|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
But no conservative can outline what 'a secure border' would look like so that we could work on legal immigration?
Or approximately how much they want to spend, or where they want to get the money from?
I would get it if there was a competing proposal, but to my knowledge there isn't?
Seems kind of silly to harp on 'securing the border' when they don't even have any legislation to push...?
|
Pigs fly.
User was warned for this post
|
On June 11 2014 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 10:30 Introvert wrote:On June 11 2014 10:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 10:06 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2014 09:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 09:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2014 09:36 Introvert wrote:On June 11 2014 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 09:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Last Friday the Cantor campaign had him up by 34 points, and now tonight.
Who says the GOP civil war is over. They are suggesting it was over immigration. So do conservatives not know what they mean when they say 'secure the border first'? You want a number? Don't be silly. I want to make sure we don't have a repeat of the 80s- No broken promises. The particulars are up for debate. But secure it first, then we deal with the problem of amnesty once and for all. You don't paint the ceiling while the roof is still leaking. Also- bye bye Cantor! Yeah, it is not about a specific number. The idea is to actually make a credible effort to stop illegal immigration, which we clearly aren't doing right now. Well you don't have a number, how about a 'How' you want the border secured? What needs to be accomplished in a 'credible effort'? I mean conservatives have been chanting this since I can remember, so surely there is a plan? expectations? some sort of measurable goals? The goal is simple: the elimination of all illegal immigration. Obviously, we don't get there, but that's the goal. We currently are operating a system where illegal immigration is virtually tolerated by authorities if not tacitly encouraged. Hell, we can't even say "illegal alien" anymore. We have to say "undocumented _____." In terms how to go about securing the border, I'd ramp up border security and funding for border security, markedly increase deportations, and slap on punitive fines for those who are caught. I'd also make it dramatically easier to legally immigrate to the US, thereby discouraging all of the incentives to come here illegally in the first place. As for those who are already here, I'd let them become legal permanent residents upon paying a large fine -- either all at once or on a payment plan -- and taxes regularly thereafter. Those who don't get shipped out. Military service or possibly some other civil service could be pathways to full citizenship. The bolded part is what lost Cantor his race. His opponent called that amnesty. just FYI The part that gets you kicked out is doing all that BEFORE the border is secure. But no one can say what that means? It's something you'd have to negotiate over / discuss based on what the plausible options available can achieve.
What is it that you'd be negotiating for?
|
On June 11 2014 10:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
But no conservative can outline what 'a secure border' would look like so that we could work on legal immigration?
Or approximately how much they want to spend, or where they want to get the money from?
I would get it if there was a competing proposal, but to my knowledge there isn't?
Seems kind of silly to harp on 'securing the border' when they don't even have any legislation to push...?
You're telling me that there have been zero proposals to secure the boarder?
|
On June 11 2014 10:58 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 10:30 Introvert wrote:On June 11 2014 10:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 10:06 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2014 09:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 09:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2014 09:36 Introvert wrote:On June 11 2014 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
They are suggesting it was over immigration.
So do conservatives not know what they mean when they say 'secure the border first'? You want a number? Don't be silly. I want to make sure we don't have a repeat of the 80s- No broken promises. The particulars are up for debate. But secure it first, then we deal with the problem of amnesty once and for all. You don't paint the ceiling while the roof is still leaking. Also- bye bye Cantor! Yeah, it is not about a specific number. The idea is to actually make a credible effort to stop illegal immigration, which we clearly aren't doing right now. Well you don't have a number, how about a 'How' you want the border secured? What needs to be accomplished in a 'credible effort'? I mean conservatives have been chanting this since I can remember, so surely there is a plan? expectations? some sort of measurable goals? The goal is simple: the elimination of all illegal immigration. Obviously, we don't get there, but that's the goal. We currently are operating a system where illegal immigration is virtually tolerated by authorities if not tacitly encouraged. Hell, we can't even say "illegal alien" anymore. We have to say "undocumented _____." In terms how to go about securing the border, I'd ramp up border security and funding for border security, markedly increase deportations, and slap on punitive fines for those who are caught. I'd also make it dramatically easier to legally immigrate to the US, thereby discouraging all of the incentives to come here illegally in the first place. As for those who are already here, I'd let them become legal permanent residents upon paying a large fine -- either all at once or on a payment plan -- and taxes regularly thereafter. Those who don't get shipped out. Military service or possibly some other civil service could be pathways to full citizenship. The bolded part is what lost Cantor his race. His opponent called that amnesty. just FYI The part that gets you kicked out is doing all that BEFORE the border is secure. But no one can say what that means? It's something you'd have to negotiate over / discuss based on what the plausible options available can achieve. What is it that you'd be negotiating for?
The topic is boarder security.
|
On June 11 2014 11:00 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 10:54 GreenHorizons wrote:
But no conservative can outline what 'a secure border' would look like so that we could work on legal immigration?
Or approximately how much they want to spend, or where they want to get the money from?
I would get it if there was a competing proposal, but to my knowledge there isn't?
Seems kind of silly to harp on 'securing the border' when they don't even have any legislation to push...?
You're telling me that there have been zero proposals to secure the boarder?
Not recently? Is there one that if signed would mean they could sign on to the rest of immigration reform?
|
On June 11 2014 11:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 10:58 Bigtony wrote:On June 11 2014 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 10:30 Introvert wrote:On June 11 2014 10:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 10:06 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2014 09:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 09:38 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2014 09:36 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
You want a number? Don't be silly. I want to make sure we don't have a repeat of the 80s- No broken promises. The particulars are up for debate. But secure it first, then we deal with the problem of amnesty once and for all.
You don't paint the ceiling while the roof is still leaking.
Also- bye bye Cantor! Yeah, it is not about a specific number. The idea is to actually make a credible effort to stop illegal immigration, which we clearly aren't doing right now. Well you don't have a number, how about a 'How' you want the border secured? What needs to be accomplished in a 'credible effort'? I mean conservatives have been chanting this since I can remember, so surely there is a plan? expectations? some sort of measurable goals? The goal is simple: the elimination of all illegal immigration. Obviously, we don't get there, but that's the goal. We currently are operating a system where illegal immigration is virtually tolerated by authorities if not tacitly encouraged. Hell, we can't even say "illegal alien" anymore. We have to say "undocumented _____." In terms how to go about securing the border, I'd ramp up border security and funding for border security, markedly increase deportations, and slap on punitive fines for those who are caught. I'd also make it dramatically easier to legally immigrate to the US, thereby discouraging all of the incentives to come here illegally in the first place. As for those who are already here, I'd let them become legal permanent residents upon paying a large fine -- either all at once or on a payment plan -- and taxes regularly thereafter. Those who don't get shipped out. Military service or possibly some other civil service could be pathways to full citizenship. The bolded part is what lost Cantor his race. His opponent called that amnesty. just FYI The part that gets you kicked out is doing all that BEFORE the border is secure. But no one can say what that means? It's something you'd have to negotiate over / discuss based on what the plausible options available can achieve. What is it that you'd be negotiating for? The topic is boarder security.
? Yes and you said "border security" is something that would need to be negotiated for. What is it that you would negotiate for? Do you want a physical barrier? More armed guards?
|
Okay, I just read that California judge's opinion striking down the California tenure and dismissal laws. What a fucking incredible opinion! I knew that California's education system was fucked up (it is really hard to miss it), but the factual problems with the system that he cites are astonishing. I have no doubt that he reached the right opinion.
|
On June 11 2014 11:06 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 11:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 10:58 Bigtony wrote:On June 11 2014 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 10:30 Introvert wrote:On June 11 2014 10:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 10:06 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2014 09:47 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 09:38 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Yeah, it is not about a specific number. The idea is to actually make a credible effort to stop illegal immigration, which we clearly aren't doing right now.
Well you don't have a number, how about a 'How' you want the border secured? What needs to be accomplished in a 'credible effort'? I mean conservatives have been chanting this since I can remember, so surely there is a plan? expectations? some sort of measurable goals? The goal is simple: the elimination of all illegal immigration. Obviously, we don't get there, but that's the goal. We currently are operating a system where illegal immigration is virtually tolerated by authorities if not tacitly encouraged. Hell, we can't even say "illegal alien" anymore. We have to say "undocumented _____." In terms how to go about securing the border, I'd ramp up border security and funding for border security, markedly increase deportations, and slap on punitive fines for those who are caught. I'd also make it dramatically easier to legally immigrate to the US, thereby discouraging all of the incentives to come here illegally in the first place. As for those who are already here, I'd let them become legal permanent residents upon paying a large fine -- either all at once or on a payment plan -- and taxes regularly thereafter. Those who don't get shipped out. Military service or possibly some other civil service could be pathways to full citizenship. The bolded part is what lost Cantor his race. His opponent called that amnesty. just FYI The part that gets you kicked out is doing all that BEFORE the border is secure. But no one can say what that means? It's something you'd have to negotiate over / discuss based on what the plausible options available can achieve. What is it that you'd be negotiating for? The topic is boarder security. ? Yes and you said "border security" is something that would need to be negotiated for. What is it that you would negotiate for? Do you want a physical barrier? More armed guards?
Are you asking me what I personally want? I'm not sure, I haven't thought about it in a while.
|
On June 11 2014 11:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 11:06 Bigtony wrote:On June 11 2014 11:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 10:58 Bigtony wrote:On June 11 2014 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 10:30 Introvert wrote:On June 11 2014 10:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 10:06 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2014 09:47 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Well you don't have a number, how about a 'How' you want the border secured?
What needs to be accomplished in a 'credible effort'?
I mean conservatives have been chanting this since I can remember, so surely there is a plan? expectations? some sort of measurable goals? The goal is simple: the elimination of all illegal immigration. Obviously, we don't get there, but that's the goal. We currently are operating a system where illegal immigration is virtually tolerated by authorities if not tacitly encouraged. Hell, we can't even say "illegal alien" anymore. We have to say "undocumented _____." In terms how to go about securing the border, I'd ramp up border security and funding for border security, markedly increase deportations, and slap on punitive fines for those who are caught. I'd also make it dramatically easier to legally immigrate to the US, thereby discouraging all of the incentives to come here illegally in the first place. As for those who are already here, I'd let them become legal permanent residents upon paying a large fine -- either all at once or on a payment plan -- and taxes regularly thereafter. Those who don't get shipped out. Military service or possibly some other civil service could be pathways to full citizenship. The bolded part is what lost Cantor his race. His opponent called that amnesty. just FYI The part that gets you kicked out is doing all that BEFORE the border is secure. But no one can say what that means? It's something you'd have to negotiate over / discuss based on what the plausible options available can achieve. What is it that you'd be negotiating for? The topic is boarder security. ? Yes and you said "border security" is something that would need to be negotiated for. What is it that you would negotiate for? Do you want a physical barrier? More armed guards? Are you asking me what I personally want? I'm not sure, I haven't thought about it in a while. I highly doubt that they really care. When was the last time that a liberal credibly proposed methods of tightening border security?
|
On June 11 2014 11:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 11:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 11:06 Bigtony wrote:On June 11 2014 11:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 10:58 Bigtony wrote:On June 11 2014 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 10:30 Introvert wrote:On June 11 2014 10:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 10:06 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
The goal is simple: the elimination of all illegal immigration. Obviously, we don't get there, but that's the goal. We currently are operating a system where illegal immigration is virtually tolerated by authorities if not tacitly encouraged. Hell, we can't even say "illegal alien" anymore. We have to say "undocumented _____."
In terms how to go about securing the border, I'd ramp up border security and funding for border security, markedly increase deportations, and slap on punitive fines for those who are caught. I'd also make it dramatically easier to legally immigrate to the US, thereby discouraging all of the incentives to come here illegally in the first place. As for those who are already here, I'd let them become legal permanent residents upon paying a large fine -- either all at once or on a payment plan -- and taxes regularly thereafter. Those who don't get shipped out. Military service or possibly some other civil service could be pathways to full citizenship. The bolded part is what lost Cantor his race. His opponent called that amnesty. just FYI The part that gets you kicked out is doing all that BEFORE the border is secure. But no one can say what that means? It's something you'd have to negotiate over / discuss based on what the plausible options available can achieve. What is it that you'd be negotiating for? The topic is boarder security. ? Yes and you said "border security" is something that would need to be negotiated for. What is it that you would negotiate for? Do you want a physical barrier? More armed guards? Are you asking me what I personally want? I'm not sure, I haven't thought about it in a while. I highly doubt that they really care. When was the last time that a liberal credibly proposed methods of tightening border security?
Sounds like Conservatives don't have one best I can tell?
|
|
|
On June 11 2014 11:15 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 11:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 11:06 Bigtony wrote:On June 11 2014 11:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 10:58 Bigtony wrote:On June 11 2014 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 10:30 Introvert wrote:On June 11 2014 10:15 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 10:06 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
The goal is simple: the elimination of all illegal immigration. Obviously, we don't get there, but that's the goal. We currently are operating a system where illegal immigration is virtually tolerated by authorities if not tacitly encouraged. Hell, we can't even say "illegal alien" anymore. We have to say "undocumented _____."
In terms how to go about securing the border, I'd ramp up border security and funding for border security, markedly increase deportations, and slap on punitive fines for those who are caught. I'd also make it dramatically easier to legally immigrate to the US, thereby discouraging all of the incentives to come here illegally in the first place. As for those who are already here, I'd let them become legal permanent residents upon paying a large fine -- either all at once or on a payment plan -- and taxes regularly thereafter. Those who don't get shipped out. Military service or possibly some other civil service could be pathways to full citizenship. The bolded part is what lost Cantor his race. His opponent called that amnesty. just FYI The part that gets you kicked out is doing all that BEFORE the border is secure. But no one can say what that means? It's something you'd have to negotiate over / discuss based on what the plausible options available can achieve. What is it that you'd be negotiating for? The topic is boarder security. ? Yes and you said "border security" is something that would need to be negotiated for. What is it that you would negotiate for? Do you want a physical barrier? More armed guards? Are you asking me what I personally want? I'm not sure, I haven't thought about it in a while. I highly doubt that they really care. When was the last time that a liberal credibly proposed methods of tightening border security?
When was the last time a liberal was frothing at the mouth over immigration?
Edit: Boom, 2k posts, y'all.
|
On June 11 2014 11:07 xDaunt wrote:
Okay, I just read that California judge's opinion striking down the California tenure and dismissal laws. What a fucking incredible opinion! I knew that California's education system was fucked up (it is really hard to miss it), but the factual problems with the system that he cites are astonishing. I have no doubt that he reached the right opinion.
I just finished reading it. California is a pretty huge outlier with a 2 year tenure system. There's no way that survives. Teacher dismissal process has already been altered in most states across the country - and indeed it's much easier than this opinion and others make it out to be. Tenured teachers are forced out of schools more commonly than they are actually dismissed/fired. Reassignments to schools they don't want to work out, increased pressure from administrations, being stripped of duties (usually a coaching job) that they do like, etc. (and that stops short of actual harassment and intimidation which is not unheard of). Both will be changed in CA to be more like systems across the country. The ruling is not that ground breaking to be honest. It's mind blowing that 2 year tenure survived this long (or that it ever existed at all).
I doubt that LIFO is truly removed after appeal.
|
On June 11 2014 11:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 11:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2014 11:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 11:06 Bigtony wrote:On June 11 2014 11:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 10:58 Bigtony wrote:On June 11 2014 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 10:30 Introvert wrote:On June 11 2014 10:15 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The bolded part is what lost Cantor his race. His opponent called that amnesty. just FYI
The part that gets you kicked out is doing all that BEFORE the border is secure. But no one can say what that means? It's something you'd have to negotiate over / discuss based on what the plausible options available can achieve. What is it that you'd be negotiating for? The topic is boarder security. ? Yes and you said "border security" is something that would need to be negotiated for. What is it that you would negotiate for? Do you want a physical barrier? More armed guards? Are you asking me what I personally want? I'm not sure, I haven't thought about it in a while. I highly doubt that they really care. When was the last time that a liberal credibly proposed methods of tightening border security? Sounds like Conservatives don't have one best I can tell?
Immigration and boarder security have come up a few times over the past decade. I'm sure you can find proposals by googling around, if that's what you're after.
|
On June 11 2014 11:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 11:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 11:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2014 11:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 11:06 Bigtony wrote:On June 11 2014 11:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 10:58 Bigtony wrote:On June 11 2014 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 10:30 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
The part that gets you kicked out is doing all that BEFORE the border is secure.
But no one can say what that means? It's something you'd have to negotiate over / discuss based on what the plausible options available can achieve. What is it that you'd be negotiating for? The topic is boarder security. ? Yes and you said "border security" is something that would need to be negotiated for. What is it that you would negotiate for? Do you want a physical barrier? More armed guards? Are you asking me what I personally want? I'm not sure, I haven't thought about it in a while. I highly doubt that they really care. When was the last time that a liberal credibly proposed methods of tightening border security? Sounds like Conservatives don't have one best I can tell? Immigration and boarder security have come up a few times over the past decade. I'm sure you can find proposals by googling around, if that's what you're after.
I haven't seen any serious ones that have clear goals or expectations, or any that address what to do with people here illegally right now? And definitely 0 that do all of that and pass the Tea Party smell test? Unless you know of one or more that do?
Certainly seems like you (and everyone else for that matter) does not?
|
Can someone briefly sum up who the tea party guy is and why he won?
|
Mr. Brat, an economics professor at Randolph-Macon College in Ashland, Va., had support from radio host Laura Ingraham, who hosted a rally with him in a Richmond suburb last week that centered upon Mr. Brat’s opposition to immigration reform.
Mr. Brat appeared more interested in campaigning to make a point than in winning. The Washington Post reported last month that he no-showed meetings with key conservative activists in the capital. His excuse: He had final exams to grade.
There are clues to Mr. Brat’s ideology in his academic CV. His current book project is titled “Ethics as Leading Economic Indicator? What went Wrong? Notes on the Judeo-Christian Tradition and Human Reason.”
His other published works include the titles “God and Advanced Mammon – Can Theological Types Handle Usury and Capitalism?” and “An Analysis of the Moral Foundations in Ayn Rand.”
Source
Apparently his slamming Cantor for endorsing 'amnesty' caused a last minute surge.
EDIT: So I am trying to figure out what it is they would accept as a solution. It's been made apparent they don't have a proposal in writing and it doesn't seem any conservatives here have any specifics beyond the same 'secure the border first' rhetoric?
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On June 11 2014 11:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 11:34 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 11:20 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 11:15 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2014 11:09 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 11:06 Bigtony wrote:On June 11 2014 11:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 10:58 Bigtony wrote:On June 11 2014 10:51 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 10:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
But no one can say what that means?
It's something you'd have to negotiate over / discuss based on what the plausible options available can achieve. What is it that you'd be negotiating for? The topic is boarder security. ? Yes and you said "border security" is something that would need to be negotiated for. What is it that you would negotiate for? Do you want a physical barrier? More armed guards? Are you asking me what I personally want? I'm not sure, I haven't thought about it in a while. I highly doubt that they really care. When was the last time that a liberal credibly proposed methods of tightening border security? Sounds like Conservatives don't have one best I can tell? Immigration and boarder security have come up a few times over the past decade. I'm sure you can find proposals by googling around, if that's what you're after. I haven't seen any serious ones that have clear goals or expectations, or any that address what to do with people here illegally right now? And definitely 0 that do all of that and pass the Tea Party smell test? Unless you know of one or more that do? Certainly seems like you (and everyone else for that matter) does not?
The bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform bill that passed last year in the Senate is the closest thing you'll find. Never passed the House.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
