Jump to content


What's next for Obama?

When he leaves office

  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#1 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,880 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 05:10 PM

I picked up my Sunday paper expecting to see local and national news sections.  Yep, they were there.  The national news seemed a bit odd though.

 

After a couple of weeks of government shutdown and talk about having talks about the budget I thought there might be something of interest.

 

The only thing from DC though seemed to be an AP piece of Obama as a man of faith.  Now, I generally prefer folks who keep their religion and/or their sexuality to themselves.  Somehow an article with quotes from staff and ministers in the national press isn't exactly keeping it quiet.  Particularly when there are actually other things of national interest.

 

But when you look at it,   It begins to make sense.  After the presidency, there isn't much you can do in politics that will command multi-millions in perks.

 

I'm thinking there's another megachurch getting set up for his retirement years.  Stay tuned.

 

 



#2 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,809 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 20 October 2013 - 05:32 PM

NY Times had an interesting opinion piece about the next political gambit Obama has teed up.
http://www.nytimes.c...ref=immigration

"The conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer laid out the presidents calculus more bluntly on Fox News: With immigration, he wins either way. Im not sure he thinks he can get it passed, seeing the resistance among the Republicans to the deal over the budget. I think he knows hes not going to have a good chance of getting immigration through, but he thinks and hes probably right that he can exploit this for the midterm election as a way to gin up support, for the Democrats to portray the Republicans as anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, etc.

Edit: not today's paper. 10/18

#3 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,152 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 20 October 2013 - 05:48 PM

Bill Clinton has earned over $100 million in speaking fees since he was president. Obama has an easy road paved for him, why form a church? there are apparently bigger suckers in board rooms.



#4 No.6

No.6

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,056 posts
  • Location:Portmeirion
  • Interests:Danger

Posted 20 October 2013 - 06:23 PM

It's called payback darling dear.



#5 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,367 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 20 October 2013 - 09:03 PM

NY Times had an interesting opinion piece about the next political gambit Obama has teed up.
http://www.nytimes.c...ref=immigration

"The conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer laid out the presidents calculus more bluntly on Fox News: With immigration, he wins either way. Im not sure he thinks he can get it passed, seeing the resistance among the Republicans to the deal over the budget. I think he knows hes not going to have a good chance of getting immigration through, but he thinks and hes probably right that he can exploit this for the midterm election as a way to gin up support, for the Democrats to portray the Republicans as anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, etc.

Edit: not today's paper. 10/18

 

I have been saying for 6 months now that latinos are starting to think he sold them a lemon last election with promises to make immigration a priority. I think a half hearted push now after he has spent a year poking Republicans and getting in name calling fights with them is going to come off as disingenuous. I know it will to me, and immigration is the main reason I voted for him last go round rather than Gary Johnson. He is, in my estimation, become a smaller man over his presidency, and a less honest one. My guess is that, in the midterms, if a Republican says the right things on immigration, they will be given the benefit of the doubt and will get votes they otherwise would not. Of course, this has nothing to do with the thread topic, but whatever, I guess it is PA so why stay on topic.



#6 Fat Point Jack

Fat Point Jack

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 576 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 09:15 PM

President Hillary nominates him for the Supreme Court.



#7 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,880 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 09:43 PM

NY Times had an interesting opinion piece about the next political gambit Obama has teed up.
http://www.nytimes.c...ref=immigration

"The conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer laid out the presidents calculus more bluntly on Fox News: With immigration, he wins either way. Im not sure he thinks he can get it passed, seeing the resistance among the Republicans to the deal over the budget. I think he knows hes not going to have a good chance of getting immigration through, but he thinks and hes probably right that he can exploit this for the midterm election as a way to gin up support, for the Democrats to portray the Republicans as anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, etc.

Edit: not today's paper. 10/18

 

I have been saying for 6 months now that latinos are starting to think he sold them a lemon last election with promises to make immigration a priority. I think a half hearted push now after he has spent a year poking Republicans and getting in name calling fights with them is going to come off as disingenuous. I know it will to me, and immigration is the main reason I voted for him last go round rather than Gary Johnson. He is, in my estimation, become a smaller man over his presidency, and a less honest one. My guess is that, in the midterms, if a Republican says the right things on immigration, they will be given the benefit of the doubt and will get votes they otherwise would not. Of course, this has nothing to do with the thread topic, but whatever, I guess it is PA so why stay on topic.

 

I don't believe he has become less honest.  I believe his dishonesty is simply becoming more evident and fewer people are willing to cover up for him.

 

He's a lame duck.  The party needs to be looking to the next presidential election and I don't believe he has an honest conviction in his mind.  Whatever it takes for him to win is the only criteria.



#8 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,880 posts

Posted 20 October 2013 - 09:46 PM

President Hillary nominates him for the Supreme Court.

 

What difference does it make.  Great clip.



#9 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,188 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 12:47 AM

NY Times had an interesting opinion piece about the next political gambit Obama has teed up.
http://www.nytimes.c...ref=immigration

"The conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer laid out the presidents calculus more bluntly on Fox News: With immigration, he wins either way. Im not sure he thinks he can get it passed, seeing the resistance among the Republicans to the deal over the budget. I think he knows hes not going to have a good chance of getting immigration through, but he thinks and hes probably right that he can exploit this for the midterm election as a way to gin up support, for the Democrats to portray the Republicans as anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, etc.

Edit: not today's paper. 10/18

 

 Wouldn't be real surprised if years from now when everybody writes their books Boehner is fully on board with Obama doing that. After the debt-ceiling beat-down of the Teahadists, Boehner needs to test/prove he has acquired an ability to herd these cats. If he can establish that he speaks for the House majority, Boehner becomes someone Obama can, and must, negotiate with.  



#10 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 21 October 2013 - 01:04 AM

Agreed but ...

It's 4 months until the first primary.
It's 3 months until the budget+sequester.

Boehner has some chop to sail through and so I don't see him being able to deliver immigration during the silly season. More likely he'd do it as a lame duck having lost his majority in November.

http://www.thegreenp...t=chronological

#11 Regatta Dog

Regatta Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,202 posts

Posted 21 October 2013 - 01:11 AM

Obama has said that his next priority will be immigration reform buying hispnic votes.

 

Our tax dollars at work.



#12 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,152 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 21 October 2013 - 01:22 AM

Isn't that too bad. The GOP was told well before the last election that minority voting will decide elections in the future. So what did they do? they changed voting laws, ran extremist points of view in Arizona and Texas and pretty much sealed their own fate for good. In just thirty years, whites are going to be a permanent minority, you would have thought at least someone in the Republican Party could have figured that out and thought about the survival of Conservatism.



#13 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,809 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 21 October 2013 - 01:36 AM

Will be interesting to see if there are any successful instances of tea party incumbents being "primaries" by more moderate GOP candidates.

#14 billy backstay

billy backstay

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,725 posts
  • Location:Etchells fleet 24..Long River meets the Sound....
  • Interests:boats, cars, girls....

Posted 22 October 2013 - 11:56 AM

NY Times had an interesting opinion piece about the next political gambit Obama has teed up.
http://www.nytimes.c...ref=immigration

"The conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer laid out the presidents calculus more bluntly on Fox News: With immigration, he wins either way. Im not sure he thinks he can get it passed, seeing the resistance among the Republicans to the deal over the budget. I think he knows hes not going to have a good chance of getting immigration through, but he thinks and hes probably right that he can exploit this for the midterm election as a way to gin up support, for the Democrats to portray the Republicans as anti-immigrant, anti-Hispanic, etc.

Edit: not today's paper. 10/18

 

No need to portray them.  They do a good enough job of portraying themselves as anti-immigrant and anti-hispanic...



#15 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,396 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 12:33 PM

Is it that Republicans are anti-immigration, anti-Hispanic or just less willing to pander to them?

#16 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,809 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 22 October 2013 - 01:03 PM

Is it that Republicans are anti-immigration, anti-Hispanic or just less willing to pander to them?


No doubt in my mind that the extreme right (that seems to be driving the GOP bus at the moment) is anti- immigration, anti Hispanic. Clever tactic this. No lose situation for the Dems.

#17 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 22 October 2013 - 01:07 PM

If brown people just looked more Canadian, they'd be welcome in the party of tea.



#18 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,367 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 22 October 2013 - 01:58 PM

If brown people just looked more Canadian, they'd be welcome in the party of tea.

 

Not sure if you and Mike realize it, but when you guys keep using the term brown people like this, it comes off as patronizing and offensive. It pisses me off every bit as much as the crap coming out of some right wing politicians.



#19 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 22 October 2013 - 02:11 PM

If brown people just looked more Canadian, they'd be welcome in the party of tea.

 

Not sure if you and Mike realize it, but when you guys keep using the term brown people like this, it comes off as patronizing and offensive. It pisses me off every bit as much as the crap coming out of some right wing politicians.

Should we have used brownskins?  Is that politically correct enough for you?



#20 Remodel

Remodel

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,387 posts
  • Location:None
  • Interests:Sailboat racing and long distance cruising

Posted 22 October 2013 - 04:48 PM

Is it that Republicans are anti-immigration, anti-Hispanic or just less willing to pander to them?

It's that they are too busy pandering to other special interests. Both parties are despicable in this regard.



#21 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,880 posts

Posted 22 October 2013 - 05:25 PM

Is it that Republicans are anti-immigration, anti-Hispanic or just less willing to pander to them?

It's that they are too busy pandering to other special interests. Both parties are despicable in this regard.

 

I don't know, are there any hispanic democrats being mentioned as possible presidential candidates?



#22 badlatitude

badlatitude

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,152 posts
  • Location:Marina Del Rey, Ca.

Posted 22 October 2013 - 05:32 PM

There's at least half a dozen from Texas, not including the Mayor of San Antonio, Julian Castro. 



#23 TheFlash

TheFlash

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,243 posts
  • Location:San Francisco Bay
  • Interests:Rum

Posted 22 October 2013 - 05:34 PM

 

Is it that Republicans are anti-immigration, anti-Hispanic or just less willing to pander to them?

It's that they are too busy pandering to other special interests. Both parties are despicable in this regard.

 

I don't know, are there any hispanic democrats being mentioned as possible presidential candidates?

Who, the Cubanian?  Is he even 'merican?



#24 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,367 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 23 October 2013 - 09:29 AM

 

If brown people just looked more Canadian, they'd be welcome in the party of tea.

 

Not sure if you and Mike realize it, but when you guys keep using the term brown people like this, it comes off as patronizing and offensive. It pisses me off every bit as much as the crap coming out of some right wing politicians.

Should we have used brownskins?  Is that politically correct enough for you?

 

You can use whatever term you want in whatever context you want, it's called freedom of speech. But freedom comes with a cost, and people will make decisions about your character by the things you say. I thought you would appreciate knowing that you were making yourself look like a douchebag.



#25 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,396 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:20 AM


Is it that Republicans are anti-immigration, anti-Hispanic or just less willing to pander to them?

No doubt in my mind that the extreme right (that seems to be driving the GOP bus at the moment) is anti- immigration, anti Hispanic. Clever tactic this. No lose situation for the Dems.


And Democratic concern for them is altruistic, right?

#26 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,367 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:28 AM

 

Is it that Republicans are anti-immigration, anti-Hispanic or just less willing to pander to them?

No doubt in my mind that the extreme right (that seems to be driving the GOP bus at the moment) is anti- immigration, anti Hispanic. Clever tactic this. No lose situation for the Dems.

 

And Democratic concern for them is altruistic, right?

 

There is an element within the Republican party that is xenophobic at best, and racist at worst. At the same time, there is an element within the Democratic party which is patronizing at best, and racist at worst. Then there are the great number of people who are neither, and would just like to come up with a solution to 10 million undocumented people living in the US, because there are definite costs to not solving it. 



#27 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,809 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:31 AM

Is it that Republicans are anti-immigration, anti-Hispanic or just less willing to pander to them?

No doubt in my mind that the extreme right (that seems to be driving the GOP bus at the moment) is anti- immigration, anti Hispanic. Clever tactic this. No lose situation for the Dems.
And Democratic concern for them is altruistic, right?

The votes are nice as well. You can't suppress all of them.

#28 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,367 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 23 October 2013 - 10:47 AM

 

 

Is it that Republicans are anti-immigration, anti-Hispanic or just less willing to pander to them?

No doubt in my mind that the extreme right (that seems to be driving the GOP bus at the moment) is anti- immigration, anti Hispanic. Clever tactic this. No lose situation for the Dems.
And Democratic concern for them is altruistic, right?

The votes are nice as well. You can't suppress all of them.

 

Do you really think that latinos as a group are not starting to see through the charade the Dems are putting on? Tune out the media circus and noise makers like Tom Tancredo, and you can start to see that in the Senate the Republicans are working to move toward a solution, just as the Democrats are. Nothing is going to happen in the house, since Obama and the house are in an epic pissing contest. It is telling though, that after committing to making immigration reform a top priority, Obama has done very little to move it forward, and generally just uses it as a way to rip house republicans. People aren't stupid, and if Jeb Bush got the R nomination he might be able to get as much as 40% or 50% of the Hispanic vote, which would make him the next president. In politics, hubris kills.



#29 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,809 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 23 October 2013 - 11:47 AM


 


 


Is it that Republicans are anti-immigration, anti-Hispanic or just less willing to pander to them?

No doubt in my mind that the extreme right (that seems to be driving the GOP bus at the moment) is anti- immigration, anti Hispanic. Clever tactic this. No lose situation for the Dems.
And Democratic concern for them is altruistic, right?

The votes are nice as well. You can't suppress all of them.
 
Do you really think that latinos as a group are not starting to see through the charade the Dems are putting on? Tune out the media circus and noise makers like Tom Tancredo, and you can start to see that in the Senate the Republicans are working to move toward a solution, just as the Democrats are. Nothing is going to happen in the house, since Obama and the house are in an epic pissing contest. It is telling though, that after committing to making immigration reform a top priority, Obama has done very little to move it forward, and generally just uses it as a way to rip house republicans. People aren't stupid, and if Jeb Bush got the R nomination he might be able to get as much as 40% or 50% of the Hispanic vote, which would make him the next president. In politics, hubris kills.
Time will tell, but its a steep hill to climb. Currently, Hispanics favor democrats by a two to one margin. Obama got 70% last year. The "media circus and noise makers" continue to give gifts to the left, and the general population isn't going to "tune out" all the noise. The damage is done, and it will take a very long time to repair it. With their history, any attempts at coddling Hispanics by the right will likely be seen as pandering. Like you said, they're not stupid.

#30 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,880 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 11:53 AM

I'm still thinking Megachurch.  They might not call it that but it will require and act of faith.



#31 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,367 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 23 October 2013 - 12:07 PM

Time will tell, but its a steep hill to climb. Currently, Hispanics favor democrats by a two to one margin. Obama got 70% last year. The "media circus and noise makers" continue to give gifts to the left, and the general population isn't going to "tune out" all the noise. The damage is done, and it will take a very long time to repair it. With their history, any attempts at coddling Hispanics by the right will likely be seen as pandering. Like you said, they're not stupid.

 

What the Dems are doing now is pandering with little desire to really do anything. It is the dems who are starting to look dishonest, and I say that as someone very close to a number of hispanics, namely my family. The damage is indeed done, on both sides. It will take quite a bit of work, at least for me and my family, for that to change, and it really does not matter a whit what the general population feels. The Latinos who voted for Republicans last time are not going to switch, and the Dems are losing credibility with a lot of the ones who voted for them last time and so are likely to lose some percentage, especially if someone on the R side who has some credibility on the issue runs. I thought GWB has a horrible failure, but I would give his brother a good long look if he was the R candidate. Keep in mind, I have voted for every Dem candidate since GHWB.



#32 Mark K

Mark K

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 36,188 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 12:50 PM

 Best wait and see what Boehner's opinion is on this. It might be that "Republicans" aren't dead set against it....now.... 



#33 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,809 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 23 October 2013 - 12:50 PM

^
You're obviously closer to the issue than I. What exactly are the dems doing that bothers you? From where I sit, the dems have been consistently in favor of policies meant to benefit the Latino population, and repubs consistently trying to keep or put Latinos on the other side of the border, or otherwise prevent them from participating in our democracy. What leads you to believe the dems have no desire to get immigration reform done?

#34 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 23 October 2013 - 12:58 PM


 


If brown people just looked more Canadian, they'd be welcome in the party of tea.

 
Not sure if you and Mike realize it, but when you guys keep using the term brown people like this, it comes off as patronizing and offensive. It pisses me off every bit as much as the crap coming out of some right wing politicians.
Should we have used brownskins?  Is that politically correct enough for you?
 
You can use whatever term you want in whatever context you want, it's called freedom of speech. But freedom comes with a cost, and people will make decisions about your character by the things you say. I thought you would appreciate knowing that you were making yourself look like a douchebag.
Perhaps you can have a word with regatta dog about his use of the N word too.

#35 Dog

Dog

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 16,396 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 01:01 PM

^
You're obviously closer to the issue than I. What exactly are the dems doing that bothers you? From where I sit, the dems have been consistently in favor of policies meant to benefit the Latino population, and repubs consistently trying to keep or put Latinos on the other side of the border, or otherwise prevent them from participating in our democracy. What leads you to believe the dems have no desire to get immigration reform done?

Is opposition to illegal immigration a bad policy? My problem with Republicans on immigration is that they are not strident enough.

#36 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,367 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 23 October 2013 - 01:17 PM

^
You're obviously closer to the issue than I. What exactly are the dems doing that bothers you? From where I sit, the dems have been consistently in favor of policies meant to benefit the Latino population, and repubs consistently trying to keep or put Latinos on the other side of the border, or otherwise prevent them from participating in our democracy. What leads you to believe the dems have no desire to get immigration reform done?


GWB did more to try and get immigration reform passed than Obama has. He pushed hard for it, Obama has given lip service. It is a myth that only Dems are in favor of it, that is just the media circus. It is true that some of the worst xeonphobes are in the Republican party, but that is only a small part of the story. The other side of it is that the Dems have decided they like this as a wedge issue that they can use every election, and so have no real intention of getting something passed that would take away what they see as a club that can be used on Republicans.



#37 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,367 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 23 October 2013 - 01:19 PM

 

 


 


If brown people just looked more Canadian, they'd be welcome in the party of tea.

 
Not sure if you and Mike realize it, but when you guys keep using the term brown people like this, it comes off as patronizing and offensive. It pisses me off every bit as much as the crap coming out of some right wing politicians.
Should we have used brownskins?  Is that politically correct enough for you?
 
You can use whatever term you want in whatever context you want, it's called freedom of speech. But freedom comes with a cost, and people will make decisions about your character by the things you say. I thought you would appreciate knowing that you were making yourself look like a douchebag.
Perhaps you can have a word with regatta dog about his use of the N word too.

 

Plenty of people said something to RD already, nobody was pointing out that what you and Mike do is offensive.



#38 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 23 October 2013 - 01:46 PM


GWB did more to try and get immigration reform passed than Obama has. He pushed hard for it, Obama has given lip service. It is a myth that only Dems are in favor of it, that is just the media circus. It is true that some of the worst xeonphobes are in the Republican party, but that is only a small part of the story. The other side of it is that the Dems have decided they like this as a wedge issue that they can use every election, and so have no real intention of getting something passed that would take away what they see as a club that can be used on Republicans.

Just like abortion is for the GOP.  Bitch and moan about it but do nothing legislatively.  Its a wedge issue that is good for raising money.

 

BTW, if only some of the worst xenophobes align with the GOP, where do the rest of them align?



#39 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,367 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 23 October 2013 - 01:51 PM


GWB did more to try and get immigration reform passed than Obama has. He pushed hard for it, Obama has given lip service. It is a myth that only Dems are in favor of it, that is just the media circus. It is true that some of the worst xeonphobes are in the Republican party, but that is only a small part of the story. The other side of it is that the Dems have decided they like this as a wedge issue that they can use every election, and so have no real intention of getting something passed that would take away what they see as a club that can be used on Republicans.

Just like abortion is for the GOP.  Bitch and moan about it but do nothing legislatively.  Its a wedge issue that is good for raising money.

 

BTW, if only some of the worst xenophobes align with the GOP, where do the rest of them align?

 

Yeah, just like that. Do you think that makes it ok for the Dems to do the same? I don't, it pisses me off. As to your second question, some are Dems too. I met plenty of them during Obama's 1st presidential campaign. Of course the circus does not show you those because it destroys the reality show type narrative they are trying to spin for ratings.



#40 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,809 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 23 October 2013 - 08:23 PM

Well, let the games begin!
Email from today:

Why immigration reform is at the top of our agenda:

Friend --

When we talk about passing comprehensive immigration reform, what we're really talking about is people.

That might be difficult to believe if you listen to some of reform's opponents -- with all the name-calling and spin, some people in Washington are clearly more interested in sabotaging progress than solving problems.

Our immigration system is broken -- and fixing it is a no-brainer, for our families and for our economy. The Senate already passed a comprehensive immigration bill with overwhelming bipartisan support this summer. And members of both parties in the House have signaled they're ready to get this done.

OFA is doubling down on immigration reform right now -- say you support comprehensive immigration reform, and join this important fight.

Now that the shutdown is over, the President has called on Congress to get back to the real work Americans sent them there to do -- solving problems instead of creating them.

At the top of the agenda is immigration reform.

It's tough to see how the same members of Congress who huffed and puffed over increasing the debt ceiling can oppose a comprehensive reform package that would reduce the deficit by an estimated $800 billion and add more than three million jobs to our economy.

OFA is going to be turning up the pressure on the House. Will you join this fight today?

http://my.barackobam...Important-Fight

Thanks,

Pedro

Pedro Morillas
Immigration Campaign Manager
Organizing for Action

----------------
The other side will spend millions to maintain the status quo. We're fighting for change -- chip in $5 or more to support OFA today.

#41 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,367 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 23 October 2013 - 08:29 PM

Well, let the games begin!
Email from today:

Why immigration reform is at the top of our agenda:

Friend --

When we talk about passing comprehensive immigration reform, what we're really talking about is people.

That might be difficult to believe if you listen to some of reform's opponents -- with all the name-calling and spin, some people in Washington are clearly more interested in sabotaging progress than solving problems.

Our immigration system is broken -- and fixing it is a no-brainer, for our families and for our economy. The Senate already passed a comprehensive immigration bill with overwhelming bipartisan support this summer. And members of both parties in the House have signaled they're ready to get this done.

OFA is doubling down on immigration reform right now -- say you support comprehensive immigration reform, and join this important fight.

Now that the shutdown is over, the President has called on Congress to get back to the real work Americans sent them there to do -- solving problems instead of creating them.

At the top of the agenda is immigration reform.

It's tough to see how the same members of Congress who huffed and puffed over increasing the debt ceiling can oppose a comprehensive reform package that would reduce the deficit by an estimated $800 billion and add more than three million jobs to our economy.

OFA is going to be turning up the pressure on the House. Will you join this fight today?

http://my.barackobam...Important-Fight

Thanks,

Pedro

Pedro Morillas
Immigration Campaign Manager
Organizing for Action

----------------
The other side will spend millions to maintain the status quo. We're fighting for change -- chip in $5 or more to support OFA today.

 

Yeah, so the assholes are not just using it to divide and as a political campaign weapon, they are already fundraising off it for next year. That is about as disingenuous as it gets. Obama should tell the people running OFA which is really his ongoing campaign, to back the fuck off the issue while they try to make something work. Fundraising off it while you are trying to get the other side to work with you is dooming cooperation to failure, if it was not already doomed. One more reason I regret voting for Obama, giving him my money, and giving him my time.



#42 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,223 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 08:43 PM

One more reason I regret voting for Obama, giving him my money, and giving him my time.

Out of curiosity who would you have voted for and why?  Serious question as for most elections I feel like the bug inspector in the bakery picking the yeast of two weevils. 



#43 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,367 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 23 October 2013 - 08:53 PM

One more reason I regret voting for Obama, giving him my money, and giving him my time.

Out of curiosity who would you have voted for and why?  Serious question as for most elections I feel like the bug inspector in the bakery picking the yeast of two weevils. 

 

Gary Johnson. I don't agree with him on everything, and still believe that we need to have single payer health care, since we are never going to stomach turning away emergency care for those who can't pay, but on may issues I agree with him. The biggest issues being to stop the Wars on X which are really a war on us and our rights. Legalize drugs, stop the WOT, and start to step back from being the world cop. We can't just flip a switch and stop being the world's cop tomorrow, but we can start an orderly process of deescalating the power we project, and put that money and good will back into the US, while at the same time rolling back the massive invasions into our privacy and lives. Govt serves some very important roles, and in places we need it to do more, but the way it is operating now, I believe we need to take two steps back in terms of govt power before we take another forward, with the hope that the next step forward will be a little better thought out and executed.

 

The additional benefit of a Gary Johnson presidency would be a truly independent executive who is not trying to be a party leader while also trying to be the nation's leader. There is a natural conflict in being loyal to your party and doing what is best for it, while also being faithful to the office you were elected to. What is going to help get Ds or Rs elected is not necessarily the best thing for the country. Having an executive who does not face that conflict could only be a good thing.



#44 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,223 posts

Posted 23 October 2013 - 09:13 PM

I have always thought Gary Johnson to be an excellent choice for any office.  His only chance was to get the pick from one of the two parties and imo would be doing zip different now than Obama is.  Too much money, too many special interests to expect a lot of change. 

 

Until we get fed up enough to demand some real reform  we will be left with unlimited bitching and moaning while the .3% enjoy the ride. 



#45 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,367 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 23 October 2013 - 09:29 PM

I have always thought Gary Johnson to be an excellent choice for any office.  His only chance was to get the pick from one of the two parties and imo would be doing zip different now than Obama is.  Too much money, too many special interests to expect a lot of change. 

 

Until we get fed up enough to demand some real reform  we will be left with unlimited bitching and moaning while the .3% enjoy the ride. 

 

On that, I am in complete agreement. Still, I would feel much better voting for Gary as a Libertarian than voting for either one of the major party candidates, even knowing that the best we can hope it does is move the country a tiny bit closer to thinking that you can do that and it is not throwing your vote away. That voting your conscience 100% is meaningful even when your guy loses, or even has little to no chance of winning.



#46 plchacker

plchacker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,771 posts
  • Location:Helwestern AL

Posted 23 October 2013 - 09:47 PM

LenP,

 

Obviously this is a much bigger issue where you live.  In our area there are very few Latino's and most of those have been here for quite a while.  Honestly one of my best students last year had a common Latino name but was pretty much indistinguishable in speech, actions and culture from the rest of my  white students.  Point is, I do not see this issue from the same perspective.  That said, exactly what are the true issues?  Are there really 10M non-citizens?  Beyond granting these people a free pass, what other issues are there?  Would other countries see this as stealing their citizens?  Is this a Latino only situation, or do we include Asians and other people from other places in the world?  Is it not realistic to expect immigrants to learn English?   My grandmother, who immigrated from Quebec learned English and took a pretty tough test to gain American Citizenship.  Is it not realistic to expect some amount of allegiance to the US if citizenship is granted?  Again, I remember my grandmother being very careful to display flags, both Canadian and American, on certain holidays, in both Canada and the US.  (They had homes in Warren Mi, and in Ontario.)  I know that there are areas particularly along the border where people moved from country to country for quite a while, without any real issues.  I also know that there have been major issues in more recent times.

 

I do not see immigration as a Latino only situation. So any immigration reform would have to take many cultures into consideration. 

 

I do see that there could be a separate list of issues that are Latino specific.     Oddly, I am not exactly sure what that list would look like.

 

BTW, I never believed that Obama was serious about immigration reform.  Honestly, I think Mitt would have given more effort.  Not that I think Mitt was a good choice.  I certainly thought that he was a poor choice for many reasons.



#47 Olsonist

Olsonist

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,178 posts
  • Location:Oakland, CA

Posted 23 October 2013 - 09:57 PM

If you want to talk about immigration, it would be best to leave the personalities out. That's true because any Immigration Reform package which passes through Congress and is signed by the President will be a bi-partisan result of the Republican majority in the House and the Democratic Senate and White House. So if you want to talk about immigration reform, you have to say what that means to you rather than what Obama or Boehner mean to you.

 

I should add that the President has done some things unilaterally.



#48 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,367 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 24 October 2013 - 01:12 PM

LenP,

 

Obviously this is a much bigger issue where you live.  In our area there are very few Latino's and most of those have been here for quite a while.  Honestly one of my best students last year had a common Latino name but was pretty much indistinguishable in speech, actions and culture from the rest of my  white students.  Point is, I do not see this issue from the same perspective.  That said, exactly what are the true issues?  Are there really 10M non-citizens?  Beyond granting these people a free pass, what other issues are there?  Would other countries see this as stealing their citizens?  Is this a Latino only situation, or do we include Asians and other people from other places in the world?  Is it not realistic to expect immigrants to learn English?   My grandmother, who immigrated from Quebec learned English and took a pretty tough test to gain American Citizenship.  Is it not realistic to expect some amount of allegiance to the US if citizenship is granted?  Again, I remember my grandmother being very careful to display flags, both Canadian and American, on certain holidays, in both Canada and the US.  (They had homes in Warren Mi, and in Ontario.)  I know that there are areas particularly along the border where people moved from country to country for quite a while, without any real issues.  I also know that there have been major issues in more recent times.

 

I do not see immigration as a Latino only situation. So any immigration reform would have to take many cultures into consideration. 

 

I do see that there could be a separate list of issues that are Latino specific.     Oddly, I am not exactly sure what that list would look like.

 

BTW, I never believed that Obama was serious about immigration reform.  Honestly, I think Mitt would have given more effort.  Not that I think Mitt was a good choice.  I certainly thought that he was a poor choice for many reasons.

 

It probably is not a much bigger issues where I live now than where you are, but I have felt strongly about this issue for quite a while now. I do not know the exact number of people, but the estimates all seem to agree it is over 10 million. Having that many people living in the country, but without legal status, creates some major problems for all of us. Folks either work off the books or with faked papers. The ID requirements we put on employers then pushes people into day laborer markets or in the case of far too many younger people, into crime. People own, register, and drive cars either with faked papers or with none at all. This again has an impact on the whole society. Having an underground or shadow economy and society within another is never good, and one which is this large is even worse.

 

At a high level, the options are pretty simple: we either find a way to evict all these people from the country, or we find a way to allow them to stay legally. I do not think we can really evict them as the law enforcement required would be huge, and the societal impact would be large. While these folks are here illegally, they are not completely isolated and so there are hundreds of millions of both strong and weak ties that bind these 10 million people to the rest of the nation. A magic wand which sent them all home overnight would leave a lot of damage to society, even if it would solve the one specific problem of them being here without documentation. The alternative is to find a way to allow them to stay and work legally. This I think is viable, even if there are issues and conditions that will need to be worked through. I don't think a "free pass" is appropriate, but what is important to remember is that the initial violation in many many cases is simply overstaying a visa, or a nanny working here legally for an abusive family leaving the situation and staying in the country, instead of returning to their home country. To be certain, there are also people who have crossed the border who were never here legally, and maybe part of the solution is to not treat everyone here without papers the same way. Maybe someone who crosses a border illegally, pays a higher fine or jump through extra hoops. I am open and willing to listen to any suggestions, but it would be nice to see people actually working towards a solution, and not using the issue as a club to beat their enemies over the head. We all as a nation deserve better than that.

 

As far as requirements of learning the language or pledging allegiance to the nation, I have absolutely no problem with those. I think they make a lot of sense. With that being said, when it comes to language it is not always so easy. Using an example from my own personal life, years ago my wife's grandmother was growing older, having difficulty taking care of herself, and was alone in Peru as her children were here and her husband had passed. She was not able to learn the language outside of a few words or phrases. Learning a new language is difficult for most people, some more so than others, and that gets worse with age. It would not have been morally right to let her die alone in Peru because she could not learn the language here when she was in her 70s. We need find a way to be reasonable, while that seems to be impossible in our current political climate.

 

One of the popular myths propagated by the current circus is that the immigrants today are different than the immigrants of the past. That is simply not true. My wife's family, which I consider to be as much my family as those I am related to by blood, is every bit as patriotic and loving of the country here as my own family, maybe even more. One brother works for DHS, her other brother spent 6 years in the Navy through the first gulf war, one sister worked in the White House, her cousin is an entrepreneur with an exclusive Salon which caters to the DC elite. My wife worked for the DEA for a decade. They are not unique in the path they have followed here as immigrants, yet the storyline propagated in the media and by politicians with an agenda, is that things are different now, different this time. They are not. When the Italians, which is part of my heritage, came in waves a century ago, they followed the same path, and they too had some who instead followed a path into crime. Instead of gangs, they were in crime families with Italian surnames, but it was the same in nature and effect.

 

As long as we do not solve the problem, then we will continue to see storylines in the news which perpetuate the type of divisiveness which makes some of our citizens different than the rest of us. We will continue to see language from some people and some politicians which is hateful and hurtful. I would like to see the media circus that surrounds this end, and for all our benefit, I would like to see everyone operating legally and paying their taxes.



#49 plchacker

plchacker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,771 posts
  • Location:Helwestern AL

Posted 24 October 2013 - 02:01 PM

The language thing is difficult.  I will admit that.  And in cases like your mother in law there should be exceptions.  My travels in this country have been mostly limited to East of the Mississippi.  There is just so much to see that I have only made it West a time or three.  However, I have spent considerable time in foreign countries.  I have been faced with learning German and Italian.  I mastered neither, but was able to understand most of what I heard in both languages with time.  That experience in particular brought a concern that many may not see.  While in one of the countries (I'll reserve which) I watched immigrants being treated as poorly as I would imagine slaves are/were treated.  It was hurtful to watch.  People should never be treated like that.  Also I have worked side by side with immigrants who were in the US for political asylum.  They were truly torn from their homes with nowhere else to go.  I had a deep respect for these people.  They were Muslim.  I never once thought that they intended any harm on the US.  I have a good friend from Austria who spent over ten years gaining his US citizenship.  He now runs a very successful automation consulting firm.

 

One of the truly great things about this country is that we do take in immigrants.  If the system is broken we should fix it.  The fix will require more than simply closing borders. Obama has done an exceptional job at that. I think we will need more than a Web site to process the needed information.  In order to process people's applications quickly and efficiently we will  have to hire quite a few people for short term employment. It may be wise to look back to the times of the Irish, Chinese and Italian immigration time periods to see what worked.  I also believe over politicized actions like the Dream Act are the wrong answer.  There is room, and I believe desire from both parties to negotiate and produce a workable solution.  Unfortunately this is the job of our government, and it will have to be a government solution.  Given that, I would like to see a bi-party,. bi-chamber collaboration with no individual or party getting all the credit.    That said, if it happens under Obama's watch and he behaves himself, he would garner much of the credit.  I really don't think that he can leave the battle long enough to allow this to happen.  It would cost a fairly large sum to properly fix the system.  I normally hate government spending but we are responsible for the failures so far and we should repair the system.



#50 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,367 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 24 October 2013 - 02:06 PM

The language thing is difficult.  I will admit that.  And in cases like your mother in law there should be exceptions.  My travels in this country have been mostly limited to East of the Mississippi.  There is just so much to see that I have only made it West a time or three.  However, I have spent considerable time in foreign countries.  I have been faced with learning German and Italian.  I mastered neither, but was able to understand most of what I heard in both languages with time.  That experience in particular brought a concern that many may not see.  While in one of the countries (I'll reserve which) I watched immigrants being treated as poorly as I would imagine slaves are/were treated.  It was hurtful to watch.  People should never be treated like that.  Also I have worked side by side with immigrants who were in the US for political asylum.  They were truly torn from their homes with nowhere else to go.  I had a deep respect for these people.  They were Muslim.  I never once thought that they intended any harm on the US.  I have a good friend from Austria who spent over ten years gaining his US citizenship.  He now runs a very successful automation consulting firm.

 

One of the truly great things about this country is that we do take in immigrants.  If the system is broken we should fix it.  The fix will require more than simply closing borders. Obama has done an exceptional job at that. I think we will need more than a Web site to process the needed information.  In order to process people's applications quickly and efficiently we will  have to hire quite a few people for short term employment. It may be wise to look back to the times of the Irish, Chinese and Italian immigration time periods to see what worked.  I also believe over politicized actions like the Dream Act are the wrong answer.  There is room, and I believe desire from both parties to negotiate and produce a workable solution.  Unfortunately this is the job of our government, and it will have to be a government solution.  Given that, I would like to see a bi-party,. bi-chamber collaboration with no individual or party getting all the credit.    That said, if it happens under Obama's watch and he behaves himself, he would garner much of the credit.  I really don't think that he can leave the battle long enough to allow this to happen.  It would cost a fairly large sum to properly fix the system.  I normally hate government spending but we are responsible for the failures so far and we should repair the system.

 

Yep, I would agree with everything you write here. Just about a year ago, I was very hopeful we would get that. I am more doubtful now.



#51 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 24 October 2013 - 02:14 PM

I doubt Obama will get anything done until the mid terms.  The GOP is just too butt hurt to work with him.  If, as I predict, the Dems sweep the house and get a super majority in the senate again, we might see some movement after 2014.



#52 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,880 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 02:17 PM

One of the truly great things about this country is that we do take in immigrants.  If the system is broken we should fix it.  The fix will require more than simply closing borders. Obama has done an exceptional job at that. I think we will need more than a Web site to process the needed information.  In order to process people's applications quickly and efficiently we will  have to hire quite a few people for short term employment. It may be wise to look back to the times of the Irish, Chinese and Italian immigration time periods to see what worked.  I also believe over politicized actions like the Dream Act are the wrong answer.  There is room, and I believe desire from both parties to negotiate and produce a workable solution.  Unfortunately this is the job of our government, and it will have to be a government solution.  Given that, I would like to see a bi-party,. bi-chamber collaboration with no individual or party getting all the credit.    That said, if it happens under Obama's watch and he behaves himself, he would garner much of the credit.  I really don't think that he can leave the battle long enough to allow this to happen.  It would cost a fairly large sum to properly fix the system.  I normally hate government spending but we are responsible for the failures so far and we should repair the system.

 

What is it that you think is broken in the system?

 

It is a process that has worked for quite a while and was able to deal with millions of immigrant laborers and those displaced by war.  We have a long list of visas which will provide employment or a path to citizenship.

 

A lot of this gets pointed at hispanics but there a lot of other illegal immigrants who are classed as 'other than mexican'.  Using the latinos as a stalking horse is playing into a lot of other nationalities hands.



#53 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,809 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 24 October 2013 - 02:18 PM

Len, what's your take on the Senate bill passed last June? As I understand it, the House has refused to take it up. Probably going to be tough to get anything through the House with the tea party contingent in charge.

http://www.latimes.c...y#axzz2ieHzutsx

#54 A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

A_guy_in_the_Chesapeake

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,459 posts
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 24 October 2013 - 02:24 PM

One more reason I regret voting for Obama, giving him my money, and giving him my time.

Out of curiosity who would you have voted for and why?  Serious question as for most elections I feel like the bug inspector in the bakery picking the yeast of two weevils. 

 

D'ranger - may I ask for permission to use that?  Eloquently put, sir! 



#55 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,367 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 24 October 2013 - 02:25 PM

Len, what's your take on the Senate bill passed last June? As I understand it, the House has refused to take it up. Probably going to be tough to get anything through the House with the tea party contingent in charge.

http://www.latimes.c...y#axzz2ieHzutsx

 

 I would be happy with that. I would also be fine if the house took something like that and added in some additional requirements and security to it.



#56 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,367 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 24 October 2013 - 02:28 PM

One of the truly great things about this country is that we do take in immigrants.  If the system is broken we should fix it.  The fix will require more than simply closing borders. Obama has done an exceptional job at that. I think we will need more than a Web site to process the needed information.  In order to process people's applications quickly and efficiently we will  have to hire quite a few people for short term employment. It may be wise to look back to the times of the Irish, Chinese and Italian immigration time periods to see what worked.  I also believe over politicized actions like the Dream Act are the wrong answer.  There is room, and I believe desire from both parties to negotiate and produce a workable solution.  Unfortunately this is the job of our government, and it will have to be a government solution.  Given that, I would like to see a bi-party,. bi-chamber collaboration with no individual or party getting all the credit.    That said, if it happens under Obama's watch and he behaves himself, he would garner much of the credit.  I really don't think that he can leave the battle long enough to allow this to happen.  It would cost a fairly large sum to properly fix the system.  I normally hate government spending but we are responsible for the failures so far and we should repair the system.

 

What is it that you think is broken in the system?

 

It is a process that has worked for quite a while and was able to deal with millions of immigrant laborers and those displaced by war.  We have a long list of visas which will provide employment or a path to citizenship.

 

A lot of this gets pointed at hispanics but there a lot of other illegal immigrants who are classed as 'other than mexican'.  Using the latinos as a stalking horse is playing into a lot of other nationalities hands.

 

The circus has decided that making this all about latinos is where the drama is, so the xenophobes who are more than happy to toss out a bigoted or racist statement get plenty of airtime. The only person I know personally who was deported for being here illegally was Norwegian.



#57 Tom Ray

Tom Ray

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 25,776 posts
  • Location:Punta Gorda FL
  • Interests:~~/)/)~~

Posted 24 October 2013 - 02:29 PM

Issa to introduce immigration bill


 

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is planning to release legislation next week that would provide legal status for six years to undocumented immigrants in the United States, he said in an interview Wednesday.


Issa, an influential Republican who leads the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, described the legislation as a “come-from-the-shadows” effort that would allow the government to do a full accounting of those who are in the U.S. illegally. Immigrants in this new status would be able to travel to their native country while on this temporary visa, he said.


“It’s halfway – and it always has been – halfway between full amnesty and simply rejecting people,” Issa told POLITICO on Wednesday. “I think if we’re going to break this logjam that’s occurred for my whole 13 years I’ve been in Congress, we have to find middle ground.”

 

 

What an extremist!



#58 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,367 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 24 October 2013 - 02:45 PM

Issa to introduce immigration bill


 

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is planning to release legislation next week that would provide legal status for six years to undocumented immigrants in the United States, he said in an interview Wednesday.


Issa, an influential Republican who leads the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, described the legislation as a “come-from-the-shadows” effort that would allow the government to do a full accounting of those who are in the U.S. illegally. Immigrants in this new status would be able to travel to their native country while on this temporary visa, he said.


“It’s halfway – and it always has been – halfway between full amnesty and simply rejecting people,” Issa told POLITICO on Wednesday. “I think if we’re going to break this logjam that’s occurred for my whole 13 years I’ve been in Congress, we have to find middle ground.”

 

 

What an extremist!

 

I would like to see that passed and sent to the Senate, then maybe they can work out something between what the Senate has passed and what this does. That will only happen if people stop using this as a political weapon.



#59 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,880 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 02:51 PM

Issa to introduce immigration bill


 

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) is planning to release legislation next week that would provide legal status for six years to undocumented immigrants in the United States, he said in an interview Wednesday.


Issa, an influential Republican who leads the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, described the legislation as a “come-from-the-shadows” effort that would allow the government to do a full accounting of those who are in the U.S. illegally. Immigrants in this new status would be able to travel to their native country while on this temporary visa, he said.


“It’s halfway – and it always has been – halfway between full amnesty and simply rejecting people,” Issa told POLITICO on Wednesday. “I think if we’re going to break this logjam that’s occurred for my whole 13 years I’ve been in Congress, we have to find middle ground.”

 

 

What an extremist!

 

It's always halfway.  Then another halfway, then another halfway.

 

Archimedean_spiral.jpg



#60 VwaP

VwaP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,242 posts
  • Location:Sunny South Florida
  • Interests:Private investigator by day party gurl by night

Posted 24 October 2013 - 03:34 PM


WONDER LAND
Henninger: Obama's Credibility Is Melting
Here and abroad, Obama's partners are concluding they cannot trust him.
http://online.wsj.co...152082961445984




Oct. 23, 2013 7:14 p.m. ET
The collapse of ObamaCare is the tip of the iceberg for the magical Obama presidency.

From the moment he emerged in the public eye with his 2004 speech at the Democratic Convention and through his astonishing defeat of the Clintons in 2008, Barack Obama's calling card has been credibility. He speaks, and enough of the world believes to keep his presidency afloat. Or used to.

All of a sudden, from Washington to Riyadh, Barack Obama's credibility is melting.

Amid the predictable collapse the past week of HealthCare.gov's too-complex technology, not enough notice was given to Sen. Marco Rubio's statement that the chances for success on immigration reform are about dead. Why? Because, said Sen. Rubio, there is "a lack of trust" in the president's commitments.

Enlarge Image

© Images.com/Corbis

"This notion that they're going to get in a room and negotiate a deal with the president on immigration," Sen. Rubio said Sunday on Fox News, "is much more difficult to do" after the shutdown negotiations of the past three weeks.

Sen. Rubio said he and other reform participants, such as Idaho's Rep. Raul Labrador, are afraid that if they cut an immigration deal with the White House—say, offering a path to citizenship in return for strong enforcement of any new law—Mr. Obama will desert them by reneging on the enforcement.

When belief in the average politician's word diminishes, the political world marks him down and moves away. With the president of the United States, especially one in his second term, the costs of the credibility markdown become immeasurably greater. Ask the Saudis.

Last weekend the diplomatic world was agog at the refusal of Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah to accept a seat on the U.N. Security Council. Global disbelief gave way fast to clear understanding: The Saudis have decided that the United States is no longer a reliable partner in Middle Eastern affairs.

The Saudi king, who supported Syria's anti-Assad rebels early, before Islamic jihadists polluted the coalition, watched Mr. Obama's red line over Assad's use of chemical weapons disappear into an about-face deal with Vladimir Putin. The next time King Abdullah looked up, Mr. Obama was hanging the Saudis out to dry yet again by phoning up Iran's President Hasan Rouhani, Assad's primary banker and armorer, to chase a deal on nuclear weapons. Within days, Saudi Arabia's intelligence chief, Prince Bandar, let it be known that the Saudis intend to distance themselves from the U.S.

What is at issue here is not some sacred moral value, such as "In God We Trust." Domestic politics or the affairs of nations are not an avocation for angels. But the coin of this imperfect realm is credibility. Sydney Greenstreet's Kasper Gutman explained the terms of trade in "The Maltese Falcon": "I must tell you what I know, but you won't tell me what you know. That is hardly equitable, sir. I don't think we can do business along those lines."

Bluntly, Mr. Obama's partners are concluding that they cannot do business with him. They don't trust him. Whether it's the Saudis, the Syrian rebels, the French, the Iraqis, the unpivoted Asians or the congressional Republicans, they've all had their fill of coming up on the short end with so mercurial a U.S. president. And when that happens, the world's important business doesn't get done. It sits in a dangerous and volatile vacuum.

The next major political event in Washington is the negotiation over spending, entitlements and taxes between House budget chairman Paul Ryan and his Senate partner, Patty Murray. The bad air over this effort is the same as that Marco Rubio says is choking immigration reform: the fear that Mr. Obama will urge the process forward in public and then blow up any Ryan-Murray agreement at the 11th hour with deal-killing demands for greater tax revenue.

Then there is Mr. Obama's bond with the American people, which is diminishing with the failed rollout of the Affordable Care Act. ObamaCare is the central processing unit of the Obama presidency's belief system. Now the believers are wondering why the administration suppressed knowledge of the huge program's problems when hundreds of tech workers for the project had to know this mess would happen Oct. 1.

Rather than level with the public, the government's most senior health-care official, Kathleen Sebelius, spent days spewing ludicrous and incredible happy talk about the failure, while refusing to provide basic information about its cause.

Voters don't normally accord politicians unworldly levels of belief, but it has been Barack Obama's gift to transform mere support into victorious credulousness. Now that is crumbling, at great cost. If here and abroad, politicians, the public and the press conclude that Mr. Obama can't play it straight, his second-term accomplishments will lie only in doing business with the world's most cynical, untrustworthy partners. The American people are the ones who will end up on the short end of those deals.

#61 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,809 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 24 October 2013 - 03:36 PM

"Issa, an influential Republican who leads the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, described the legislation as a “come-from-the-shadows” effort that would allow the government to do a full accounting of those who are in the U.S. illegally. Immigrants in this new status would be able to travel to their native country while on this temporary visa, he said."

Some "illegals" might be a tad reluctant to "come out from the shadows" so the government can "do a full accounting of those who are in the U.S. illegally" without some level of comfort that they won't be deported down the road. Temporary measures won't fly I don't think.

#62 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,367 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 24 October 2013 - 03:55 PM

"Issa, an influential Republican who leads the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, described the legislation as a “come-from-the-shadows” effort that would allow the government to do a full accounting of those who are in the U.S. illegally. Immigrants in this new status would be able to travel to their native country while on this temporary visa, he said."

Some "illegals" might be a tad reluctant to "come out from the shadows" so the government can "do a full accounting of those who are in the U.S. illegally" without some level of comfort that they won't be deported down the road. Temporary measures won't fly I don't think.

 

There was also a component which would allow for citizenship for young people who served in the military, which opens up further paths towards getting an entire family legal permanently. It is not perfect, but it is a real proposal that should be taken seriously. Part of the reason nothing will get done is that instead of taking proposals like this seriously, people from the left will label it as unworkable, unreasonable, not serious, etc. Obama said today that if the right has ideas he wants to hear them, well here is one that it might have helped if he acknowledged instead of using his speech as an opportunity to get in one more dig at the Tea Party.



#63 VwaP

VwaP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,242 posts
  • Location:Sunny South Florida
  • Interests:Private investigator by day party gurl by night

Posted 24 October 2013 - 04:22 PM

Obama wants Marines to wear girly hats
http://nypost.com/20...ear-girly-hats/


A change to the Marine Corps uniform hats could take the hard-nosed Leathernecks from the Halls of Montezuma to the shops of Christopher Street.
Thanks to a plan by President Obama to create a unisex look for the Corps, officials are on the verge of swapping out the Marines iconic caps known as covers with a new version that some have derided as so girly that they would make the French blush.
We dont even have enough funding to buy bullets, and the DoD is pushing to spend $8 million on covers that look like womens hats! one senior Marine source fumed to The Post. The Marines deserve better. It makes them look ridiculous.
The thin new covers have a feminine line that some officials think would make them look just as good on female marines as on males in keeping with the Obama directive.
The Marine Corps is being encouraged by DoD to standardize on a unisex/universal dress and service cap, Marine brass noted in an internal memo obtained by The Post.
Modal Trigger
One of the new hats worn by a female Marine.
Male and female Marines currently wear gender-specific caps.
The controversial covers have been dubbed the Dan Daly hat, after a World War I sergeant from Long Island who twice won the Medal of Honor.
But some Marines love the old hat, which has been in use since 1922 and think the new hat is a glorified porters cap. The new Daly model is based on a style the Marines used from 1904 to 1918 and then jettisoned.
The Dan Daly cap looks too French, and the last people we want to associate our Marines with would be the French military, wrote one commenter on the Marine Times Web site.
As of now, the new covers are only in the proposal stage.
Marines have until Friday to cast their votes on whether to adopt them or keep the old hat with modifications. Marine Corps head Gen. James Amos will make the final decision.
According to the memo obtained by The Post, requiring all troops to use the Daly cover will cost $8,221,958. Going with the traditional cap will save $284,043, because the current female caps are more expensive.
Why are we even focused on this while we are laying troops off for no budget? another Marine Times commenter asked.
None of the [members] liked the idea of a universal cover for all Marines, the internal memo noted. The group members did not like the appearance of the Dan Daly cap on the male Marine.

#64 Sean

Sean

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,809 posts
  • Location:Sag Harbor, NY

Posted 24 October 2013 - 04:26 PM

"Issa, an influential Republican who leads the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, described the legislation as a “come-from-the-shadows” effort that would allow the government to do a full accounting of those who are in the U.S. illegally. Immigrants in this new status would be able to travel to their native country while on this temporary visa, he said."
Some "illegals" might be a tad reluctant to "come out from the shadows" so the government can "do a full accounting of those who are in the U.S. illegally" without some level of comfort that they won't be deported down the road. Temporary measures won't fly I don't think.

 
There was also a component which would allow for citizenship for young people who served in the military, which opens up further paths towards getting an entire family legal permanently. It is not perfect, but it is a real proposal that should be taken seriously. Part of the reason nothing will get done is that instead of taking proposals like this seriously, people from the left will label it as unworkable, unreasonable, not serious, etc. Obama said today that if the right has ideas he wants to hear them, well here is one that it might have helped if he acknowledged instead of using his speech as an opportunity to get in one more dig at the Tea Party.

You don't see that as a fatal flaw? I'm all for bipartisan efforts, but if you're going to put something on the table, it would be helpful if it was a workable solution. The Senate bill is a "real proposal" that should be taken up by the house.

#65 LenP

LenP

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,367 posts
  • Location:East Stroudsburg, PA
  • Interests:sailing, kayaking, fishing, hunting, hiking, and various other outdoor activities.

Posted 24 October 2013 - 04:30 PM

 

"Issa, an influential Republican who leads the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, described the legislation as a “come-from-the-shadows” effort that would allow the government to do a full accounting of those who are in the U.S. illegally. Immigrants in this new status would be able to travel to their native country while on this temporary visa, he said."
Some "illegals" might be a tad reluctant to "come out from the shadows" so the government can "do a full accounting of those who are in the U.S. illegally" without some level of comfort that they won't be deported down the road. Temporary measures won't fly I don't think.

 
There was also a component which would allow for citizenship for young people who served in the military, which opens up further paths towards getting an entire family legal permanently. It is not perfect, but it is a real proposal that should be taken seriously. Part of the reason nothing will get done is that instead of taking proposals like this seriously, people from the left will label it as unworkable, unreasonable, not serious, etc. Obama said today that if the right has ideas he wants to hear them, well here is one that it might have helped if he acknowledged instead of using his speech as an opportunity to get in one more dig at the Tea Party.

You don't see that as a fatal flaw? I'm all for bipartisan efforts, but if you're going to put something on the table, it would be helpful if it was a workable solution. The Senate bill is a "real proposal" that should be taken up by the house.

 

I don't see a six year limit as a fatal flaw as long as there are opportunities to use that six  years to get yourself squared away, which it seems for many people there are. I do not think we need to pass something which says all 10 million undocumented people are good to go legally, instantly, and permanently.



#66 plchacker

plchacker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,771 posts
  • Location:Helwestern AL

Posted 24 October 2013 - 04:59 PM

One of the truly great things about this country is that we do take in immigrants.  If the system is broken we should fix it.  The fix will require more than simply closing borders. Obama has done an exceptional job at that. I think we will need more than a Web site to process the needed information.  In order to process people's applications quickly and efficiently we will  have to hire quite a few people for short term employment. It may be wise to look back to the times of the Irish, Chinese and Italian immigration time periods to see what worked.  I also believe over politicized actions like the Dream Act are the wrong answer.  There is room, and I believe desire from both parties to negotiate and produce a workable solution.  Unfortunately this is the job of our government, and it will have to be a government solution.  Given that, I would like to see a bi-party,. bi-chamber collaboration with no individual or party getting all the credit.    That said, if it happens under Obama's watch and he behaves himself, he would garner much of the credit.  I really don't think that he can leave the battle long enough to allow this to happen.  It would cost a fairly large sum to properly fix the system.  I normally hate government spending but we are responsible for the failures so far and we should repair the system.

 

What is it that you think is broken in the system?

 

It is a process that has worked for quite a while and was able to deal with millions of immigrant laborers and those displaced by war.  We have a long list of visas which will provide employment or a path to citizenship.

 

A lot of this gets pointed at hispanics but there a lot of other illegal immigrants who are classed as 'other than mexican'.  Using the latinos as a stalking horse is playing into a lot of other nationalities hands.

Well for starters if there are 10M people without proper citizenship/papers something is wrong.  What exactly I cannot say.  Part of it I am sure was due to lax borders.  Part of it is failure to keep track of immigrants once they enter the country.  There may be other issues.  I really do not know.  I do however acknowledge that there is a problem or three and we need to find those and repair the system.  We also need to find some method of dealing with the 10M that are here now.  As LenP said, kicking them out would be a disaster of its own right.  I think the US is responsible for its own lack of execution of the existing laws.  We may not need to change the laws, but we sure need to change something.



#67 Spatial Ed

Spatial Ed

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,603 posts
  • Location:The Dark Side of Kolob
  • Interests:Subhuman Mongrels in momjeans

Posted 24 October 2013 - 05:08 PM

We may not need to change the laws, but we sure need to change something.

Yeah, kinda how I feel about guns.



#68 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,125 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 24 October 2013 - 05:10 PM

We may not need to change the laws, but we sure need to change something.

Yeah, kinda how I feel about guns.

Abortion and same sex marriage.  Why won't Obama negotiate in good faith over those issues?  



#69 plchacker

plchacker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,771 posts
  • Location:Helwestern AL

Posted 24 October 2013 - 05:11 PM

We may not need to change the laws, but we sure need to change something.

Yeah, kinda how I feel about guns.

I think an honest effort on immigration could build consensus that may start to break down some of the political barriers that have caused much grief on both sides of the aisle.  



#70 Sol Rosenberg

Sol Rosenberg

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 51,125 posts
  • Location:Earth

Posted 24 October 2013 - 05:20 PM

 

We may not need to change the laws, but we sure need to change something.

Yeah, kinda how I feel about guns.

I think an honest effort on immigration could build consensus that may start to break down some of the political barriers that have caused much grief on both sides of the aisle.  

It already has, with the work of the 12 Senators to find common ground.  Unfortunately, that bill was DOA, with even long time immigration reform proponent Jeb Bush (in perhaps the best signal of all that he is planning to run in 2016) cutting protege would-be primary opponent Marco Rubio off at the knees on the topic.  



#71 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,880 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 07:05 PM

 

One of the truly great things about this country is that we do take in immigrants.  If the system is broken we should fix it.  The fix will require more than simply closing borders. Obama has done an exceptional job at that. I think we will need more than a Web site to process the needed information.  In order to process people's applications quickly and efficiently we will  have to hire quite a few people for short term employment. It may be wise to look back to the times of the Irish, Chinese and Italian immigration time periods to see what worked.  I also believe over politicized actions like the Dream Act are the wrong answer.  There is room, and I believe desire from both parties to negotiate and produce a workable solution.  Unfortunately this is the job of our government, and it will have to be a government solution.  Given that, I would like to see a bi-party,. bi-chamber collaboration with no individual or party getting all the credit.    That said, if it happens under Obama's watch and he behaves himself, he would garner much of the credit.  I really don't think that he can leave the battle long enough to allow this to happen.  It would cost a fairly large sum to properly fix the system.  I normally hate government spending but we are responsible for the failures so far and we should repair the system.

 

What is it that you think is broken in the system?

 

It is a process that has worked for quite a while and was able to deal with millions of immigrant laborers and those displaced by war.  We have a long list of visas which will provide employment or a path to citizenship.

 

A lot of this gets pointed at hispanics but there a lot of other illegal immigrants who are classed as 'other than mexican'.  Using the latinos as a stalking horse is playing into a lot of other nationalities hands.

Well for starters if there are 10M people without proper citizenship/papers something is wrong.  What exactly I cannot say.  Part of it I am sure was due to lax borders.  Part of it is failure to keep track of immigrants once they enter the country.  There may be other issues.  I really do not know.  I do however acknowledge that there is a problem or three and we need to find those and repair the system.  We also need to find some method of dealing with the 10M that are here now.  As LenP said, kicking them out would be a disaster of its own right.  I think the US is responsible for its own lack of execution of the existing laws.  We may not need to change the laws, but we sure need to change something.

 

If there are 10 million people here without proper papers, the problem is that THEY chose to ignore the legal opportunities that provide for entrance and citizenship.

 

I agree that trying to kick them all out would take a long time and that there are other ways to deal with that.  i.e. immediately create a new class of visa for current residents.  Not a green card, not citizenship but a 'license of residence' which could be revoked for any reason.

 

There are enough people calling for enforcement that we really should be looking at why our politicians are so lax in this regard.  Deciding that one class of immigrants (the 15-30 crowd) is OK was just a door opener.  I think the latest is that parents of minor children are now allowed ot stay too.  Hell, you can have your anchor baby in another country and still be allowed to break the law.



#72 plchacker

plchacker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,771 posts
  • Location:Helwestern AL

Posted 24 October 2013 - 07:13 PM

 

 

One of the truly great things about this country is that we do take in immigrants.  If the system is broken we should fix it.  The fix will require more than simply closing borders. Obama has done an exceptional job at that. I think we will need more than a Web site to process the needed information.  In order to process people's applications quickly and efficiently we will  have to hire quite a few people for short term employment. It may be wise to look back to the times of the Irish, Chinese and Italian immigration time periods to see what worked.  I also believe over politicized actions like the Dream Act are the wrong answer.  There is room, and I believe desire from both parties to negotiate and produce a workable solution.  Unfortunately this is the job of our government, and it will have to be a government solution.  Given that, I would like to see a bi-party,. bi-chamber collaboration with no individual or party getting all the credit.    That said, if it happens under Obama's watch and he behaves himself, he would garner much of the credit.  I really don't think that he can leave the battle long enough to allow this to happen.  It would cost a fairly large sum to properly fix the system.  I normally hate government spending but we are responsible for the failures so far and we should repair the system.

 

What is it that you think is broken in the system?

 

It is a process that has worked for quite a while and was able to deal with millions of immigrant laborers and those displaced by war.  We have a long list of visas which will provide employment or a path to citizenship.

 

A lot of this gets pointed at hispanics but there a lot of other illegal immigrants who are classed as 'other than mexican'.  Using the latinos as a stalking horse is playing into a lot of other nationalities hands.

Well for starters if there are 10M people without proper citizenship/papers something is wrong.  What exactly I cannot say.  Part of it I am sure was due to lax borders.  Part of it is failure to keep track of immigrants once they enter the country.  There may be other issues.  I really do not know.  I do however acknowledge that there is a problem or three and we need to find those and repair the system.  We also need to find some method of dealing with the 10M that are here now.  As LenP said, kicking them out would be a disaster of its own right.  I think the US is responsible for its own lack of execution of the existing laws.  We may not need to change the laws, but we sure need to change something.

 

If there are 10 million people here without proper papers, the problem is that THEY chose to ignore the legal opportunities that provide for entrance and citizenship.

 

I agree that trying to kick them all out would take a long time and that there are other ways to deal with that.  i.e. immediately create a new class of visa for current residents.  Not a green card, not citizenship but a 'license of residence' which could be revoked for any reason.

 

There are enough people calling for enforcement that we really should be looking at why our politicians are so lax in this regard.  Deciding that one class of immigrants (the 15-30 crowd) is OK was just a door opener.  I think the latest is that parents of minor children are now allowed ot stay too.  Hell, you can have your anchor baby in another country and still be allowed to break the law.

I started out by questioning the actual number.  I don't think that that is an easy question to answer.  Also they did ignore our path to citizenship, however we did not do a good job enforcing our own laws.  It is a two sided issue.  If a town cop allows speeders say 10mph over the posted speed limit, people will figure out what the effective speed limit is and follow that limit.  In the case of immigration, we allowed a pretty large scale violation of our own laws without enforcement for a long period of time.  I agree with the new class or resident, with heavy restrictions.



#73 Saorsa

Saorsa

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,880 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 07:22 PM

 

 

 

One of the truly great things about this country is that we do take in immigrants.  If the system is broken we should fix it.  The fix will require more than simply closing borders. Obama has done an exceptional job at that. I think we will need more than a Web site to process the needed information.  In order to process people's applications quickly and efficiently we will  have to hire quite a few people for short term employment. It may be wise to look back to the times of the Irish, Chinese and Italian immigration time periods to see what worked.  I also believe over politicized actions like the Dream Act are the wrong answer.  There is room, and I believe desire from both parties to negotiate and produce a workable solution.  Unfortunately this is the job of our government, and it will have to be a government solution.  Given that, I would like to see a bi-party,. bi-chamber collaboration with no individual or party getting all the credit.    That said, if it happens under Obama's watch and he behaves himself, he would garner much of the credit.  I really don't think that he can leave the battle long enough to allow this to happen.  It would cost a fairly large sum to properly fix the system.  I normally hate government spending but we are responsible for the failures so far and we should repair the system.

 

What is it that you think is broken in the system?

 

It is a process that has worked for quite a while and was able to deal with millions of immigrant laborers and those displaced by war.  We have a long list of visas which will provide employment or a path to citizenship.

 

A lot of this gets pointed at hispanics but there a lot of other illegal immigrants who are classed as 'other than mexican'.  Using the latinos as a stalking horse is playing into a lot of other nationalities hands.

Well for starters if there are 10M people without proper citizenship/papers something is wrong.  What exactly I cannot say.  Part of it I am sure was due to lax borders.  Part of it is failure to keep track of immigrants once they enter the country.  There may be other issues.  I really do not know.  I do however acknowledge that there is a problem or three and we need to find those and repair the system.  We also need to find some method of dealing with the 10M that are here now.  As LenP said, kicking them out would be a disaster of its own right.  I think the US is responsible for its own lack of execution of the existing laws.  We may not need to change the laws, but we sure need to change something.

 

If there are 10 million people here without proper papers, the problem is that THEY chose to ignore the legal opportunities that provide for entrance and citizenship.

 

I agree that trying to kick them all out would take a long time and that there are other ways to deal with that.  i.e. immediately create a new class of visa for current residents.  Not a green card, not citizenship but a 'license of residence' which could be revoked for any reason.

 

There are enough people calling for enforcement that we really should be looking at why our politicians are so lax in this regard.  Deciding that one class of immigrants (the 15-30 crowd) is OK was just a door opener.  I think the latest is that parents of minor children are now allowed ot stay too.  Hell, you can have your anchor baby in another country and still be allowed to break the law.

I started out by questioning the actual number.  I don't think that that is an easy question to answer.  Also they did ignore our path to citizenship, however we did not do a good job enforcing our own laws.  It is a two sided issue.  If a town cop allows speeders say 10mph over the posted speed limit, people will figure out what the effective speed limit is and follow that limit.  In the case of immigration, we allowed a pretty large scale violation of our own laws without enforcement for a long period of time.  I agree with the new class or resident, with heavy restrictions.

 

Yeah, and then a new cop comes into town and starts writing tickets.  "Hey, they let me go last week" isn't much of a defense.

 

I agree that they are here and a problem but, that doesn't mean we can just pass administrative fiats allowing virtually unrestricted stays.  Take the ones in school (that for some reason we can't interrupt) and give them an F-1 or M-1 student visa.  Finish school, go home.



#74 plchacker

plchacker

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,771 posts
  • Location:Helwestern AL

Posted 24 October 2013 - 10:01 PM

Yeah, and then a new cop comes into town and starts writing tickets.  "Hey, they let me go last week" isn't much of a defense.

 

I agree that they are here and a problem but, that doesn't mean we can just pass administrative fiats allowing virtually unrestricted stays.  Take the ones in school (that for some reason we can't interrupt) and give them an F-1 or M-1 student visa.  Finish school, go home.

Agreed. I really believe that this is a good starting point to try to get back to a little more mutual respect across the spectrum.  Any you are right, with a new cop in town the rules may be enforced better.  I think that is a necessary part of an agreement for dealing with the people that are here now.  From this point on we must do a better job of enforcement.  We should also develop a time line and path to citizenship for those who want to become citizens. (Even if it is the same path we have always used, we need to make the process simple to understand and enforce.)  When I look back to early 19th Century Southeast/West US it becomes apparent that there where many, many people here who did not recognize their selves as US citizens.  The Louisiana Purchase and the Spanish controlled areas really mixed things up.  After the Spanish American War it became pretty clear who were citizens and who were not in the Southeast, but things were still a bit dicey for the West.  This is not a new problem.   Poor border security and terrible conditions in Central/South America/Mexico have given rise to many people who want a better lot in life leaving their native country and moving here.  That was fine because those people were willing to do jobs that most Americans did not want. We looked the other way.  Now there are issues in certain areas like Arizona. 

 

It is our mess to clean up.  We cannot expect Mexico or any other country to take responsibility.  We have people from all over the world, not just Latin America who are here without valid credentials.  I do not think we should allow border jumpers who are not interested in becoming a citizen the chance to vote or take advantage of a support system designed to help US Citizens. I do not think that we should allow people who have no credentials to cause a wreak (or other damage) and then simply flea without responsibility.   I do not think that we should grant citizenship wholesale to whomever decides that they would like to be a citizen.  I do think for those who do want to become a citizen the path to citizenship should be clear and easily understood.  I can assure you that the steps I have seen can be very confusing, and in some cases are detrimental. 



#75 d'ranger

d'ranger

    Anarchist

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,223 posts

Posted 24 October 2013 - 10:11 PM

Give 10 million people work visas, start collecting taxes and a bunch of problems are solved and the SS/entitlement issues are at least pushed back some years while we work out how to make them sustainable. 

 

Those people are already working and under a variety of schemes little to nothing goes to the Federal government. 

 

There aren't many simple solutions as most problems are complex but this is one. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users