|
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 August 06 2017 04:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 04:28 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:17 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2017 04:08 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 03:43 Plansix wrote:
The culture war is the golden goose of conservative politics. agreed, consrrvatives should simply surrender to the left on all fronts while they actively advance an agenda. Also he calls it a "wedge issue." no reason to take this guy seriously. People who view politics as a zero sum equation are pretty toxic to the process. It would be helpful if they let those who want to govern do so, rather than fanning outrage while soaking in millions from conservative sugger daddies, just to get relelected and do nothing. The only zero sum is from the left who insist on quasi (or explicit) open borders, no wall, less enforcement, and blanket amnesty. you love to use the word "govern." what do you think this entails? it isn't static. people in Congress actively support massive increases in immigration for instance. John McCain just made some comment about moving on to immigrastion. That piece was truly dumb. I believe govern can be used as broadly as "people who actually pass bills".
The main claim of the republicans party over the last 16 or so years(with that brief 2 year gap) is having the least productive congresses in US history. Unable to accomplish even the most basic thing, like working out a budget.
|
On August 06 2017 04:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 04:28 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:17 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2017 04:08 Introvert wrote:agreed, consrrvatives should simply surrender to the left on all fronts while they actively advance an agenda. Also he calls it a "wedge issue." no reason to take this guy seriously. People who view politics as a zero sum equation are pretty toxic to the process. It would be helpful if they let those who want to govern do so, rather than fanning outrage while soaking in millions from conservative sugger daddies, just to get relelected and do nothing. The only zero sum is from the left who insist on quasi (or explicit) open borders, no wall, less enforcement, and blanket amnesty. you love to use the word "govern." what do you think this entails? it isn't static. people in Congress actively support massive increases in immigration for instance. John McCain just made some comment about moving on to immigrastion. That piece was truly dumb. I believe govern can be used as broadly as "people who actually pass bills".
But if you're not building a wall you can't possibly be governing.
|
On August 06 2017 04:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 04:28 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:17 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2017 04:08 Introvert wrote:agreed, consrrvatives should simply surrender to the left on all fronts while they actively advance an agenda. Also he calls it a "wedge issue." no reason to take this guy seriously. People who view politics as a zero sum equation are pretty toxic to the process. It would be helpful if they let those who want to govern do so, rather than fanning outrage while soaking in millions from conservative sugger daddies, just to get relelected and do nothing. The only zero sum is from the left who insist on quasi (or explicit) open borders, no wall, less enforcement, and blanket amnesty. you love to use the word "govern." what do you think this entails? it isn't static. people in Congress actively support massive increases in immigration for instance. John McCain just made some comment about moving on to immigrastion. That piece was truly dumb. I believe govern can be used as broadly as "people who actually pass bills".
if that's what Plansix means in that post then he's changed from his usual definition. but to treat all this as noise and "red meat" is really dumb when immigration is an active debate right now. even the trans ban wasn't about the base it was about the budget.
|
They promise to rebuild infrastructure and cut taxes. They promise to spend money and reduce the amount they take in, all while balancing the budget. And we wonder why they can't get anything done.
Edit: where is immigration being debated? Not congress, that bill Miller floated was one that died on arrival back in February.
The trans ban was about the wall and Trump not wanting to hear lawyers argue about it. The amount transgender troops impact the budget isn't even a rounding error it's so small.
|
On August 06 2017 04:36 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 04:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 06 2017 04:28 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:17 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2017 04:08 Introvert wrote:agreed, consrrvatives should simply surrender to the left on all fronts while they actively advance an agenda. Also he calls it a "wedge issue." no reason to take this guy seriously. People who view politics as a zero sum equation are pretty toxic to the process. It would be helpful if they let those who want to govern do so, rather than fanning outrage while soaking in millions from conservative sugger daddies, just to get relelected and do nothing. The only zero sum is from the left who insist on quasi (or explicit) open borders, no wall, less enforcement, and blanket amnesty. you love to use the word "govern." what do you think this entails? it isn't static. people in Congress actively support massive increases in immigration for instance. John McCain just made some comment about moving on to immigrastion. That piece was truly dumb. I believe govern can be used as broadly as "people who actually pass bills". if that's what Plansix means in that post then he's changed from his usual definition. but to treat all this as noise and "red meat" is really dumb when immigration is an active debate right now. even the trans ban wasn't about the base it was about the budget.
how can it be about the budget when the cost of it is negligible? tha'ts just a canard used as a cover for bigotry and playing to the base. i'ts not about an actual thoughtful point or debate.
|
On August 06 2017 04:32 zlefin wrote:
there's a bit more zero sum attitude coming from the right than from the left; though there's quite a lot of it in general.
and it's pretty clear that the republicans aren't interested in actually governing in anything resembling a reasonable fashion, or at all really.
dirty little secret: the republican base would accept amnesty if the border is secure. the democrat party is willing to give no ground on this issue and cries racism or un-Americanism whenever possible (see: Jim Acosta).
|
On August 06 2017 04:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 04:32 zlefin wrote:
there's a bit more zero sum attitude coming from the right than from the left; though there's quite a lot of it in general.
and it's pretty clear that the republicans aren't interested in actually governing in anything resembling a reasonable fashion, or at all really. dirty little secret: the republican base would accept amnesty if the border is secure. the democrat party is willing to give no ground on this issue and cries racism or un-Americanism whenever possible (see: Jim Acosta).
you can't TRULY secure the border; the notion itself is absurd. it's a matter of degrees more.
i'd be happy to tkae the issue of secure the border and work on it. but the wall does nothing to actually help. it only wastes money.
and the cries of racism is because alot of the justifications being used by the republicans are in fact covers for racism rather than actually well thought out plans to rigorously address the issues.
|
On August 06 2017 04:36 Plansix wrote:
They promise to rebuild infrastructure and cut taxes. They promise to spend money and reduce the amount they take in, all while balancing the budget. And we wonder why they can't get anything done.
Edit: where is immigration being debated? Not congress, that bill Miller floated was one that died on arrival back in February.
The trans ban was about the wall and Trump not wanting to hear lawyers argue about it. The amount transgender troops impact the budget isn't even a rounding error it's so small.
It was in the piece you linked. Or do you mean in Congress? They are waiting anxiously there, too. It's been popping up in the news a lot.
On August 06 2017 04:38 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 04:36 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 06 2017 04:28 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:17 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2017 04:08 Introvert wrote:agreed, consrrvatives should simply surrender to the left on all fronts while they actively advance an agenda. Also he calls it a "wedge issue." no reason to take this guy seriously. People who view politics as a zero sum equation are pretty toxic to the process. It would be helpful if they let those who want to govern do so, rather than fanning outrage while soaking in millions from conservative sugger daddies, just to get relelected and do nothing. The only zero sum is from the left who insist on quasi (or explicit) open borders, no wall, less enforcement, and blanket amnesty. you love to use the word "govern." what do you think this entails? it isn't static. people in Congress actively support massive increases in immigration for instance. John McCain just made some comment about moving on to immigrastion. That piece was truly dumb. I believe govern can be used as broadly as "people who actually pass bills". if that's what Plansix means in that post then he's changed from his usual definition. but to treat all this as noise and "red meat" is really dumb when immigration is an active debate right now. even the trans ban wasn't about the base it was about the budget. how can it be about the budget when the cost of it is negligible? tha'ts just a canard used as a cover for bigotry and playing to the base. i'ts not about an actual thoughtful point or debate.
It was about the budget bill or CR or whatever, it wasn't about the cost.
|
On August 06 2017 04:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 04:32 zlefin wrote:
there's a bit more zero sum attitude coming from the right than from the left; though there's quite a lot of it in general.
and it's pretty clear that the republicans aren't interested in actually governing in anything resembling a reasonable fashion, or at all really. dirty little secret: the republican base would accept amnesty if the border is secure. the democrat party is willing to give no ground on this issue and cries racism or un-Americanism whenever possible (see: Jim Acosta).
Bullshit. We could secure that boarder Jon Snow style with a mile high wall and the Republicans would still pitch deporting every illegal just to drum up turn out.
|
the end of the war on drugs would secure the border far more effectively than literally anything the Republicans have cooked up, wall or no wall.
|
On August 06 2017 04:39 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 04:32 zlefin wrote:
there's a bit more zero sum attitude coming from the right than from the left; though there's quite a lot of it in general.
and it's pretty clear that the republicans aren't interested in actually governing in anything resembling a reasonable fashion, or at all really. dirty little secret: the republican base would accept amnesty if the border is secure. the democrat party is willing to give no ground on this issue and cries racism or un-Americanism whenever possible (see: Jim Acosta).
Apparently the net illegal migration is close to zero why is this even being propped up as such an important issue?
|
On August 06 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 04:39 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:32 zlefin wrote:
there's a bit more zero sum attitude coming from the right than from the left; though there's quite a lot of it in general.
and it's pretty clear that the republicans aren't interested in actually governing in anything resembling a reasonable fashion, or at all really. dirty little secret: the republican base would accept amnesty if the border is secure. the democrat party is willing to give no ground on this issue and cries racism or un-Americanism whenever possible (see: Jim Acosta). you can't TRULY secure the border; the notion itself is absurd. it's a matter of degrees more.i'd be happy to tkae the issue of secure the border and work on it. but the wall does nothing to actually help. it only wastes money. and the cries of racism is because alot of the justifications being used by the republicans are in fact covers for racism rather than actually well thought out plans to rigorously address the issues.
No one ever said we were going to catch 100% of all border crossers. But we have, what, 12 million plus illegal immigrants. Safe to say that the border is, by no one's definition, secure.
This post is funny because it's the Republicans who are willing to deal and the Democrats who don't budge.
On August 06 2017 04:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 04:39 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:32 zlefin wrote:
there's a bit more zero sum attitude coming from the right than from the left; though there's quite a lot of it in general.
and it's pretty clear that the republicans aren't interested in actually governing in anything resembling a reasonable fashion, or at all really. dirty little secret: the republican base would accept amnesty if the border is secure. the democrat party is willing to give no ground on this issue and cries racism or un-Americanism whenever possible (see: Jim Acosta). Bullshit. We could secure that boarder Jon Snow style with a mile high wall and the Republicans would still pitch deporting every illegal just to drum up turn out.
Incorrect, see every poll, almost every pundit, see current hardliners in Congress. The fact that you think this is not surprising, however.
|
On August 06 2017 04:42 farvacola wrote:
the end of the war on drugs would secure the border far more effectively than literally anything the Republicans have cooked up, wall or no wall.
This is absolutely the case. Along with fixing the opioid epidemic, personal liberty, the criminal justice system, etc, etc, etc, etc.
|
On August 06 2017 04:44 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:On August 06 2017 04:39 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:32 zlefin wrote:
there's a bit more zero sum attitude coming from the right than from the left; though there's quite a lot of it in general.
and it's pretty clear that the republicans aren't interested in actually governing in anything resembling a reasonable fashion, or at all really. dirty little secret: the republican base would accept amnesty if the border is secure. the democrat party is willing to give no ground on this issue and cries racism or un-Americanism whenever possible (see: Jim Acosta). you can't TRULY secure the border; the notion itself is absurd. it's a matter of degrees more.i'd be happy to tkae the issue of secure the border and work on it. but the wall does nothing to actually help. it only wastes money. and the cries of racism is because alot of the justifications being used by the republicans are in fact covers for racism rather than actually well thought out plans to rigorously address the issues. No one ever said we were going to catch 100% of all border crossers. But we have, what, 12 million plus illegal immigrants. Safe to say that the border is, by no one's definition, secure. This post is funny because it's the Republicans who are willing to deal and the Democrats who don't budge.
you claim the republicans are willing to deal; but I see little reason to take your word for it; can you back up your claim that republicans are seriously willing to deal? and are actually making serious, sensible proposals to address the issue?
what are they offering to give up as part of a deal?
because things like the wall are a sign of it not at all being a serious proposal but just virtue signalling.
what standard would constitute a "secure" border? a large number of people in at present doesn't say much about the flow rates; it also says little about what's actually feasible to do and at what cost it would be.
|
On August 06 2017 04:44 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:On August 06 2017 04:39 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:32 zlefin wrote:
there's a bit more zero sum attitude coming from the right than from the left; though there's quite a lot of it in general.
and it's pretty clear that the republicans aren't interested in actually governing in anything resembling a reasonable fashion, or at all really. dirty little secret: the republican base would accept amnesty if the border is secure. the democrat party is willing to give no ground on this issue and cries racism or un-Americanism whenever possible (see: Jim Acosta). you can't TRULY secure the border; the notion itself is absurd. it's a matter of degrees more.i'd be happy to tkae the issue of secure the border and work on it. but the wall does nothing to actually help. it only wastes money. and the cries of racism is because alot of the justifications being used by the republicans are in fact covers for racism rather than actually well thought out plans to rigorously address the issues. No one ever said we were going to catch 100% of all border crossers. But we have, what, 12 million plus illegal immigrants. Safe to say that the border is, by no one's definition, secure. This post is funny because it's the Republicans who are willing to deal and the Democrats who don't budge. Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 04:42 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2017 04:39 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:32 zlefin wrote:
there's a bit more zero sum attitude coming from the right than from the left; though there's quite a lot of it in general.
and it's pretty clear that the republicans aren't interested in actually governing in anything resembling a reasonable fashion, or at all really. dirty little secret: the republican base would accept amnesty if the border is secure. the democrat party is willing to give no ground on this issue and cries racism or un-Americanism whenever possible (see: Jim Acosta). Bullshit. We could secure that boarder Jon Snow style with a mile high wall and the Republicans would still pitch deporting every illegal just to drum up turn out. Incorrect, see every poll, almost every pundit, see current hardliners in Congress. The fact that you think this is not surprising, however.
But illegally crossing the boarder is not how those illegal immigrates get into the country. They over stay visas. The problems we do have with the boarder can be address with more funding.
On August 06 2017 04:44 Introvert wrote:
Incorrect, see every poll, almost every pundit, see current hardliners in Congress. The fact that you think this is not surprising, however.
But you see, I wasn't born yesterday. I know when I see a goal post that is ripe to be moved. Securing the boarder is like the war on terror, war on drugs and being tough on crime. It is an ethereal concept with no real metric for success. A rallying cry to be broken out when elections come around.
The boarder will never be secure, so the path to citizenship will never be discussed. And it will also be the other side's fault for not helping secure the boarder. I've watched this debate my entire political life and it never changes. Republicans will not give up the turn out that comes with the fear of "immigrants coming to take your jobs".
|
On August 06 2017 04:46 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 04:44 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:On August 06 2017 04:39 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:32 zlefin wrote:
there's a bit more zero sum attitude coming from the right than from the left; though there's quite a lot of it in general.
and it's pretty clear that the republicans aren't interested in actually governing in anything resembling a reasonable fashion, or at all really. dirty little secret: the republican base would accept amnesty if the border is secure. the democrat party is willing to give no ground on this issue and cries racism or un-Americanism whenever possible (see: Jim Acosta). you can't TRULY secure the border; the notion itself is absurd. it's a matter of degrees more.i'd be happy to tkae the issue of secure the border and work on it. but the wall does nothing to actually help. it only wastes money. and the cries of racism is because alot of the justifications being used by the republicans are in fact covers for racism rather than actually well thought out plans to rigorously address the issues. No one ever said we were going to catch 100% of all border crossers. But we have, what, 12 million plus illegal immigrants. Safe to say that the border is, by no one's definition, secure. This post is funny because it's the Republicans who are willing to deal and the Democrats who don't budge. you claim the republicans are willing to deal; but I see little reason to take your word for it; can you back up your claim that republicans are seriously willing to deal? and are actually making serious, sensible proposals to address the issue? what are they offering to give up as part of a deal? because things like the wall are a sign of it not at all being a serious proposal but just virtue signalling. what standard would constitute a "secure" border? a large number of people in at present doesn't say much about the flow rates; it also says little about what's actually feasible to do and at what cost it would be.
You don't have to take my word for it, you can look at the things I referenced. Every peice of evidence suggests that the GOP is more willing to make a deal than their opposition. Ted effing Cruz wouldn't rule out amnesty after security until like the very last days of the primary. Trump talked about people having to co out then "come back in." In all honesty only partisans don't see how many in the GOP caucus would take a path to citizenship, even without stricter enforcement. See the gang of eight or amnesty during the Bush years.
On August 06 2017 04:48 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 04:44 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:On August 06 2017 04:39 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:32 zlefin wrote:
there's a bit more zero sum attitude coming from the right than from the left; though there's quite a lot of it in general.
and it's pretty clear that the republicans aren't interested in actually governing in anything resembling a reasonable fashion, or at all really. dirty little secret: the republican base would accept amnesty if the border is secure. the democrat party is willing to give no ground on this issue and cries racism or un-Americanism whenever possible (see: Jim Acosta). you can't TRULY secure the border; the notion itself is absurd. it's a matter of degrees more.i'd be happy to tkae the issue of secure the border and work on it. but the wall does nothing to actually help. it only wastes money. and the cries of racism is because alot of the justifications being used by the republicans are in fact covers for racism rather than actually well thought out plans to rigorously address the issues. No one ever said we were going to catch 100% of all border crossers. But we have, what, 12 million plus illegal immigrants. Safe to say that the border is, by no one's definition, secure. This post is funny because it's the Republicans who are willing to deal and the Democrats who don't budge. On August 06 2017 04:42 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2017 04:39 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:32 zlefin wrote:
there's a bit more zero sum attitude coming from the right than from the left; though there's quite a lot of it in general.
and it's pretty clear that the republicans aren't interested in actually governing in anything resembling a reasonable fashion, or at all really. dirty little secret: the republican base would accept amnesty if the border is secure. the democrat party is willing to give no ground on this issue and cries racism or un-Americanism whenever possible (see: Jim Acosta). Bullshit. We could secure that boarder Jon Snow style with a mile high wall and the Republicans would still pitch deporting every illegal just to drum up turn out. Incorrect, see every poll, almost every pundit, see current hardliners in Congress. The fact that you think this is not surprising, however. But illegally crossing the boarder is not how those illegal immigrates get into the country. They over stay visas. The problems we do have with the boarder can be address with more funding. Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 04:44 Introvert wrote:
Incorrect, see every poll, almost every pundit, see current hardliners in Congress. The fact that you think this is not surprising, however. But you see, I wasn't born yesterday. I know when I see a goal post that is ripe to be moved. Securing the boarder is like the war on terror, war on drugs and being tough on crime. It is an ethereal concept with no real metric for success. A rallying cry to be broken out when elections come around. The boarder will never be secure, so the path to citizenship will never be discussed. And it will also be the other side's fault for not helping secure the boarder. I've watched this debate my entire political life and it never changes. Republicans will not give up the turn out that comes with the fear of "immigrants coming to take your jobs".
Overstays are the majority, yes. Can you agree that we should do more to kick people out who over stay their Visas?
The goalposts have only shifted in one direction. The Democrat party is more open borders now than it was in
2008. I know it's hard for you to believe this, but yes, if it was shown that the border was secure and the number of people coming in/staying here when they shouldn't was reduced to negligible levels, that would be acceptable.
Meanwhile the democrats are wholly untrustworthy because we know the moment a "path to citizenship" begins, they will immediately cut funding for enforcement. The thing you are ignoring is that there are many Republicans and Republican politicians, who want immigration. They have an interest in these things, including trying to avoid the BS racism charge. by your own logic the Democrat party is far less trustworthy on this issue, but somehow I don't take your position to be "do nothing."
But my point was not to discuss immigration again, but to criticize that intensely stupid "Analysis" article from NPR and your one liner accompanying it.
|
Why are you even talking about illegal immigration? After recent developments in regards to legal immigration, it should be rather obvious what the goal and reasoning is.
It's not people coming illegally. It's people coming full stop.
The argument "yeah but they're breaking the law, so we need to stop them - they're criminals!" doesn't work anymore once you cut (hardly overused) legal immigration as well. At this point it becomes pandering to an incredibly racist base.
|
On August 06 2017 05:09 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 04:46 zlefin wrote:On August 06 2017 04:44 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:On August 06 2017 04:39 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:32 zlefin wrote:
there's a bit more zero sum attitude coming from the right than from the left; though there's quite a lot of it in general.
and it's pretty clear that the republicans aren't interested in actually governing in anything resembling a reasonable fashion, or at all really. dirty little secret: the republican base would accept amnesty if the border is secure. the democrat party is willing to give no ground on this issue and cries racism or un-Americanism whenever possible (see: Jim Acosta). you can't TRULY secure the border; the notion itself is absurd. it's a matter of degrees more.i'd be happy to tkae the issue of secure the border and work on it. but the wall does nothing to actually help. it only wastes money. and the cries of racism is because alot of the justifications being used by the republicans are in fact covers for racism rather than actually well thought out plans to rigorously address the issues. No one ever said we were going to catch 100% of all border crossers. But we have, what, 12 million plus illegal immigrants. Safe to say that the border is, by no one's definition, secure. This post is funny because it's the Republicans who are willing to deal and the Democrats who don't budge. you claim the republicans are willing to deal; but I see little reason to take your word for it; can you back up your claim that republicans are seriously willing to deal? and are actually making serious, sensible proposals to address the issue? what are they offering to give up as part of a deal? because things like the wall are a sign of it not at all being a serious proposal but just virtue signalling. what standard would constitute a "secure" border? a large number of people in at present doesn't say much about the flow rates; it also says little about what's actually feasible to do and at what cost it would be. You don't have to take my word for it, you can look at the things I referenced. Every peice of evidence suggests that the GOP is more willing to make a deal than their opposition. Ted effing Cruz wouldn't rule out amnesty after security until like the very last days of the primary. Trump talked about people having to co out then "come back in." In all honesty only partisans don't see how many in the GOP caucus would take a path to citizenship, even without stricter enforcement. See the gang of eight or amnesty during the Bush years. Show nested quote +On August 06 2017 04:48 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2017 04:44 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:40 zlefin wrote:On August 06 2017 04:39 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:32 zlefin wrote:
there's a bit more zero sum attitude coming from the right than from the left; though there's quite a lot of it in general.
and it's pretty clear that the republicans aren't interested in actually governing in anything resembling a reasonable fashion, or at all really. dirty little secret: the republican base would accept amnesty if the border is secure. the democrat party is willing to give no ground on this issue and cries racism or un-Americanism whenever possible (see: Jim Acosta). you can't TRULY secure the border; the notion itself is absurd. it's a matter of degrees more.i'd be happy to tkae the issue of secure the border and work on it. but the wall does nothing to actually help. it only wastes money. and the cries of racism is because alot of the justifications being used by the republicans are in fact covers for racism rather than actually well thought out plans to rigorously address the issues. No one ever said we were going to catch 100% of all border crossers. But we have, what, 12 million plus illegal immigrants. Safe to say that the border is, by no one's definition, secure. This post is funny because it's the Republicans who are willing to deal and the Democrats who don't budge. On August 06 2017 04:42 Plansix wrote:On August 06 2017 04:39 Introvert wrote:On August 06 2017 04:32 zlefin wrote:
there's a bit more zero sum attitude coming from the right than from the left; though there's quite a lot of it in general.
and it's pretty clear that the republicans aren't interested in actually governing in anything resembling a reasonable fashion, or at all really. dirty little secret: the republican base would accept amnesty if the border is secure. the democrat party is willing to give no ground on this issue and cries racism or un-Americanism whenever possible (see: Jim Acosta). Bullshit. We could secure that boarder Jon Snow style with a mile high wall and the Republicans would still pitch deporting every illegal just to drum up turn out. Incorrect, see every poll, almost every pundit, see current hardliners in Congress. The fact that you think this is not surprising, however. But illegally crossing the boarder is not how those illegal immigrates get into the country. They over stay visas. The problems we do have with the boarder can be address with more funding. On August 06 2017 04:44 Introvert wrote:
Incorrect, see every poll, almost every pundit, see current hardliners in Congress. The fact that you think this is not surprising, however. But you see, I wasn't born yesterday. I know when I see a goal post that is ripe to be moved. Securing the boarder is like the war on terror, war on drugs and being tough on crime. It is an ethereal concept with no real metric for success. A rallying cry to be broken out when elections come around. The boarder will never be secure, so the path to citizenship will never be discussed. And it will also be the other side's fault for not helping secure the boarder. I've watched this debate my entire political life and it never changes. Republicans will not give up the turn out that comes with the fear of "immigrants coming to take your jobs". Overstays are the majority, yes. Can you agree that we should do more to kick people out who over stay their Visas? The goalposts have only shifted in one direction. The Democrat party is more open borders now than it was in 2008. I know it's hard for you to believe this, but yes, if it was shown that the border was secure and the number of people coming in/staying here when they shouldn't was reduced to negligible levels, that would be acceptable.
Meanwhile the democrats are wholly untrustworthy because we know the moment a "path to citizenship" begins, they will immediately cut funding for enforcement. The thing you are ignoring is that there are many Republicans and Republican politicians, who want immigration. They have an interest in these things, including trying to avoid the BS racism charge. by your own logic the Democrat party is far less trustworthy on this issue, but somehow I don't take your position to be "do nothing." But my point was not to discuss immigration again, but to criticize that intensely stupid "Analysis" article from NPR and your one liner accompanying it.
That is not hard for us to believe, it is impossible. I do not know a single person who leans left who believes for a second that republicans would ever say the boarder was secure.
|
Perhaps I'm wrong on this point, but from the outside it looks completely transparent that Democrats want more immigrants because immigrants are more prone to be welfare dependent, so they'll vote Democrat, and Republicans don't want them because of the opposite reason.
|
intro ->
your sources don't account for much; words by politicians, especially politicians iwth such an extensive track record of lying, mean very little in terms of assessing an honest willingness to negotiate. nor do you mention much in terms of actual concrete proposal, or what they're willing to give up. so I'm gonna take that to mean you have nothing to backup your claim that gop is truly willing to deal.
i'm gonna ignore your claim that about partisans seeing it some way, since you're one of the most partisan people around, and such people tend to misjudge others partisanship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
