|
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. |
This is truly excellent news for Clinton. The tea party was instrumental in Obama being re-elected and the fact that the tea party is still doing its thing is excellent news.
|
RIP immigration reform
Until next election season anyways.
|
On June 11 2014 11:40 Nyxisto wrote:
Can someone briefly sum up who the tea party guy is and why he won?
David Brat teaches at Randolph Macon College, which is a small but well respected school within the district.
He's the economics chair, and teaches 3rd World Econ & developing economies.
He won because Cantor was an inside the beltway guy.
And nobody can name 1 thing that he did for the district (bringing home the bacon so to speak).
So his seniority was worthless.
The funny thing is at the 11th hour, either last night or this morning... the Democrats named the chair of the Honors program at Randolph Macon as the Democrat candidate for this district.
So the faculty lounge @ RMC might be an interesting place for the next 6 months.
|
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?
If you read "A Guide to HR-15" you can figure out what kind of things go into increased boarder security.
http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-hr-15-border-security-economic-opportunity-and-immigration-modernization-act
|
On June 11 2014 12:15 RCMDVA wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 11:40 Nyxisto wrote:
Can someone briefly sum up who the tea party guy is and why he won? David Brat teaches at Randolph Macon College, which is a small but well respected school within the district. He's the economics chair, and teaches 3rd World Econ & developing economies. He won because Cantor was an inside the beltway guy. And nobody can name 1 thing that he did for the district (bringing home the bacon so to speak). So his seniority was worthless. The funny thing is at the 11th hour, either last night or this morning... the Democrats named the chair of the Honors program at Randolph Macon as the Democrat candidate for this district. So the faculty lounge @ RMC might be an interesting place for the next 6 months.
Also in the back pocket of the banks, and valiant defender of capitalism.
- Brat is the BB&T Ethics Program Director, serving 2010-2020. The program arose from a $500,000 grant, given by the charitable arm of the Fortune 500 financial services and banking firm BB&T, awarded to Randolph-Macon College for the study of the moral foundations of capitalism and the establishment of a related ethics program.
|
On June 11 2014 11:33 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I disagree that the ruling isn't groundbreaking. What's remarkable about it is the citation to the detailed factual record on how messed up the California system is. It's a blueprint that can now be applied to attack similar statutes in other states. It's really bad news for teachers unions.
Granted, California is far worse than most states. To some extent, this opinion and its findings would not apply. I'm from California originally, but moved out about ten years ago. I joke all of the time that I don't really know what a good school is because I'm so used to bad ones. Everything that I see where I am now looks fantastic compared to what I'm accustomed to.
|
On June 11 2014 12:32 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 12:15 RCMDVA wrote:On June 11 2014 11:40 Nyxisto wrote:
Can someone briefly sum up who the tea party guy is and why he won? David Brat teaches at Randolph Macon College, which is a small but well respected school within the district. He's the economics chair, and teaches 3rd World Econ & developing economies. He won because Cantor was an inside the beltway guy. And nobody can name 1 thing that he did for the district (bringing home the bacon so to speak). So his seniority was worthless. The funny thing is at the 11th hour, either last night or this morning... the Democrats named the chair of the Honors program at Randolph Macon as the Democrat candidate for this district. So the faculty lounge @ RMC might be an interesting place for the next 6 months. Also in the back pocket of the banks, and valiant defender of capitalism. - Brat is the BB&T Ethics Program Director, serving 2010-2020. The program arose from a $500,000 grant, given by the charitable arm of the Fortune 500 financial services and banking firm BB&T, awarded to Randolph-Macon College for the study of the moral foundations of capitalism and the establishment of a related ethics program.
Just what the fucking hell does "back pocket of the banks" mean when the guy raised only $200k and spent $125k?
http://www.opensecrets.org/races/summary.php?cycle=2014&id=VA07
Tuition + board @RMC is $49k per year. A $500k grant ain't shit.
|
On June 11 2014 12:32 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 12:15 RCMDVA wrote:On June 11 2014 11:40 Nyxisto wrote:
Can someone briefly sum up who the tea party guy is and why he won? David Brat teaches at Randolph Macon College, which is a small but well respected school within the district. He's the economics chair, and teaches 3rd World Econ & developing economies. He won because Cantor was an inside the beltway guy. And nobody can name 1 thing that he did for the district (bringing home the bacon so to speak). So his seniority was worthless. The funny thing is at the 11th hour, either last night or this morning... the Democrats named the chair of the Honors program at Randolph Macon as the Democrat candidate for this district. So the faculty lounge @ RMC might be an interesting place for the next 6 months. Also in the back pocket of the banks, and valiant defender of capitalism. - Brat is the BB&T Ethics Program Director, serving 2010-2020. The program arose from a $500,000 grant, given by the charitable arm of the Fortune 500 financial services and banking firm BB&T, awarded to Randolph-Macon College for the study of the moral foundations of capitalism and the establishment of a related ethics program.
Yes, ethics and morality of Capitalism is the 'back pocket of banks', and BB&T at that, a notorious bank for their large libertarian streak, absent in entities which get a pass when they donate billions to the likes of the (D)'s who steal from tax-payers. Anyways, my point was your connotation that this is a 'negative' is laughable, as if it is equating Brat and BB&T to CitiBank and the other rot banks who are nothing more than Fascist entities.
|
On June 11 2014 12:32 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 12:15 RCMDVA wrote:On June 11 2014 11:40 Nyxisto wrote:
Can someone briefly sum up who the tea party guy is and why he won? David Brat teaches at Randolph Macon College, which is a small but well respected school within the district. He's the economics chair, and teaches 3rd World Econ & developing economies. He won because Cantor was an inside the beltway guy. And nobody can name 1 thing that he did for the district (bringing home the bacon so to speak). So his seniority was worthless. The funny thing is at the 11th hour, either last night or this morning... the Democrats named the chair of the Honors program at Randolph Macon as the Democrat candidate for this district. So the faculty lounge @ RMC might be an interesting place for the next 6 months. Also in the back pocket of the banks, and valiant defender of capitalism. - Brat is the BB&T Ethics Program Director, serving 2010-2020. The program arose from a $500,000 grant, given by the charitable arm of the Fortune 500 financial services and banking firm BB&T, awarded to Randolph-Macon College for the study of the moral foundations of capitalism and the establishment of a related ethics program.
Ethics program! Wow, what a monster 
|
|
|
On June 11 2014 08:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +California Teacher Tenure Ruled Unconstitutional
A California judge today ruled the state's laws governing teacher tenure and the firing of public school teachers unconstitutional, saying they interfere with the state's obligation to provide every child with access to a good education.
The plaintiffs in the case, Vergara v. California, argued that the tenure system for public school teachers in California verges on the absurd, and that those laws disproportionately harm poor and minority students. In his ruling, Judge Rolf M. Treu agreed.
"Evidence has been elicited in this trial of the specific effect of grossly ineffective teachers on students," Judge Treu wrote. "The evidence is compelling. Indeed, it shocks the conscience." ... SourceMoving in the right direction... On its face, this smacks of circus jurisprudence. I'll have to read the full opinion and some amicus curiae briefs to look into this, especially since since it convinced our resident legal scholar (smirk). I'm all for getting rid of bad laws, but the news story does not persuade me of some kind of constitutional right to a "good education" or hiring/firing practices that were trodden upon. SC2 stream on monitor 1, opinion on monitor 2 ahoy.
On June 11 2014 10:11 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
I think you guys are glossing over the important thing. Voters thought Cantor was a RINO, a man who hatched the plan to have the GOP block every attempt at any legislation, sabotaged the debt ceiling talks more than once, plotted for the speakership, and who knows what else. Maybe GOP leadership (such as it exists) will get the point that business as usual and being 2nd place in the "Two Evils" category isn't enough these days.
On June 11 2014 09:30 xDaunt wrote:
He has the stink of a careerist political hack. Good riddance. Start your lucrative lobbying and advising career early, hurrah!
If you have to use TPW to find out how the tea party is responding, you're pretty deep in it. But now back to Baghdad Bob on the status of American troops in Iraq.
|
On June 11 2014 12:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 11:39 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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? If you read "A Guide to HR-15" you can figure out what kind of things go into increased boarder security. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-hr-15-border-security-economic-opportunity-and-immigration-modernization-act
Maybe I'm missing something but what is it that makes the senate proposal 'amnesty' and that proposal acceptable? Just trying to clear up what the problem actually is?
|
On June 11 2014 13:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 12:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 11:39 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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? If you read "A Guide to HR-15" you can figure out what kind of things go into increased boarder security. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-hr-15-border-security-economic-opportunity-and-immigration-modernization-act Maybe I'm missing something but what is it that makes the senate proposal 'amnesty' and that proposal acceptable? Just trying to clear up what the problem actually is?
I don't know off hand. I"m sure if you did some research you could figure it out.
|
On June 11 2014 12:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 11:33 Bigtony wrote: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. I disagree that the ruling isn't groundbreaking. What's remarkable about it is the citation to the detailed factual record on how messed up the California system is. It's a blueprint that can now be applied to attack similar statutes in other states. It's really bad news for teachers unions. Granted, California is far worse than most states. To some extent, this opinion and its findings would not apply. I'm from California originally, but moved out about ten years ago. I joke all of the time that I don't really know what a good school is because I'm so used to bad ones. Everything that I see where I am now looks fantastic compared to what I'm accustomed to.
There is no detailed factual record of "how messed up the system is." The statistic they present is that 1-3% of teachers are ineffective.
1-3%.
So in other words, 97-99% of teachers in California are effective. Let's be super generous and say that 10% of teachers are somewhere substantially below average. 90% of teachers are still effective or better (teachers are typically rated on a scale from 1-4 or 1-5, 1 being trash, 2 being "just ok," 3 being "good," and 4 being "far above expectations"). The problem in California (and everywhere) is that poor kids live in poor neighborhoods where the town has less money. They offer lower compensation and harder working conditions. Good teachers don't want to stay there.
There's no blueprint here (thankfully) and the blow to unions should be very light. It's big news because California is a populous state and it will affect more students/teachers/schools than somewhere else.
If you care about education go to your local school board meetings. You'll see where most of the problems in your district originate - at the top.
|
On June 11 2014 13:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 13:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 12:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 11:39 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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? If you read "A Guide to HR-15" you can figure out what kind of things go into increased boarder security. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-hr-15-border-security-economic-opportunity-and-immigration-modernization-act Maybe I'm missing something but what is it that makes the senate proposal 'amnesty' and that proposal acceptable? Just trying to clear up what the problem actually is? I don't know off hand. I"m sure if you did some research you could figure it out.
Well from what I gather neither of the aforementioned proposals are ok in the Tea Party's eyes. They both amount to 'amnesty' according to the people (Tea Party) who just voted out the House Majority Leader for the Republican party...
As far as I can tell there is no 'amnesty' free legislation, unless any conservative here can come up with it? Being such big advocates of 'securing the border' I'm sure someone... anyone can come up with it?
|
On June 11 2014 12:32 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 12:15 RCMDVA wrote:On June 11 2014 11:40 Nyxisto wrote:
Can someone briefly sum up who the tea party guy is and why he won? David Brat teaches at Randolph Macon College, which is a small but well respected school within the district. He's the economics chair, and teaches 3rd World Econ & developing economies. He won because Cantor was an inside the beltway guy. And nobody can name 1 thing that he did for the district (bringing home the bacon so to speak). So his seniority was worthless. The funny thing is at the 11th hour, either last night or this morning... the Democrats named the chair of the Honors program at Randolph Macon as the Democrat candidate for this district. So the faculty lounge @ RMC might be an interesting place for the next 6 months. Also in the back pocket of the banks, and valiant defender of capitalism. - Brat is the BB&T Ethics Program Director, serving 2010-2020. The program arose from a $500,000 grant, given by the charitable arm of the Fortune 500 financial services and banking firm BB&T, awarded to Randolph-Macon College for the study of the moral foundations of capitalism and the establishment of a related ethics program.
How dare he defend capitalism! Such an evil, terrible, awful man! Defending capitalism, the nerve! Doesn't he understand how much better off we would be if obama just told everyone what profession to do, and how much they will get paid?
Really, how are people actually using "capitalist" "capitalism" or "defender of capitalism" as an insult or a bad thing? Does that mean that everyone who is against capitalism or for socialism should be called a communist?
|
On June 11 2014 13:37 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 12:35 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2014 11:33 Bigtony wrote: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. I disagree that the ruling isn't groundbreaking. What's remarkable about it is the citation to the detailed factual record on how messed up the California system is. It's a blueprint that can now be applied to attack similar statutes in other states. It's really bad news for teachers unions. Granted, California is far worse than most states. To some extent, this opinion and its findings would not apply. I'm from California originally, but moved out about ten years ago. I joke all of the time that I don't really know what a good school is because I'm so used to bad ones. Everything that I see where I am now looks fantastic compared to what I'm accustomed to. There is no detailed factual record of "how messed up the system is." The statistic they present is that 1-3% of teachers are ineffective. 1-3%.So in other words, 97-99% of teachers in California are effective. Let's be super generous and say that 10% of teachers are somewhere substantially below average. 90% of teachers are still effective or better (teachers are typically rated on a scale from 1-4 or 1-5, 1 being trash, 2 being "just ok," 3 being "good," and 4 being "far above expectations"). The problem in California (and everywhere) is that poor kids live in poor neighborhoods where the town has less money. They offer lower compensation and harder working conditions. Good teachers don't want to stay there. There's no blueprint here (thankfully) and the blow to unions should be very light. It's big news because California is a populous state and it will affect more students/teachers/schools than somewhere else. If you care about education go to your local school board meetings. You'll see where most of the problems in your district originate - at the top.
Of course there's a detailed factual record of how messed up the system is. There was a whole trial in which numerous experts testified. The trial court can't possibly cite all of it. In fact, the opinion is remarkably concise given the subject matter at hand. Frankly, not much citation to the details was necessary given the absurdity of so many of the state's arguments.
|
On June 11 2014 13:05 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 08:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:California Teacher Tenure Ruled Unconstitutional
A California judge today ruled the state's laws governing teacher tenure and the firing of public school teachers unconstitutional, saying they interfere with the state's obligation to provide every child with access to a good education.
The plaintiffs in the case, Vergara v. California, argued that the tenure system for public school teachers in California verges on the absurd, and that those laws disproportionately harm poor and minority students. In his ruling, Judge Rolf M. Treu agreed.
"Evidence has been elicited in this trial of the specific effect of grossly ineffective teachers on students," Judge Treu wrote. "The evidence is compelling. Indeed, it shocks the conscience." ... SourceMoving in the right direction... On its face, this smacks of circus jurisprudence. I'll have to read the full opinion and some amicus curiae briefs to look into this, especially since since it convinced our resident legal scholar (smirk). I'm all for getting rid of bad laws , but the news story does not persuade me of some kind of constitutional right to a "good education" or hiring/firing practices that were trodden upon. SC2 stream on monitor 1, opinion on monitor 2 ahoy.
We're talking about the California Constitution, not the US Constitution. Many (if not most) state constitutions expressly create statutory rights to "good education," or however they may phrase it.
|
On June 11 2014 13:39 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 13:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 13:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 12:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 11:39 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
? 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? If you read "A Guide to HR-15" you can figure out what kind of things go into increased boarder security. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-hr-15-border-security-economic-opportunity-and-immigration-modernization-act Maybe I'm missing something but what is it that makes the senate proposal 'amnesty' and that proposal acceptable? Just trying to clear up what the problem actually is? I don't know off hand. I"m sure if you did some research you could figure it out. Well from what I gather neither of the aforementioned proposals are ok in the Tea Party's eyes. They both amount to 'amnesty' according to the people (Tea Party) who just voted out the House Majority Leader for the Republican party... As far as I can tell there is no 'amnesty' free legislation, unless any conservative here can come up with it? Being such big advocates of 'securing the border' I'm sure someone... anyone can come up with it?
Amnesty is referring to what is done with illegal immigrants who are already here. Securing the border has to do with people who are not already here. Maybe that clears things up for you?
|
On June 11 2014 14:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 13:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 13:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 13:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 12:29 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 11:39 GreenHorizons wrote: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:
[quote]
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? If you read "A Guide to HR-15" you can figure out what kind of things go into increased boarder security. http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/special-reports/guide-hr-15-border-security-economic-opportunity-and-immigration-modernization-act Maybe I'm missing something but what is it that makes the senate proposal 'amnesty' and that proposal acceptable? Just trying to clear up what the problem actually is? I don't know off hand. I"m sure if you did some research you could figure it out. Well from what I gather neither of the aforementioned proposals are ok in the Tea Party's eyes. They both amount to 'amnesty' according to the people (Tea Party) who just voted out the House Majority Leader for the Republican party... As far as I can tell there is no 'amnesty' free legislation, unless any conservative here can come up with it? Being such big advocates of 'securing the border' I'm sure someone... anyone can come up with it? Amnesty is referring to what is done with illegal immigrants who are already here. Securing the border has to do with people who are not already here. Maybe that clears things up for you?
Not even a little bit. I'm guessing you can't come up with any legislation that does what you are saying and/or that meets those basic requirements I outlined?
My guess is it's because it doesn't exist?
After my research I've concluded that:
There is bipartisan support for an immigration bill, that bill is being blocked in the house.
The viable plans for securing the border are all basically the same. (Conservatives feel free to point out significant differences)
The primary obstacle is what is done with the ~11,000,000 people who have already illegally entered the US (not securing the border).
The people who oppose the bipartisan proposal have not crafted an alternative that is acceptable to themselves...? Further more there is none on the foreseeable horizon.
It seems that the opposition and the support differ on the definition of 'amnesty'
If any of that is inaccurate feel free to enlighten me?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
