|
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. |
On June 11 2014 13:51 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 12:32 IgnE wrote: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?
Obama is a capitalist.
Yes.
No, you can call communists communists, but socialists aren't communists.
|
On June 11 2014 14:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 14:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]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?
xDaunt gave you a brief paragraph on what he would do. The problem conservatives have is that they (rightly) fear that amnesty will be immediate, but border security will either be A) ineffective, leaving far too much to "executive discretion" and B) that it will be shelved sometime later, either as part of another bill, or congress will just refuse to fund it, etc. There really are a a myriad of concerns as to why security must come first. Fix the leak first. I personally am not aware of any distinct legislation mainly because it's not seriously discussed in the first place. Remember the senate bill from last year? Conservatives were concerned about (A), that it didn't actually secure the border first.
Also, conservatives don't trust this president to enforce the parts of the bill he doesn't like.
|
In the mean time we have the beginnings of the development of a caste system in the US.
|
On June 11 2014 14:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 14:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]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?
I'm not sure where you are going with this. You were originally discussing the issue with people on this thread and arguing with what they said. Now you're arguing with "conservatives" who aren't here.
You had asked for anyone here to define a secure border. I gave you information on that. Now you're demanding that I come up with legislation that meets your requirements?
|
On June 11 2014 14:41 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 14:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 14:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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? xDaunt gave you a brief paragraph on what he would do. The problem conservatives have is that they (rightly) fear that amnesty will be immediate, but border security will either be A) ineffective, leaving far too much to "executive discretion" and B) that it will be shelved sometime later, either as part of another bill, or congress will just refuse to fund it, etc. There really are a a myriad of concerns as to why security must come first. Fix the leak first. I personally am not aware of any distinct legislation mainly because it's not seriously discussed in the first place. Remember the senate bill from last year? Conservatives were concerned about (A), that it didn't actually secure the border first. Also, conservatives don't trust this president to enforce the parts of the bill he doesn't like.
The problem conservatives seem to have is they have no problem pointing out problems in legislation but they can't for the life of them write alternatives that are acceptable to themselves... Immigration being a prime example.
For decades they have been asking for something to be done, yet when you ask "Where is your plan?", it either doesn't exist, isn't significantly different than what already has bipartisan support, and/or can't get past the 'amnesty' hurdle.
It seems pretty ridiculous that conservatives have said for decades that they want to resolve the problem yet they still don't have an alternative piece of legislation they would support!?
I can't look at decades of complaining without having a viable legislative alternative as anything other than rhetorical bullshit. Even if you don't like Democratic alternatives at least they present them?
|
On June 11 2014 15:02 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 14:41 Introvert wrote:On June 11 2014 14:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 14:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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? xDaunt gave you a brief paragraph on what he would do. The problem conservatives have is that they (rightly) fear that amnesty will be immediate, but border security will either be A) ineffective, leaving far too much to "executive discretion" and B) that it will be shelved sometime later, either as part of another bill, or congress will just refuse to fund it, etc. There really are a a myriad of concerns as to why security must come first. Fix the leak first. I personally am not aware of any distinct legislation mainly because it's not seriously discussed in the first place. Remember the senate bill from last year? Conservatives were concerned about (A), that it didn't actually secure the border first. Also, conservatives don't trust this president to enforce the parts of the bill he doesn't like. The problem conservatives seem to have is they have no problem pointing out problems in legislation but they can't for the life of them write alternatives that are acceptable to themselves... Immigration being a prime example. For decades they have been asking for something to be done, yet when you ask "Where is your plan?", it either doesn't exist, isn't significantly different than what already has bipartisan support, and/or can't get past the 'amnesty' hurdle. It seems pretty ridiculous that conservatives have said for decades that they want to resolve the problem yet they still don't have an alternative piece of legislation they would support!? I can't look at decades of complaining without having a viable legislative alternative as anything other than rhetorical bullshit. Even if you don't like Democratic alternatives at least they present them?
I'll say it again then: there is no legislation because Washington doesn't want to secure the border. It's another perpetual issue then can exploit from now until kingdom come. Why bother writing up long drafts that have no chance? It's not like the Obamacare bill just magically appeared in the senate for them to vote on, they had to decide what they were going to spend their political capital on (and once they did, THEN Obamacare went through Congress at light speed). I didn't know I was required to write actual legal text before begin able to make a case for something. xDaunt gave you a basic outline of what he, in particular, would do. That's where we start once the national conversation reaches that point. But I agree: no idea is legitimate or worth fighting over (in a primary, say) unless a bill already exists. That sounds totally reasonable.
I suppose you voted for Obama in 2008, but did HE have precise legislation for ANYTHING he wanted to do before he was elected? No. They never do. Yet we elect these people to help come up with it. Stop inventing new problems.
|
On June 11 2014 15:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 14:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 14:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I'm not sure where you are going with this. You were originally discussing the issue with people on this thread and arguing with what they said. Now you're arguing with "conservatives" who aren't here. You had asked for anyone here to define a secure border. I gave you information on that. Now you're demanding that I come up with legislation that meets your requirements?
What are you talking about?
As I said there isn't a significant difference in what people want to do to 'secure the border', which is why I asked for what conservatives thought that meant.
I'm not 'demanding' anything, merely highlighting that you can't...
Since what people want to do to secure the border is essentially the same, that isn't the main issue holding up immigration reform.
What is holding up reform is what is done with the people already illegally here. The main problem isn't whether people believe whether the law will be enforced as written (among the Tea Party anyway) It's specifically what we do with the people illegally here.
Specifically in the race we were talking about, the Tea Party challenger called the treatment of those people under the bipartisan proposal 'amnesty'. I was making sure that the opposition (here or anywhere) didn't have or know of a proposal that would legislate 'non-amnesty'.
So far you (and any other conservative here) have shown me that they don't. I think it is pathetic (and emblematic) that the Tea Party/Conservatives will vote someone out for 'supporting amnesty' but they don't have a single proposal that avoids the 'amnesty' they so dread. Yet they say they have wanted to do something for decades...
|
On June 11 2014 15:14 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 15:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 14:41 Introvert wrote:On June 11 2014 14:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 14:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 13:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 13:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 13:07 GreenHorizons wrote: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? xDaunt gave you a brief paragraph on what he would do. The problem conservatives have is that they (rightly) fear that amnesty will be immediate, but border security will either be A) ineffective, leaving far too much to "executive discretion" and B) that it will be shelved sometime later, either as part of another bill, or congress will just refuse to fund it, etc. There really are a a myriad of concerns as to why security must come first. Fix the leak first. I personally am not aware of any distinct legislation mainly because it's not seriously discussed in the first place. Remember the senate bill from last year? Conservatives were concerned about (A), that it didn't actually secure the border first. Also, conservatives don't trust this president to enforce the parts of the bill he doesn't like. The problem conservatives seem to have is they have no problem pointing out problems in legislation but they can't for the life of them write alternatives that are acceptable to themselves... Immigration being a prime example. For decades they have been asking for something to be done, yet when you ask "Where is your plan?", it either doesn't exist, isn't significantly different than what already has bipartisan support, and/or can't get past the 'amnesty' hurdle. It seems pretty ridiculous that conservatives have said for decades that they want to resolve the problem yet they still don't have an alternative piece of legislation they would support!? I can't look at decades of complaining without having a viable legislative alternative as anything other than rhetorical bullshit. Even if you don't like Democratic alternatives at least they present them? I'll say it again then: there is no legislation because Washington doesn't want to secure the border. It's another perpetual issue then can exploit from now until kingdom come. Why bother writing up long drafts that have no chance? It's not like the Obamacare bill just magically appeared in the senate for them to vote on, they had to decide what they were going to spend their political capital on (and once they did, THEN Obamacare went through Congress at light speed). I didn't know I was required to write actual legal text before begin able to make a case for something. xDaunt gave you a basic outline of what he, in particular, would do. That's where we start once the national conversation reaches that point. But I agree: no idea is legitimate or worth fighting over (in a primary, say) unless a bill already exists. That sounds totally reasonable. I suppose you voted for Obama in 2008, but did HE have precise legislation for ANYTHING he wanted to do before he was elected? No. They never do. Yet we elect these people to help come up with it. Stop inventing new problems.
What is stopping the Tea Party from writing the legislation?
What Xdaunt said is basically the Bipartisan proposal.
The Tea Party house members have been in office for a while now, they have had plenty of time to write something...?
We've needed a solution for decades, one is finally on the table. Instead of negotiating, or proposing an alternative the Tea Party is just pouting in the corner refusing to move forward 'because amnesty', yet they can't, for the life of them, come up with an 'amnesty free' proposal, it's completely asinine.
|
On June 11 2014 15:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 15:14 Introvert wrote:On June 11 2014 15:02 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 14:41 Introvert wrote:On June 11 2014 14:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 14:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 13:39 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 13:21 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 13:07 GreenHorizons wrote: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? xDaunt gave you a brief paragraph on what he would do. The problem conservatives have is that they (rightly) fear that amnesty will be immediate, but border security will either be A) ineffective, leaving far too much to "executive discretion" and B) that it will be shelved sometime later, either as part of another bill, or congress will just refuse to fund it, etc. There really are a a myriad of concerns as to why security must come first. Fix the leak first. I personally am not aware of any distinct legislation mainly because it's not seriously discussed in the first place. Remember the senate bill from last year? Conservatives were concerned about (A), that it didn't actually secure the border first. Also, conservatives don't trust this president to enforce the parts of the bill he doesn't like. The problem conservatives seem to have is they have no problem pointing out problems in legislation but they can't for the life of them write alternatives that are acceptable to themselves... Immigration being a prime example. For decades they have been asking for something to be done, yet when you ask "Where is your plan?", it either doesn't exist, isn't significantly different than what already has bipartisan support, and/or can't get past the 'amnesty' hurdle. It seems pretty ridiculous that conservatives have said for decades that they want to resolve the problem yet they still don't have an alternative piece of legislation they would support!? I can't look at decades of complaining without having a viable legislative alternative as anything other than rhetorical bullshit. Even if you don't like Democratic alternatives at least they present them? I'll say it again then: there is no legislation because Washington doesn't want to secure the border. It's another perpetual issue then can exploit from now until kingdom come. Why bother writing up long drafts that have no chance? It's not like the Obamacare bill just magically appeared in the senate for them to vote on, they had to decide what they were going to spend their political capital on (and once they did, THEN Obamacare went through Congress at light speed). I didn't know I was required to write actual legal text before begin able to make a case for something. xDaunt gave you a basic outline of what he, in particular, would do. That's where we start once the national conversation reaches that point. But I agree: no idea is legitimate or worth fighting over (in a primary, say) unless a bill already exists. That sounds totally reasonable. I suppose you voted for Obama in 2008, but did HE have precise legislation for ANYTHING he wanted to do before he was elected? No. They never do. Yet we elect these people to help come up with it. Stop inventing new problems. What is stopping the Tea Party from writing the legislation? What Xdaunt said is basically the Bipartisan proposal. The Tea Party house members have been in office for a while now, they have had plenty of time to write something...? We've needed a solution for decades, one is finally on the table. Instead of negotiating, or proposing an alternative the Tea Party is just pouting in the corner refusing to move forward 'because amnesty', yet they can't for the life of them come up with an 'amnesty free' proposal, it's completely asinine.
Because the Tea Party isn't in control. The Democrats want amnesty first, as do the establishment Republicans. They are busy fighting what is already being done in Congress. I don't know why you've fixated on this need for legislation right now. I have no doubt that many Tea Party representatives would begin writing drafts immediately, if they thought it would be useful or worth their time.
xDaunt's concern, however, is that all that will come BEFORE the border is actually secure. I just told you the two main reasons that conservatives don't support what is is happening now. (That's why Cantor lost. He was pro-amnesty, with no real promise of border security.)
A) they don't believe it will be effective, or enforced as mandated by law, and B) that it will be later abandoned. If you were paying attention the fight over the immigration reform bill from last year, you'd know this.
So the core difference is that before ANY amnesty is to be made, the border must be a secure as possible. We don't trust the politicians to do the part they like (amnesty) first and still keep their promise to do what they don't like (border security) second. That seems to me to be an entirely reasonable concern.
|
On June 11 2014 15:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 15:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 11 2014 14:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 14:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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? I'm not sure where you are going with this. You were originally discussing the issue with people on this thread and arguing with what they said. Now you're arguing with "conservatives" who aren't here. You had asked for anyone here to define a secure border. I gave you information on that. Now you're demanding that I come up with legislation that meets your requirements? What are you talking about? As I said there isn't a significant difference in what people want to do to 'secure the border', which is why I asked for what conservatives thought that meant.
The HR-15 guide I linked to said that there was disputes over securing the border.
I'm not 'demanding' anything, merely highlighting that you can't...
That I can't what? Find a piece of legislation on comprehensive immigration reform that everyone agrees on? Obviously! If it existed it would have been passed already.
Since what people want to do to secure the border is essentially the same, that isn't the main issue holding up immigration reform.
What is holding up reform is what is done with the people already illegally here. The main problem isn't whether people believe whether the law will be enforced as written (among the Tea Party anyway) It's specifically what we do with the people illegally here.
Ok, sure. But that's different from securing the border and you did ask a bunch of questions about what securing the border meant. Why you asked so many questions about something you now consider a red herring is questionable.
Specifically in the race we were talking about, the Tea Party challenger called the treatment of those people under the bipartisan proposal 'amnesty'. I was making sure that the opposition (here or anywhere) didn't have or know of a proposal that would legislate 'non-amnesty'. You'd have to look up what that specific guy is for and if any legislation matches that. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this. Are you arguing that this guy who just got elected is the proxy for what conservatives want?
So far you (and any other conservative here) have shown me that they don't. I think it is pathetic (and emblematic) that the Tea Party/Conservatives will vote someone out for 'supporting amnesty' but they don't have a single proposal that avoids the 'amnesty' they so dread. Yet they say they have wanted to do something for decades...
First, I'm not a conservative. Second many Republicans have put forth legislation. As you said, there have been a lot of bipartisan proposals.
|
if they thought it would be useful or worth their time.
/sigh Really? Because voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act the last 30-40 times met those expectations?
So the core difference is that before ANY amnesty is to be made
Could any conservative tell me what is an approximately acceptable level of 'amnesty' for conservatives against the current bipartisan proposal? Also what is supposed to be an acceptable level of 'amnesty' for Tea Party supporters if it's different than generic conservatives against the current proposal?
|
On June 11 2014 16:01 GreenHorizons wrote:/sigh Really? Because voting to repeal the Affordable Care Act the last 30-40 times met those expectations?
So the core difference is that before ANY amnesty is to be made
Could any conservative tell me what is an approximately acceptable level of 'amnesty' for conservatives against the current bipartisan proposal? Also what is supposed to be an acceptable level of 'amnesty' for Tea Party supporters if it's different than generic conservatives against the current proposal?
Yes, those were "useless" votes. What's your point? Why must you always pick the most obscure things and completely ignore the point that's being made? You do realize voting to repeal is different than writing and introducing brand new legislation? Grasping at straws...
It's not a question of acceptable amnesty, it's a question of acceptable security.
I don't know how else to say it: conservatives are concerned that the border will not actually be secured. Amnesty is secondary, in and of itself. Once the border security issue is addressed, then we discuss what to do about those who are already here. Doesn't seem that hard to understand.
|
The HR-15 guide I linked to said that there was disputes over securing the border.
They seem focused on how they impact people already here which is what I said? Unless you can point to something I missed?
That I can't what? Find a piece of legislation on comprehensive immigration reform that everyone agrees on? Obviously! If it existed it would have been passed already.
You seem to misunderstand what I was asking somehow? I was just looking for one 'The Right' agreed on? Still can't find it?
Why you asked so many questions about something you now consider a red herring is questionable.
I was asking if there was some argument I was missing. It doesn't appear that there were any significant ones? The generic concern about 'securing the border' is focused on:
1. How to measure it's success
2. How it impacts people already here
3. Enforcement of the Law
None of those significantly change what we do on the border itself. So how we secure it tactically, is essentially the same.
Number 3 is mostly a personal thing against Obama and politicians in general so it's only relevant in it's relation to 1 and 2.
Number 1 isn't really a point of contention except in where it concerns number 2.
Number 2 is now the central issue regarding 'securing the border' as it is the foundation from which all of the other contentions are formed.
You'd have to look up what that specific guy is for and if any legislation matches that. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this. Are you arguing that this guy who just got elected is the proxy for what conservatives want?
My point is that there is no legislation for him to be 'for' (I'm sure you're getting that by now). No I am not arguing he is a proxy. I am suggesting there is no proxy (at least in legislative form) and that reasonable conservatives should be able to point to something that clearly delineates what they would do differently (not just what they don't like). The Tea Party (or conservatives against the current proposal) seem to be incapable of doing that.
Republicans have put forth legislation. As you said, there have been a lot of bipartisan proposals.
Now that Republicans have finally tried, and passed something in the Senate, all the Tea Party has to say about it is... "NO!". When asked 'Why?'... 'because amnesty'
So now I need to know what is or isn't amnesty? Or what level would be acceptable to people against the current proposal? So I asked repeatedly for anything that resembled an official position or legislation, no one seems to have any...?
Now I'll settle for whatever Tea Partiers/conservatives/opponents of the current proposal/whatever you are/ would deem an acceptable amount of 'amnesty'?
|
You do realize voting to repeal is different than writing and introducing brand new legislation?
How is it different in relation to what we are talking about? You suggested they didn't write the legislation because it wasn't worth the time and effort. They spent more time and more effort on something easily as pointless if not more so. It suggests your 'point' was silly. Something being 'useful or worth their time' is clearly not a requirement for what they do in the House so it doesn't explain their inaction at all.
It's not a question of acceptable amnesty, it's a question of acceptable security.
Except that's not the case. There isn't really much disagreement on security itself.
Once the border security issue is addressed, then we discuss what to do about those who are already here. Doesn't seem that hard to understand.
That just blows my mind... So what are you suggesting to do about them while the 'security issue is addressed'?
|
On June 11 2014 16:30 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +The HR-15 guide I linked to said that there was disputes over securing the border. They seem focused on how they impact people already here which is what I said? Unless you can point to something I missed? Show nested quote +That I can't what? Find a piece of legislation on comprehensive immigration reform that everyone agrees on? Obviously! If it existed it would have been passed already. You seem to misunderstand what I was asking somehow? I was just looking for one 'The Right' agreed on? Still can't find it? Show nested quote +Why you asked so many questions about something you now consider a red herring is questionable. I was asking if there was some argument I was missing. It doesn't appear that there were any significant ones? The generic concern about 'securing the border' is focused on: 1. How to measure it's success 2. How it impacts people already here 3. Enforcement of the Law None of those significantly change what we do on the border itself. So how we secure it tactically, is essentially the same. Number 3 is mostly a personal thing against Obama and politicians in general so it's only relevant in it's relation to 1 and 2. Number 1 isn't really a point of contention except in where it concerns number 2. Number 2 is now the central issue regarding 'securing the border' as it is the foundation from which all of the other contentions are formed. Show nested quote +You'd have to look up what that specific guy is for and if any legislation matches that. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with this. Are you arguing that this guy who just got elected is the proxy for what conservatives want? My point is that there is no legislation for him to be 'for' (I'm sure you're getting that by now). No I am not arguing he is a proxy. I am suggesting there is no proxy (at least in legislative form) and that reasonable conservatives should be able to point to something that clearly delineates what they would do differently (not just what they don't like). The Tea Party (or conservatives against the current proposal) seem to be incapable of doing that. Show nested quote +Republicans have put forth legislation. As you said, there have been a lot of bipartisan proposals. Now that Republicans have finally tried, and passed something in the Senate, all the Tea Party has to say about it is... "NO!". When asked 'Why?'... 'because amnesty' So now I need to know what is or isn't amnesty? Or what level would be acceptable to people against the current proposal? So I asked repeatedly for anything that resembled an official position or legislation, no one seems to have any...? Now I'll settle for whatever Tea Partiers/conservatives/opponents of the current proposal/whatever you are/ would deem an acceptable amount of 'amnesty'?
Actually, #1 and #3 are the most important to the Tea Party, #2 is not a concern when discussing border security (#2 is what we discuss after the border is secure). It's amusing that you get it exactly backwards. So once again, you are completely off-base with your analysis of the opposition. Maybe you should take the time to research it, we all expect the Americans in the thread to have SOME knowledge of the other side. Do we really have to explain everything to you? I thought you've claimed in the past to know all about conservatives! Then why do you ask questions that were answered last year?
Besides, the concerns listed are what you are asking for! It's unreasonable to ask to see written legislation, as I already explained.
How is it different in relation to what we are talking about? You suggested they didn't write the legislation because it wasn't worth the time and effort. They spent more time and more effort on something easily as pointless if not more so. It suggests your 'point' was silly. Something being 'useful or worth their time' is clearly not a requirement for what they do in the House so it doesn't explain their inaction at all.
Calling a vote in the House is not exactly hard to do. Do you really think it takes as much time to call a repeal vote as it does to write and introduce new legislation and try and work it through the many House Committees? Of course that's not comparable.
That just blows my mind... So what are you suggesting to do about them while the 'security issue is addressed'?
The answer varies from person to person. My own opinion is that they crossed illegally, so I really don't feel any obligation whatsoever to act before the border is secure. They broke the law of their own free will, why must I act now? If we act on amnesty first, then we run into the same concerns as before. I am not responsible for their actions. This really isn't that hard to understand.
You should do some research on your own, maybe that would help.
Edit: Except that's not the case. There isn't really much disagreement on security itself.
Then why won't they even finish the fence? Why don't the Democrats talk about it? If there was "no disagreement" then a stand alone security bill should fly through Congress!
gn
|
On June 11 2014 14:41 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 14:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 14:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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? xDaunt gave you a brief paragraph on what he would do. The problem conservatives have is that they (rightly) fear that amnesty will be immediate, but border security will either be A) ineffective, leaving far too much to "executive discretion" and B) that it will be shelved sometime later, either as part of another bill, or congress will just refuse to fund it, etc. There really are a a myriad of concerns as to why security must come first. Fix the leak first. I personally am not aware of any distinct legislation mainly because it's not seriously discussed in the first place. Remember the senate bill from last year? Conservatives were concerned about (A), that it didn't actually secure the border first. Also, conservatives don't trust this president to enforce the parts of the bill he doesn't like.
A) & B) are the principal fears, founded on past policy and the current state of lawmaking and law-enforcing.
Now the definition of amnesty really opens up a broad topic on immigration legislation. I saw several compromises discussed and a few actively debated going further than a guest worker program and stopping short of the immediate granting of citizenship. These fall under the broad heading of a "pathway to citizenship," at least I think that's the current favored term for supporters of the comprehensive approach.
The second Congress passes a law saying everybody illegally here gets legal status after a waiting period of some length, or contingent upon learning some basic level of English, or on receipt of fees or backtaxes, then they're creating a new status that may be interpreted by the Supreme Court as the creation of a second-class citizen for this new limbo. The judicial branch has already taken an interest in writing its own immigration laws by rewriting existing laws (Graham v. Richardson, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, Sugarman v. Dougall, Plyler v. Doe, Nyquist v. Mauclet). It claims authority under the 5th & 14th amendments. So if the somewhat-popular concept of "It ISN'T AMNESTY, they still have to pay a penalty & wait" gets passed, it is only a matter of time until the Supreme Court rewrites it into full citizenship rights. The recent past of judicial history leaves no doubt that any such provisions would be held to violate the due process and equal protection clauses and removed.
|
On June 11 2014 12:46 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 12:32 IgnE wrote: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 
He is not a monster, just an ideologue and a hack. So in great numbers actually worse than corrupted beaurocrats, in small numbers useful tool.
|
On June 11 2014 13:51 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 12:32 IgnE wrote: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?
It is meant as an insult, because people like him are trying to make capitalism into ideology with its own perverted ethical backing. Capitalism is a tool, ethics has to do with capitalism as it does with a hammer. People consider, rightly, unregulated capitalism as an evil thing, thus call people trying to make capitalism into a religion evil. The last inference is unwarranted exaggeratrion, but understandable.
|
On June 11 2014 17:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 14:41 Introvert wrote:On June 11 2014 14:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 11 2014 14:04 JonnyBNoHo wrote: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:
[quote]
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? xDaunt gave you a brief paragraph on what he would do. The problem conservatives have is that they (rightly) fear that amnesty will be immediate, but border security will either be A) ineffective, leaving far too much to "executive discretion" and B) that it will be shelved sometime later, either as part of another bill, or congress will just refuse to fund it, etc. There really are a a myriad of concerns as to why security must come first. Fix the leak first. I personally am not aware of any distinct legislation mainly because it's not seriously discussed in the first place. Remember the senate bill from last year? Conservatives were concerned about (A), that it didn't actually secure the border first. Also, conservatives don't trust this president to enforce the parts of the bill he doesn't like. A) & B) are the principal fears, founded on past policy and the current state of lawmaking and law-enforcing. Now the definition of amnesty really opens up a broad topic on immigration legislation. I saw several compromises discussed and a few actively debated going further than a guest worker program and stopping short of the immediate granting of citizenship. These fall under the broad heading of a "pathway to citizenship," at least I think that's the current favored term for supporters of the comprehensive approach. The second Congress passes a law saying everybody illegally here gets legal status after a waiting period of some length, or contingent upon learning some basic level of English, or on receipt of fees or backtaxes, then they're creating a new status that may be interpreted by the Supreme Court as the creation of a second-class citizen for this new limbo. The judicial branch has already taken an interest in writing its own immigration laws by rewriting existing laws (Graham v. Richardson, Hampton v. Mow Sun Wong, Sugarman v. Dougall, Plyler v. Doe, Nyquist v. Mauclet). It claims authority under the 5th & 14th amendments. So if the somewhat-popular concept of "It ISN'T AMNESTY, they still have to pay a penalty & wait" gets passed, it is only a matter of time until the Supreme Court rewrites it into full citizenship rights. The recent past of judicial history leaves no doubt that any such provisions would be held to violate the due process and equal protection clauses and removed.
So basically, as you see it, the more moderate conservative position (of those in opposition of the current proposal) is that there can't be 'comprehensive immigration reform'.
The only acceptable option is a stand alone law that results in (completely?) meeting the 90% reduction goal along with every other metric. Then after that, they will begin to discuss whether a 'pathway to citizenship' is an option or not in separate legislation?
^This coincides with Introverts observations. I feel like that is then an accurate portrayal of what we are talking about. If not feel free to clear it up for me.
So if this is the case, what is the most universally accepted (among the right) proposal to do so legislatively and or strategically? Is it the same as the current proposal? If not what are the significant differences? I think they are pretty similar.
It sounds like the plan for families already here is to just try harder to deport them/get them to leave (not sure what conservatives want to do with people who can't go back to their country of origin?) Until we meet the goals from the bipartisan proposal (unless there are more/different ones conservatives have in mind)?
It sounds like that is the case no matter how long it takes? So if 10 years from now if we only got halfway there would that be enough to start legislating a 'pathway to citizenship'? 80% there? 90%? or is a 100% secure border with <1% of what we see now what we are talking about before moving forward?
Keep in mind, people like Introvert (and apparently the Tea Party), are suggesting people just 'trust' that conservatives will 'discuss' (not even legislate) 'something' around the 'idea' of 'a pathway to citizenship' without describing AT ALL what they think that would mean, or whether any form of it would ever be acceptable, as an 'approach to (comprehensive?) immigration reform'...
|
On June 11 2014 18:07 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2014 13:51 hunts wrote:On June 11 2014 12:32 IgnE wrote: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? It is meant as an insult, because people like him are trying to make capitalism into ideology with its own perverted ethical backing. Capitalism is a tool, ethics has to do with capitalism as it does with a hammer. People consider, rightly, unregulated capitalism as an evil thing, thus call people trying to make capitalism into a religion evil. The last inference is unwarranted exaggeratrion, but understandable.
The man has idolatrous images of Reagan up on his website and wrote a paper called "An Analysis of the Moral Foundations in Ayn Rand" as recently as 2010.
Everyone knows that the only reason banks hire "ethics program directors" are so that they can 1) say they care enough about ethics to have a program for it, even though it doesn't actually change any of the the organization's practices and 2) provide rationalizations for their behavior.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
