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 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.
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?
That's a load of crap and you know it. Both sides of the aisle are the same way... when Republicans wanted to block Affordable Care Act they said they would pass it if the Democrats added some changed in it. The Democrats refused to change their key peace of legislation because at that time they though they'd have something people wanted, and that would get those people to flock to the polls come Midterm and 2016. Well that failed miserably.. What people got was a subpar product that no one wants, yet the Democrats still claim the majority wants(didn't know 8 million out of 371 million is a majority.)
If the Republicans wanted to really win come Midterm and 2016 they'd change their stance on Amnesty. Majority of Americans consider themselves fiscally Republican, but the Republicans lack care for human rights and it's a problem. Coming from a Republican, I can honestly say I'd be much more comfortable with guys like Cantor than Brat because I feel the Tea Party is a ridiculous party with archaic ideologies and need to be stopped.
Uhm... The democrats giving up on ACA (even more than they allready did) would have been their total death sentence. It was never an option. They ran 2 presidental ellections with ACA (or some form of public healthcare) as one of their backbones, giving up on it was not gonna happen… The republicans not seeing this from a mile away and shutting down the goverment over it was probably one of the dumbest political moves ever.
Well that failed miserably.. What people got was a subpar product that no one wants, yet the Democrats still claim the majority wants(didn't know 8 million out of 371 million is a majority.)
in doing whatever they do, the republicans don't really care how strongly democrats feel about the ACA. the republican base only deal with caricature democrats anyway.
securing the border is a joke framing of the issue of immigration. it is and has always been about keeping out certain people and protecting others, with certain assumptions about domestic balance of power. (i.e. businesses want cheaper labor)
the largely populist and economics driven resentment against immigrants who took yer jobs is framed as a cultural and national sovereignty issue.
whichever side you come down on the 'border' issue, at least don't be naive. prejudiced people channeling their economic concerns into familiar cultural themes is the basic situation.
On June 11 2014 11:39 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] 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.
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?
That's a load of crap and you know it. Both sides of the aisle are the same way... when Republicans wanted to block Affordable Care Act they said they would pass it if the Democrats added some changed in it. The Democrats refused to change their key peace of legislation because at that time they though they'd have something people wanted, and that would get those people to flock to the polls come Midterm and 2016. Well that failed miserably.. What people got was a subpar product that no one wants, yet the Democrats still claim the majority wants(didn't know 8 million out of 371 million is a majority.)
Yes why didn't the whole world adopt the Obamacare system! It really shows what a failure it is!
So guys, given what's going on in Irak, I need a reminder of how this is completely Obama's lack of vision fault and not at all because of the strategic mistake made by the Bush administration. Invading Irak is showing all its promises.
On June 12 2014 00:58 corumjhaelen wrote: So guys, given what's going on in Irak, I need a reminder of how this is completely Obama's lack of vision fault and not at all because of the strategic mistake made by the Bush administration. Invading Irak is showing all its promises.
TBH Iran, and Turkey sending troops in is quite a possibility if things further unravel.
On June 12 2014 00:58 corumjhaelen wrote: So guys, given what's going on in Irak, I need a reminder of how this is completely Obama's lack of vision fault and not at all because of the strategic mistake made by the Bush administration. Invading Irak is showing all its promises.
I don't think that I've heard anyone blame Obama. Frankly, I'm not sure that Saddam wouldn't have been deposed or civil war wouldn't have broken out in Iraq anyway, regardless of the American invasion in 2003.
On June 12 2014 00:58 corumjhaelen wrote: So guys, given what's going on in Irak, I need a reminder of how this is completely Obama's lack of vision fault and not at all because of the strategic mistake made by the Bush administration. Invading Irak is showing all its promises.
I think this incident says more about the Iraqi government than it does about any of Obama's policies.
I don't think that I've heard anyone blame Obama. Frankly, I'm not sure that Saddam wouldn't have been deposed or civil war wouldn't have broken out in Iraq anyway, regardless of the American invasion in 2003.
Libya didn't fall until after the US led air strike, the Regime in Syria is still in power. Also a lot of the extremist groups in Libya and Syria were in Iraq fighting Americans before they turned on their own rulers. It's pretty reasonable to assume Saddam Hussain would have still held on without intervention.
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.
You're knee-jerking a little hard. Banks have this strange habit of throwing money against a wall and seeing what sticks. It's hard not to find somebody even mildly intelligible that doesn't have some ties to a (big) bank.
At this point, a fair criticism of the guy is that he believes in ethical economics. As if some ethical/religious/political foundations are the reasons for economic prosperity or despair, as opposed to specific economic policies. He espouses some BS about the economic field being ideological instead of scientific (when all of science is basically like that), but then does economic research that smells a lot like the same stuff creationist scholars do.
On June 12 2014 01:32 Wombat_NI wrote: Was Iraq not relatively stable in the Hussein era, albeit with him exercising a great deal of ruthlessness and excluding non-Baathists?
You can't really compare that era to the post-Arab Spring. Totally different dynamics.
Eric Cantor will resign as House majority leader effective July 31, the Washington Post first reported on Wednesday, less than 24 hours after his shocking defeat Tuesday night in Virginia's Republican primary.
On June 11 2014 11:39 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote] 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.
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'...
I'm not a politician, I can't give you precise, strategic breakdowns. I think conservatives would support a "comprehensive" bill if they thought that it actually secure the border first. The problem is, none of the proposed bills do, nor do we trust Obama to care about following them. So they can be a part of the same bill (in principle), but the securing of the border must occur first. I have good reason to doubt that those in Washington have any interest in doing this, however. Democrats need their influx of new voters, and the Republicans need to give their corporate sponsors cheap labor. So call me incredulous for thinking anything this Congress comes up with will be BS.
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?
We would begin on a "pathway to citizenship" whenever the agreed upon terms of border security were met. That seems pretty obvious to me. I don't get how you can invent these problems.
You act as if the amnesty people are on the defensive. Amnesty has such a large faction backing it, that the fight is not to get amnesty (which is easy), but to secure the border (which is hard).
in doing whatever they do, the republicans don't really care how strongly democrats feel about the ACA. the republican base only deal with caricature democrats anyway.
securing the border is a joke framing of the issue of immigration. it is and has always been about keeping out certain people and protecting others, with certain assumptions about domestic balance of power. (i.e. businesses want cheaper labor)
the largely populist and economics driven resentment against immigrants who took yer jobs is framed as a cultural and national sovereignty issue.
whichever side you come down on the 'border' issue, at least don't be naive. prejudiced people channeling their economic concerns into familiar cultural themes is the basic situation.
Business wants cheap labor, that's why they oppose tighter security. They don't want to keep anyone out, they want more IN.
Every country secures it's own borders, this isn't just some economic exercise. It's those who are more vested in the economy that want open borders. (Chamber of Commerce, etc)
So to sum up: conservatives don't believe that security will happen before amnesty, and the Republican party is currently not fighting for effective security, thus conservatives oppose what is going on right now. That's why Cantor lost.
On June 12 2014 01:32 Wombat_NI wrote: Was Iraq not relatively stable in the Hussein era, albeit with him exercising a great deal of ruthlessness and excluding non-Baathists?
You can't really compare that era to the post-Arab Spring. Totally different dynamics.
Perhaps not, you can hypothesise an Iraq sans-invasion and how things would in all likelihood be less fractious though, would probably follow the standard pattern of unite disparate groups to oust dictator, then said groups fragment again like we've seen elsewhere.
I think conservatives would support a "comprehensive" bill if they thought that it actually secure the border first. The problem is, none of the proposed bills do, nor do we trust Obama to care about following them. So they can be a part of the same bill (in principle), but the securing of the border must occur first.
You do realize how contradictory that garble is right?
What would the proposal need to say to do that to your satisfaction?
Sounds like nothing can pass while Obama is president because conservatives think he is a lawless brigand, and sounds like some conservatives here think the supreme court will just grant citizenship no matter what the law says.
So sounds like conservatives wont do anything until they run at least 2 branches, probably all three, so basically they don't plan on ever doing anything.
Newsflash for conservatives: keeping people from voting, trying to break up families by deporting hard working people, pushing for policies like stop and frisk, talking about women's vagina's and rape, opposition to gay marriage, etc... is only making your constituency older, whiter, more homophobic, and too small to ever win a presidential election.
What I think conservatives tend to not understand is that their privilege is being checked. For a long time all they had to do was whatever they convinced ignorant white people they wanted. Now you can't win a national election by only getting ignorant white votes. Conservatives have to appeal to non-whites if they want to have a chance (pushing to restrict non-conservative voters or trying to secure more of the white vote can only take you so far).
Conservatives need to come up with policies non-whites actually appreciate not just try to convince them how conservative policies are actually good for them (they aren't falling for conservative BS). Also refusing to acknowledge the racist practices of stop and frisk just further undermines the idea of 'reaching out'. Conservative opposition to immigration reform is the same thing. Nothing conservatives have suggested is going to get them any closer to a winning coalition.
What party veterans are trying to tell the Conservatives blocking immigration reform is all about that number next to Hispanic and non-Hispanic black. Blocking immigration reform means you lose most of those non-white independents.
Republicans are not going to get any significant number more white voters, and people are outraged at their attempts at voter suppression so it's looking really bad for them (Presidentially).
Conservatives are basically just giving democrats a 10 point bump by blocking reasonable immigration reform.
Oh well, on the bright side at least we'll have Ted Cruz to laugh at this presidential cycle.
Whew now that Cantor is gone the Republicans are now 100% 'Christian' not a single Agnostic, Jew, or anything besides 'Christian'...
But yeah don't worry, nothing to see here, Creationism isn't a pervasive problem in the Republican party... It doesn't invade our politics constantly. It doesn't make us look like morons in the eyes of the world.........
My google skills fail me a little. What was it a hearing about in the first place?
Religious freedom and separation of church and state. Yeah seriously...(LOL ninja'd) religious freedom and separation of church and state. Basically Gomer was upset that a rev. would be opposed to creationism being taught in public school as science.
He was insinuating he isn't 'Christian' (enough?) because he doesn't believe the same absolute non-sense Gomer does.
He basically told the guy he and people like him are all going to hell and that's a 'Christian fact' If he doesn't agree that's why he and his friends are going to hell.
Fucking totally batshit insane. The guy belongs in asylum, not in Congress....
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5YF9xyk.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eNRfsUL.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/nxoIOXZ.gif)
