Do you have adblock enabled?
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  
•       •       •

630 clicks; posted to Politics » on 03 Feb 2014 at 3:51 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



88 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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?
 
2014-02-03 09:44:56 PM  

Stone Meadow: AeAe: When did that indentation on replies start?

Two refresh clicks ago...


I thought so.  It wasn't there this afternoon.
 
2014-02-03 09:56:37 PM  

AeAe: Stone Meadow: AeAe: When did that indentation on replies start?

Two refresh clicks ago...

I thought so.  It wasn't there this afternoon.


Yup...it wasn't there one refresh click, then it was the next.
 
2014-02-03 09:59:37 PM  
Well, reform is definitely needed.  The immigration laws don't work.  That being said, reform is being used as a code word for amnesty.  We need reform, amnesty is a seriously bad idea.
 
2014-02-03 10:18:42 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: 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.


raising the minimum wage would address concerns about falling wages no?

your same source also says this:

Illegal immigrants seem to have very little impact on unemployment rates. Undocumented workers certainly do take jobs that would otherwise go to legal workers. But undocumented workers also create demand that leads to new jobs. They buy food and cars and cell phones, they get haircuts and go to restaurants. On average, there is close to no net impact on the unemployment rate.

More than a third of illegal immigrants live in just three cities: New York, Los Angeles and Chicago. But even in these places, economists believe there is minimal impact on wages. That's because many Americans from other parts of the country choose not to move to areas with large numbers of immigrants, because they want to avoid competing for jobs.
 
2014-02-03 10:22:32 PM  

theknuckler_33: "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?


As the current D-bag-In-Chief has demonstrated clearly, you can pass a law, but you can't force the POTUS to enforce it (see drug laws).
 
2014-02-04 04:59:43 AM  

DrewCurtisJr: 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.


I, the majority of Americans, and history all disagree - and you are going to lose. But know that I respect your right to your opinion.
 
2014-02-04 05:23:48 AM  
I can't wait until the GOP issues me my own immigrant. I'll say "Fetch me a Coke, Immigrant" and when they get back I'll say "I asked you for a Pepsi!" and when they go back for my Pepsi I'll laugh because I know the truth.
 
2014-02-04 07:31:50 AM  

SunsetLament: theknuckler_33: "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?

As the current D-bag-In-Chief has demonstrated clearly, you can pass a law, but you can't force the POTUS to enforce it (see drug laws).


Waah... every speeder doesn't get a citation!!!

Targeted enforcement... how laws have been administered since the beginning of time.
 
2014-02-04 07:59:34 AM  

Dr Dreidel: 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.


i928.photobucket.com

Agrees.
 
2014-02-04 08:04:50 AM  

SunsetLament: 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.


So you want to build the Great Wall of Texas.  Fine.  Now propose to me some taxes to pay for it all.  Difficulty:  Taxes that YOU will have to pay.

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.

For Iran-Contra alone, Reagan should have been impeached and removed from office.
 
2014-02-04 08:08:15 AM  

SunsetLament: As the current D-bag-In-Chief has demonstrated clearly, you can pass a law, but you can't force the POTUS to enforce it (see drug laws).


Wow.  You actually think the War on Civil Liberties Drugs is a good thing and that Obama isn't waging it to the maximum extent...oh, you mean those couple of states that legalized weed.  Whatever happened to states' rights?

/See also:  "Obamacare is the WORST LAW EVAR and if B. Hussein Osama cuts anyone any slack under it, he's a tyrant!"
 
2014-02-04 08:10:30 AM  

Stone Meadow: AeAe: Stone Meadow: AeAe: When did that indentation on replies start?

Two refresh clicks ago...

I thought so.  It wasn't there this afternoon.

Yup...it wasn't there one refresh click, then it was the next.


It seems to be retroactive, and to apply to the first block of text that you posted in italics (see my post of 08:04:50 EST).
 
2014-02-04 09:15:39 AM  

dumbobruni: raising the minimum wage would address concerns about falling wages no?


No, falling wages doesn't necessarily mean minimum wage. For instance meat packers used to make $20/hr now they make about $12.

dumbobruni: your same source also says this:


You mean this:

That's because many Americans from other parts of the country choose not to move to areas with large numbers of immigrants, because they want to avoid competing for jobs.

It would be a shame if it were easier for someone from Detroit to come to Chicago in hopes of finding a decent job.
 
2014-02-04 10:00:35 AM  

jso2897: I, the majority of Americans, and history all disagree - and you are going to lose. But know that I respect your right to your opinion.


You may want to brush up on your American history. Look at immigration levels at the same period the middle class was expanding rapidly.
 
2014-02-04 11:08:05 AM  

DrewCurtisJr: dumbobruni: raising the minimum wage would address concerns about falling wages no?

No, falling wages doesn't necessarily mean minimum wage. For instance meat packers used to make $20/hr now they make about $12.

dumbobruni: your same source also says this:

You mean this:

That's because many Americans from other parts of the country choose not to move to areas with large numbers of immigrants, because they want to avoid competing for jobs.

It would be a shame if it were easier for someone from Detroit to come to Chicago in hopes of finding a decent job.


Because immigration is the sole reason for falling wages for meat packers

Not automation, nor the decline of unions, nor industry consolidation, nor imports.

Entirely on immigrants. Right
 
2014-02-04 11:32:59 AM  

DrewCurtisJr: 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.


That article is filled with quotes about the negligible impact that illegal immigrants have on the economy. I'll quote the last two paragraphs which seem to indicate that all the bluster over the harms and dangers of increased immigration, amnesty, etc. are not rooted in any facts.

From your own source:

There are places in the United States where illegal immigration has big effects (both positive and negative). But economists generally believe that when averaged over the whole economy, the effect is a small net positive. Harvard's George Borjas says the average American's wealth is increased by less than 1 percent because of illegal immigration.

The economic impact of illegal immigration is far smaller than other trends in the economy, such as the increasing use of automation in manufacturing or the growth in global trade. Those two factors have a much bigger impact on wages, prices and the health of the U.S. economy.
 
2014-02-04 11:37:48 AM  

UrukHaiGuyz: That article is filled with quotes about the negligible impact that illegal immigrants have on the economy. I'll quote the last two paragraphs which seem to indicate that all the bluster over the harms and dangers of increased immigration, amnesty, etc. are not rooted in any facts.


If you just want to ignore the clear impacts on our lowest skilled workers that's ok, but I think it is a serious issue.
 
2014-02-04 11:40:25 AM  

dumbobruni: Entirely on immigrants. Right


Do want to comment on what I actually wrote or make things up? Like I said not everyone who is the victim of falling or stagnant wages is making minimum wage so the answer to "raising the minimum wage would address concerns about falling wages no?", is no.
 
2014-02-04 11:54:47 AM  

DrewCurtisJr: dumbobruni: Entirely on immigrants. Right

Do want to comment on what I actually wrote or make things up? Like I said not everyone who is the victim of falling or stagnant wages is making minimum wage so the answer to "raising the minimum wage would address concerns about falling wages no?", is no.


Your whole argument is based on a source that concerns lowest end of the income spectrum.

$20 a hour? That's middle class in most of the country.
 
2014-02-04 12:01:31 PM  

dumbobruni: Your whole argument is based on a source that concerns lowest end of the income spectrum.

$20 a hour? That's middle class in most of the country.


You'll notice the article points to the impact on low-skilled and low-education workforce, these are the people most likely to be competing with immigrants for jobs.
 
2014-02-04 12:05:06 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: UrukHaiGuyz: That article is filled with quotes about the negligible impact that illegal immigrants have on the economy. I'll quote the last two paragraphs which seem to indicate that all the bluster over the harms and dangers of increased immigration, amnesty, etc. are not rooted in any facts.

If you just want to ignore the clear impacts on our lowest skilled workers that's ok, but I think it is a serious issue.


I'm not ignoring the downside as far as wages for high-school dropouts. Much of the harm there can be ameliorated by raising minimum wage to a livable standard. My point is that you (and the GOP) have failed to conclusively show how amnesty would negatively impact the United States economically as a whole. Without conclusive evidence that substantial harms are created by immigrants, or by legalizing the immigrants already here, there is no clear rational reason to deny them citizenship.
 
2014-02-04 12:06:19 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: dumbobruni: Your whole argument is based on a source that concerns lowest end of the income spectrum.

$20 a hour? That's middle class in most of the country.

You'll notice the article points to the impact on low-skilled and low-education workforce, these are the people most likely to be competing with immigrants for jobs.


It also states that the impact is negligible and generally restricted to a very few localities in the U.S.
 
2014-02-04 12:27:38 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: dumbobruni: Your whole argument is based on a source that concerns lowest end of the income spectrum.

$20 a hour? That's middle class in most of the country.

You'll notice the article points to the impact on low-skilled and low-education workforce, these are the people most likely to be competing with immigrants for jobs.


FTA: "low skill, low wage"

Nope, your $20/hr meatpacker example still doesn't fly.
 
2014-02-04 01:03:02 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: I'm not ignoring the downside as far as wages for high-school dropouts.


Yes you are, you are acknowledging them but you don't care and claim that it doesn't do any harm. Just like when people complain that the productivity gains, which by the way have benefited the economy as a whole, are benefiting the upper classes while squeezing the middle class into the working poor.
 
2014-02-04 01:05:38 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: It also states that the impact is negligible and generally restricted to a very few localities in the U.S.


Yes, the places with a lot of these types of immigrants. But we don't care about those people.
 
2014-02-04 01:07:51 PM  

dumbobruni: FTA: "low skill, low wage"

Nope, your $20/hr meatpacker example still doesn't fly.


Also from the article,

Illegal immigrants do often take some of the country's least attractive jobs, such as in meat packing and agriculture.

So meat packing is explicitly pointed out.
 
2014-02-04 01:26:57 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: UrukHaiGuyz: I'm not ignoring the downside as far as wages for high-school dropouts.

Yes you are, you are acknowledging them but you don't care and claim that it doesn't do any harm. Just like when people complain that the productivity gains, which by the way have benefited the economy as a whole, are benefiting the upper classes while squeezing the middle class into the working poor.


I'm saying that this:

Most economists agree that the wages of low-skill high-school dropouts are suppressed by somewhere between 3 percent and 8 percent because of competition from immigrants, both legal and illegal. Economists speculate that for the average high-school dropout, that would mean about a $25 a week raise if there were no job competition from immigrants.

Is not sufficient reason to deny legal status to 11+million people.

I'm very sympathetic to plight of the working class, but immigration is one relatively small factor in their struggle. An increased minimum wage would have infinitely more impact on their well-being than any action that could be taken on immigration. Overall, the costs outweigh the benefits, and if immigration reform is to take place in a responsible manner, I'd agree that some consideration should be made for citizens in low-skill, low-pay jobs within that process. I'd personally advocate a minimum wage hike, but there may be other solutions.
 
2014-02-04 01:28:38 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: UrukHaiGuyz: It also states that the impact is negligible and generally restricted to a very few localities in the U.S.

Yes, the places with a lot of these types of immigrants. But we don't care about those people.


Well, the GOP certainly doesn't.
 
2014-02-04 01:51:48 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Is not sufficient reason to deny legal status to 11+million people.


you are the one who insisted that we only focus on the economy. there is also the impact on schools, social services, infrastructure, etc.

UrukHaiGuyz: I'm very sympathetic to plight of the working class, but immigration is one relatively small factor in their struggle.


it's part of the struggle that needs to be addressed along with all the others. There is a reason why the corporations are pushing "immigration reform", and it's not because they think they'll end up having to pay their workers more.
 
2014-02-04 02:03:45 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: you are the one who insisted that we only focus on the economy. there is also the impact on schools, social services, infrastructure, etc.


Show me where I said that. The typical line taken by the GOP to oppose immigration reform is rooted in economics, so that is the premise I attacked. Your source indicates that is not a factual concern, which lends credence to the idea that the political opposition from the right is in reality rooted in xenophobia and race politics, and has little or nothing to do with the well-being of Americans.

The immigrants are already here, and no viable plan for the deportation of 11 million people exists, so from a pragmatic standpoint it makes much more sense to grant legal status. That way we get a reduction in crime in immigrant communities that no longer fear deportation, and the increased tax revenue from moving these workers out of the shadow economy and into the real one.
 
2014-02-04 02:41:01 PM  

UrukHaiGuyz: Show me where I said that. The typical line taken by the GOP to oppose immigration reform is rooted in economics, so that is the premise I attacked.


I wrote that is was a mistake and then you said:

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


And

UrukHaiGuyz: and you can't show a single concrete instance of how it harmed the economy?


And again when referring to the economy

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


UrukHaiGuyz: Your source indicates that is not a factual concern, which lends credence to the idea that the political opposition from the right is in reality rooted in xenophobia and race politics, and has little or nothing to do with the well-being of Americans.


It is not a factual concern if you ignore things like the impact on our most vulnerable workers, who by the way are Americans so their "well-being" should be counted. How exactly is this very real impact "xenophobia"? It's like when you bring up the impact of poor workers because of some trade deal and people cry "Protectionism!"


UrukHaiGuyz: The immigrants are already here, and no viable plan for the deportation of 11 million people exists,


What are you talking about? They do not want these people deported, it is not because we can't do it. It is also why they demand things like implementing e-verify nationally be tied to amnesty, they know if properly enforced e-verify will work. Then they try to scare you with the skyrocketing prices scenario while at the same time calling for a minimum wage hike that all of a sudden won't impact prices.

UrukHaiGuyz: That way we get a reduction in crime in immigrant communities that no longer fear deportation, and the increased tax revenue from moving these workers out of the shadow economy and into the real one.


Poor people don't pay a lot in taxes especially if they have children, they will however be emboldened to apply of more services for themselves and their children.
 
2014-02-04 02:59:17 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: It is not a factual concern if you ignore things like the impact on our most vulnerable workers, who by the way are Americans so their "well-being" should be counted. How exactly is this very real impact "xenophobia"? It's like when you bring up the impact of poor workers because of some trade deal and people cry "Protectionism!"


The 3-8% impact on wages is already taking place, and is the only concrete harm you've been able to show, and the workers being impacted could be helped by many things the GOP opposes (higher minimum wage, increased access to Medicaid in GOP-led states). The net effect is positive according to your source (although still negligible). The goal of the GOP in railing against immigrants is not to foster the well-being of the poorest low-skill American workers, or they would adopt policy positions that would actually benefit them. That is why I say the debate exists on the GOP side largely to divide voters along racial lines and to pander to the xenophobia that is rampant among the Republican base.

/You're right though, re-reading the thread from yesterday, I did go to the economy first
 
2014-02-04 03:02:19 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: dumbobruni: FTA: "low skill, low wage"

Nope, your $20/hr meatpacker example still doesn't fly.

Also from the article,

Illegal immigrants do often take some of the country's least attractive jobs, such as in meat packing and agriculture.

So meat packing is explicitly pointed out.


Still not seeing where meatpackers earned $20 an hour.

Wages have not kept up with inflation since the 70s, that is true. but it is true for 90% of all workers, regardless of skill level.

I still don't see a shred of evidence that making these people legal will cause a drop in wages.

What's the alternative? forced deportation? A massive nationwide manhunt for 11 million people?
 
2014-02-04 03:07:22 PM  
I still wonder if drewcurtis wants to repeal right to work laws, repeal free trade agreements, ban offshoring and tie the minimum wage to inflation.

All these would address the many reasons that low skilled workers face falling wages.

If he doesn't, I will keep assuming that he is a disingenuous shiatbag
 
2014-02-04 03:36:52 PM  
indentation looks really nice!
 
2014-02-04 03:53:38 PM  

dumbobruni: Still not seeing where meatpackers earned $20 an hour.


Read up on it

dumbobruni: What's the alternative? forced deportation? A massive nationwide manhunt for 11 million people?


Do know anything about this issue at all because people who bring up this "massive manhunt"  is the only option nonsense never do.

dumbobruni: If he doesn't, I will keep assuming that he is a disingenuous shiatbag


You do that, but that is ok because we've already established you don't know what you're talking about.
 
2014-02-04 05:21:17 PM  

DrewCurtisJr: dumbobruni: Still not seeing where meatpackers earned $20 an hour.

Read up on it

dumbobruni: What's the alternative? forced deportation? A massive nationwide manhunt for 11 million people?

Do know anything about this issue at all because people who bring up this "massive manhunt"  is the only option nonsense never do.

dumbobruni: If he doesn't, I will keep assuming that he is a disingenuous shiatbag

You do that, but that is ok because we've already established you don't know what you're talking about.


And you still have Not proven that granting citizenship for the immigrants that live here will cause a drop in wages.
 
2014-02-04 08:39:09 PM  

dumbobruni: And you still have Not proven that granting citizenship for the immigrants that live here will cause a drop in wages.


Did you read the CBO report? Lower wages for the next decade. What am I saying I know you didn't.
 
Displayed 88 of 88 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report