The headline is a little friendly if you ask me, by swapping the use of Republican and GOP.

In reality, 60% of Republicans oppose the Republican plan. That's quite telling.


www.balloon-juice.com
I thought all they had was an outline, sort of like their brilliant economic plans of past years.
 
2014-02-03 04:01:22 PM  

Lord_Baull: Can't conservatives just follow Reagan's example? What would be wrong with that?


Only giving citizenship to illegals already in the US seems unfair.

We should open up the borders for 12 months and just tell everyone -"if you can make it here, citizenship is your free!"
 
2014-02-03 04:03:13 PM  

Wendy's Chili: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Wait... the GOP has a plan?


It's called "disenfranchise the messicans and it won't matter who we alienate."
 
2014-02-03 04:05:47 PM  
Nothing will happen until AFTER theprimaries.
 
2014-02-03 04:06:48 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-02-03 04:09:16 PM  
T-Servo:
I thought all they had was an outline, sort of like their brilliant economic plans of past years.

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-03 04:10:48 PM  

Wendy's Chili: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Wait... the GOP has a plan?

 
2014-02-03 04:13:16 PM  

mcreadyblue: Lord_Baull: Can't conservatives just follow Reagan's example? What would be wrong with that?

Only giving citizenship to illegals already in the US seems unfair.

We should open up the borders for 12 months and just tell everyone -"if you can make it here, citizenship is your free!"


Only if we kick EVERYONE out first. Family been here since before the Mayflower? Tough titties - elect better politicians next time. Snuck across the border last night? Well, then you know the best way back.
 
2014-02-03 04:14:38 PM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Wendy's Chili: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Wait... the GOP has a plan?

It's called "disenfranchise the messicans and it won't matter who we alienate."


Basically.

Michael Lind nailed it when he said the right wants "voters who don't work and workers who don't vote."

A work force made up of non-citizen permanent residents is up there with Social Security privatization on the evil rich guy wish list.
 
2014-02-03 04:16:50 PM  
It was a good indication this "Immigration reform" of the GOP's was going to be a cluster fark when they canceled their press conference after their little Conservative Band Camp they had last week...

Democrats just need to keep their mouths shut for the most part, and let these assholes collapse in on themselves.
 
2014-02-03 04:19:55 PM  

Wendy's Chili: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Wendy's Chili: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Wait... the GOP has a plan?

It's called "disenfranchise the messicans and it won't matter who we alienate."

Basically.

Michael Lind nailed it when he said the right wants "voters who don't work and workers who don't vote."

A work force made up of non-citizen permanent residents is up there with Social Security privatization on the evil rich guy wish list.


Along with plenty of patriotic, nationalist jingoism that convinces citizens to send young people to die to enforce the rich guy's desires on foreign countries' stuff.

I wonder, Mr. Chili... is there by chance a sociopolitical ideology based off of the disdain of foreigners while exploiting them for labor for the benefit of a state cartel that also uses nationalism, xenophobia, and militarism to enforce its will geopolitically, to ensure a sufficient glut of resources, a sufficient underclass in need of the cartel's benevolence, all tied together with a strong "traditionalist" family-values based ideology?
 
2014-02-03 04:22:57 PM  
What amuses me is that all of the conservative complaints about immigration are emotional, not practical.

Are they really upset that we have a huge pool of low-wage workers that, for the most part, don't even qualify for the small amount of aid that honest 'murican poor folks get?

And what if some of these 'illegals' start businesses? Isn't that the boot-strappy ideal?

And, also, it is pretty clear that no conservative would deny Carlos Slim a visa, even though he would never blow the leaves off of anyone's driveway.

No, it seems that they just to want to rile people up. Xenophobic people, mostly (if I'm reading their messages correctly).

No wonder they can't agree on a strategy.
 
2014-02-03 04:49:18 PM  

Lord_Baull: Can't conservatives just follow Reagan's example? What would be wrong with that?


Because the smart thing to do is to learn from your past mistakes.
 
2014-02-03 05:03:09 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: Lord_Baull: Can't conservatives just follow Reagan's example? What would be wrong with that?

Because the smart thing to do is to learn from your past mistakes.


Well, concerning their 47 failed attempts to "repeal Obamacare", they certainly seem to be quite selective when it comes to that lesson.
 
2014-02-03 05:06:12 PM  
The GOP "plan" is address immigration reform in a piecemeal fashion with the first being 'secure the border'. Nothing more will be addressed until the border is secure. This will be defined ambiguously enough such that they can forever argue that it has not been accomplished thereby never having to do anything else.

"Reform".
 
2014-02-03 05:06:28 PM  

El Morro: Well, concerning their 47 failed attempts to "repeal Obamacare", they certainly seem to be quite selective when it comes to that lesson.


It is not a mistake to them if it is popular in their district.
 
2014-02-03 05:08:22 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: Lord_Baull: Can't conservatives just follow Reagan's example? What would be wrong with that?

Because the smart thing to do is to learn from your past mistakes.


Then I assume you can show some serious economic harm due to the Reagan amnesty in '86, yes?
 
2014-02-03 05:23:14 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Then I assume you can show some serious economic harm due to the Reagan amnesty in '86, yes?


Why are we talking about having to deal with over 10 million illegal immigrants today?
 
2014-02-03 05:26:49 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: UrukHaiGuyz: Then I assume you can show some serious economic harm due to the Reagan amnesty in '86, yes?

Why are we talking about having to deal with over 10 million illegal immigrants today?


Are you able to detect the tiny flaw in this position?
 
2014-02-03 05:28:59 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: UrukHaiGuyz: Then I assume you can show some serious economic harm due to the Reagan amnesty in '86, yes?

Why are we talking about having to deal with over 10 million illegal immigrants today?


You think that was specifically a function of the previous amnesty as opposed to simple economic forces? That's a big enough leap that I think you'd need some kind of hard evidence.

/also, that's not what I asked
//any proof that the 3+ million immigrants then granted legal status caused harm to the U.S. economy?
 
2014-02-03 05:34:38 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: You think that was specifically a function of the previous amnesty as opposed to simple economic forces? That's a big enough leap that I think you'd need some kind of hard evidence.


The bill was supposed to restrict illegal immigration through employer sanctions, border security, and other means, and of course it did not. That is why we are dealing with the problem today.

UrukHaiGuyz: /also, that's not what I asked


Because it was unrelated to what I said. I said the bill was a mistake, it did not accomplish what it was supposed to do.
 
2014-02-03 05:38:04 PM  

Wendy's Chili: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Wendy's Chili: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Wait... the GOP has a plan?

It's called "disenfranchise the messicans and it won't matter who we alienate."

Basically.

Michael Lind nailed it when he said the right wants "voters who don't work and workers who don't vote."

A work force made up of non-citizen permanent residents is up there with Social Security privatization on the evil rich guy wish list.


Heh. Taking a page from the UAE where 91% of the population are foreign workers.
 
2014-02-03 05:40:04 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: UrukHaiGuyz: You think that was specifically a function of the previous amnesty as opposed to simple economic forces? That's a big enough leap that I think you'd need some kind of hard evidence.

The bill was supposed to restrict illegal immigration through employer sanctions, border security, and other means, and of course it did not. That is why we are dealing with the problem today.



Still not seeing that tiny little flaw in your logic are you?
 
2014-02-03 05:51:45 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: UrukHaiGuyz: You think that was specifically a function of the previous amnesty as opposed to simple economic forces? That's a big enough leap that I think you'd need some kind of hard evidence.

The bill was supposed to restrict illegal immigration through employer sanctions, border security, and other means, and of course it did not. That is why we are dealing with the problem today.


Well alright, but are you then saying that the amnesty portion was not a mistake? Because you haven't shown any resulting harm from it, just that the measures intended to stem illegal immigration didn't work.

UrukHaiGuyz: /also, that's not what I asked

Because it was unrelated to what I said. I said the bill was a mistake, it did not accomplish what it was supposed to do.


Fair enough, but it's absolutely crucial to figuring out whether a current amnesty would even be problematic.

Question: What is the functional difference between a wave of immigration and a "baby boom" (especially after a couple of generations, the typical amount of time it takes to assimilate)? Why should we fear one and not the other?
 
2014-02-03 05:55:44 PM  
A significant segment of the politicians we have been electing lately will continue chipping away at the concept of the library as a public institution until they have destroyed it, or until we replace them with new politicians.

DrewCurtisJr: UrukHaiGuyz: Then I assume you can show some serious economic harm due to the Reagan amnesty in '86, yes?

Why are we talking about having to deal with over 10 million illegal immigrants today?


Wait - is that all? That's scary. What with our collapsing birthrate and dying Boomers, we're going to need a lot more immigrants than that - especially from the neighboring countries to the south, where populations are young.
Ten million won't do shiat - we need to up that game.
 
2014-02-03 06:13:21 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Because you haven't shown any resulting harm from it, just that the measures intended to stem illegal immigration didn't work.


There a various studies that show the cost and benefits of low skilled immigration both legal and illegal. And most of them show they surpress wages of our lowest skilled workers.

UrukHaiGuyz: Question: What is the functional difference between a wave of immigration and a "baby boom" (especially after a couple of generations, the typical amount of time it takes to assimilate)? Why should we fear one and not the other?


I would fear a baby boom if it happened in this environment, especially if it occurred with a group with a low educational attainment rate.
 
2014-02-03 06:15:32 PM  

jso2897: Wait - is that all? That's scary. What with our collapsing birthrate and dying Boomers, we're going to need a lot more immigrants than that - especially from the neighboring countries to the south, where populations are young.
Ten million won't do shiat - we need to up that game.


Why is perpetual population growth necessary? Why wait and see what happens before declaring an emergency.
 
2014-02-03 06:31:22 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Wait... the GOP has a plan?


Sure: round 'em up, ship 'em out.
 
2014-02-03 06:31:55 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: There a various studies that show the cost and benefits of low skilled immigration both legal and illegal. And most of them show they surpress wages of our lowest skilled workers.


C'mon, this isn't theoretical, it's already happened. 3+ million (more than a third the amount of the current group in question) people were granted legal status, and you can't show a single concrete instance of how it harmed the economy? Link to any study showing real harm, or please concede the point.
 
2014-02-03 06:57:01 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: DrewCurtisJr: UrukHaiGuyz: You think that was specifically a function of the previous amnesty as opposed to simple economic forces? That's a big enough leap that I think you'd need some kind of hard evidence.

The bill was supposed to restrict illegal immigration through employer sanctions, border security, and other means, and of course it did not. That is why we are dealing with the problem today.

Well alright, but are you then saying that the amnesty portion was not a mistake? Because you haven't shown any resulting harm from it, just that the measures intended to stem illegal immigration didn't work.

UrukHaiGuyz: /also, that's not what I asked

Because it was unrelated to what I said. I said the bill was a mistake, it did not accomplish what it was supposed to do.

Fair enough, but it's absolutely crucial to figuring out whether a current amnesty would even be problematic.

Question: What is the functional difference between a wave of immigration and a "baby boom" (especially after a couple of generations, the typical amount of time it takes to assimilate)? Why should we fear one and not the other?


It depends: what color are the babies?
 
2014-02-03 07:15:07 PM  
It all boils down to this:  The American people will not take seriously any immigration plan that does not have some sort of path to citizenship (nor should they), and there is no path to citizenship, no matter how long or torturous, that GOP voters will not decry as amnesty.

And it's going to be fun watching GOP leadership try to walk that tightrope.
 
2014-02-03 07:25:51 PM  

Lord_Baull: Can't conservatives just follow Reagan's example? What would be wrong with that?


His example?  Or his advice?

Because Reagan said signing the Amnesty was one of the biggest regrets of his Presidency; specifically, that he trusted the Democrats that they would follow through on their promise to enforce the border so it would never happen again.

Reagan was a terrific president, but he did make mistakes.  When he acknowledged them as regretful, it'd be foolish to make the same mistakes over again.  Boehner (Ryan, McCarthy, McConnell, Cornyn) are idiots.
 
2014-02-03 07:30:19 PM  

jso2897: A significant segment of the politicians we have been electing lately will continue chipping away at the concept of the library as a public institution until they have destroyed it, or until we replace them with new politicians.DrewCurtisJr: UrukHaiGuyz: Then I assume you can show some serious economic harm due to the Reagan amnesty in '86, yes?

Why are we talking about having to deal with over 10 million illegal immigrants today?

Wait - is that all? That's scary. What with our collapsing birthrate and dying Boomers, we're going to need a lot more immigrants than that - especially from the neighboring countries to the south, where populations are young.
Ten million won't do shiat - we need to up that game.


The way you describe it ... it almost makes Social Security (and other national entitlements) sound like a ponzi scheme.  But that can't be true because anytime that's suggested, we get a liberal dissertation on how everything's funded and all is well and the sky isn't falling and someone's farting rainbows.
 
2014-02-03 07:48:36 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: jso2897: Wait - is that all? That's scary. What with our collapsing birthrate and dying Boomers, we're going to need a lot more immigrants than that - especially from the neighboring countries to the south, where populations are young.
Ten million won't do shiat - we need to up that game.

Why is perpetual population growth necessary? Why wait and see what happens before declaring an emergency.


I'm not talking about significant growth as I am about non- shrinkage. you have to realize that I don't give a darn about any of the race or social or political issues. I don't care about the "sanctity" of the artificial lines we call the "border" .
All I care about is the economics of it, because that is what will drive the situation forward, and that is the force that will prevail. When us Boomers kick it, it's over. This particular wave of knownothingism in America will pass, as it has before,
And it should. Without immigrants, America dies, like a tree with it's roots ripped from the soil dies. Immigrants is what we are, and all any of us are. Which is WHY all such movements have failed.
 
2014-02-03 07:56:18 PM  

SunsetLament: jso2897: A significant segment of the politicians we have been electing lately will continue chipping away at the concept of the library as a public institution until they have destroyed it, or until we replace them with new politicians.DrewCurtisJr: UrukHaiGuyz: Then I assume you can show some serious economic harm due to the Reagan amnesty in '86, yes?

Why are we talking about having to deal with over 10 million illegal immigrants today?

Wait - is that all? That's scary. What with our collapsing birthrate and dying Boomers, we're going to need a lot more immigrants than that - especially from the neighboring countries to the south, where populations are young.
Ten million won't do shiat - we need to up that game.

The way you describe it ... it almost makes Social Security (and other national entitlements) sound like a ponzi scheme.  But that can't be true because anytime that's suggested, we get a liberal dissertation on how everything's funded and all is well and the sky isn't falling and someone's farting rainbows.


Well, it's not a good analogy for one crucial reason - the thing that causes a Ponzi scheme to collapse is the fact that eventually, ALL you investors line up expecting to be paid. With the SS scheme, your earlier investors get written off over time - they die.
So - Social Security may indeed suck donkey balls, eat shait, be the worst thing in the entire history of forever or whatever you think it is - but it isn't a Ponzi sceme - any more than it's a Buick.
 
2014-02-03 07:58:36 PM  
The average Democrat does not support amnesty either.
 
2014-02-03 08:33:22 PM  

jso2897: SunsetLament: jso2897: A significant segment of the politicians we have been electing lately will continue chipping away at the concept of the library as a public institution until they have destroyed it, or until we replace them with new politicians.DrewCurtisJr: UrukHaiGuyz: Then I assume you can show some serious economic harm due to the Reagan amnesty in '86, yes?

Why are we talking about having to deal with over 10 million illegal immigrants today?

Wait - is that all? That's scary. What with our collapsing birthrate and dying Boomers, we're going to need a lot more immigrants than that - especially from the neighboring countries to the south, where populations are young.
Ten million won't do shiat - we need to up that game.

The way you describe it ... it almost makes Social Security (and other national entitlements) sound like a ponzi scheme.  But that can't be true because anytime that's suggested, we get a liberal dissertation on how everything's funded and all is well and the sky isn't falling and someone's farting rainbows.

Well, it's not a good analogy for one crucial reason - the thing that causes a Ponzi scheme to collapse is the fact that eventually, ALL you investors line up expecting to be paid. With the SS scheme, your earlier investors get written off over time - they die.
So - Social Security may indeed suck donkey balls, eat shait, be the worst thing in the entire history of forever or whatever you think it is - but it isn't a Ponzi sceme - any more than it's a Buick.


If the guys that set up the scheme (the first ones in) receive benefits, but don't pay in?  It's a Ponzi scheme.
 
2014-02-03 08:52:28 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: C'mon, this isn't theoretical, it's already happened. 3+ million (more than a third the amount of the current group in question) people were granted legal status, and you can't show a single concrete instance of how it harmed the economy? Link to any study showing real harm, or please concede the point.


Yes and I do not have an alternate reality machine that allows me to find out what would have happened if these 3 million would have been deported instead. We do know that low skilled immigration hurts our lowest skilled workers I don't see any reason why the 3 million legalized by IRCA would have had any different impact.  

• By increasing the labor supply between 1980 and 2000, immigration reduced the average annual earnings of U.S.-born men by an estimated $1,700, or roughly 4 percent.
• Among those born in the United States who did not graduate from high school - roughly the poorest one-tenth of the work force - the estimated impact was even larger, reducing wages by 7.4 percent.
• The negative effect on U.S.-born black and Hispanic workers is significantly larger than on whites, because a much larger share of minorities are in direct competition with immigrants.
• The reduction in earnings occurs regardless of whether the immigrants are legal or illegal, permanent or temporary. It is the presence of additional workers that reduces wages, not their legal status.
 
2014-02-03 08:55:48 PM  

jso2897: Without immigrants, America dies, like a tree with it's roots ripped from the soil dies. Immigrants is what we are, and all any of us are. Which is WHY all such movements have failed.


No it doesn't. We got along fine with lower levels of population but if our population is reduced to levels back 20 years ago so what? I wasn't walking around thinking boy we sure could use 50 million more people around here. We were fine.
 
2014-02-03 09:24:42 PM  
When did that indentation on replies start?
 
2014-02-03 09:39:25 PM  

AeAe: When did that indentation on replies start?


Two refresh clicks ago...
 
2014-02-03 09:39:41 PM  

SunsetLament: Lord_Baull: Can't conservatives just follow Reagan's example? What would be wrong with that?

His example?  Or his advice?

Because Reagan said signing the Amnesty was one of the biggest regrets of his Presidency; specifically, that he trusted the Democrats that they would follow through on their promise to enforce the border so it would never happen again.

Reagan was a terrific president, but he did make mistakes.  When he acknowledged them as regretful, it'd be foolish to make the same mistakes over again.  Boehner (Ryan, McCarthy, McConnell, Cornyn) are idiots.


Mmmhmm. The Dems made a pinky swear promise, right?  Whether sufficient funds were appropriated to 'enforce the border' in the late 80s and early 90s is certainly a subject that is worthy of discussion, but Democrats didn't have filibuster proof majorities in any of those Senate's and obviously did not have the white house. The GOP allowed all of those appropriations bills to pass and were signed by Reagan and then HW Bush. And after the GOP took both houses, the problem didn't go away either.  Yet another example of revisionist history in a pathetic attempt to resolve the cognitive dissonance between the fact of Reagan and the myth of St. Reagan.

"Dems broke their promise"... how farking juvenile can you get. If the dems were breaking their 'promise' why didn't the GOP filibuster their promise-breaking spending bills?
 
Displayed 50 of 88 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report