American Politics

[Swordfish]

I'll let you know.

I had a post a few months back in which I ranted that the biggest threat to the American way of life was not Iranian bombs, Mexican immigrants, al-Qaeda, etc...but Medicare spending.

But just to be clear, I am not against Medicare in theory. I do believe in the "forced savings" idea as well as the idea that such a wealthy society should offer some care and dignity for its seniors. My problem largely boils down to two things:

1) It was designed in the 60's and hasn't undergone the requisite changes quickly enough to make it work for today's world

2) It covers too much, and covers too much for people who mostly don't contribute to society anymore.

OK, but honestly, I get the impression that SS is actually a well-funded entitlement program. All the graphs I've seen show this as a pretty "sustainable" program as opposed to Medicare which will destroy our country.

But Swordfish, you can become member #2 in GenXY.org right now if you accept the position.

I am totally in. We need to think of a catchy slogan, and maybe a logo of some sort.

[Shryke]

There isn't an "official GOP" position because there is nobody who has the authority to speak for every elected Republican. Different Republicans have different views.

But I think its fair to say that McCain's position was more liberal than that of most Republicans. It was the single issue where I think dissatifaction with him within the party was highest. A lot of Republicans weren't happy with Bush's position either.

But I think most Republicans would agree that getting control of the border is a necessary first step. That is the line in the sand. After that, there is considerable disagreement as to whether, and to what extent, amnesty should be offered.

I would mostly agree. I think it's hard to pin down a Republican position on the issue since it's one where they seem VERY divided. (Bush's attempt at reforming this was a damn circus)

I think it cuts across Democratic Party lines too though.

[Shryke]

There's seems to be general agreement that politics are all that matter with nominations now, so that's what I'll address.

I'm not at all sure the Party of No label hurts Republicans right now. Obama's approval rating is below 50 percent. Polls also show that a strong majority agree that the government is too large, doing too much, and spending too much. They want someone to be saying "no", and to put the brakes on things.

The themes that sold in 2008 aren't selling in 2010, and I don't think Democrats have yet absorbed that changed political reality

They don't want someone to put on brake on things though.

Most people WANT reform of some sort. "Hope" and "Change" are still very powerful today, although "Fix the Economy" has overshadowed them at this point.

The thing is, all of these, even the last one, require government to DO something.

[TerraPrime]

But I think most Republicans would agree that getting control of the border is a necessary first step. That is the line in the sand.

What does that mean? What is "control of the border"? What would it look like?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

What does that mean? What is "control of the border"? What would it look like?

Shryke didn't seem to have any trouble understanding the concept. Nor does the President:

President Obama believes that our broken immigration system can only be fixed by putting politics aside and offering a complete solution that secures our border, enforces our laws, and reaffirms our heritage as a nation of immigrants....President Obama recognizes that an orderly, controlled border and an immigration system designed to meet our economic needs are important pillars of a healthy and robust economy.

Strengthen Border Control

President Obama will protect the integrity of our borders by investing in additional personnel, infrastructure, and technology on the border and at our ports of entry.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/immigration

[El-ahrairah]

What does that mean? What is "control of the border"? What would it look like?

A 700-foot-high wall from sea to sea?

[lokisnow]

http://emilyslist.org/blog/gop_put_betty_sutton_back_in_the_kitchen/

GOP says that we need to put congresswoman Betty Sutton back in the kitchen.

[Shryke]

Arizona: One Step ForwardBackward, Two Steps Back: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/22/arizona-house-oks-requiring-presidential-candidates-provide-birth-certificate/

The Arizona House approved a bill Wednesday that would require presidential candidates to show his or her birth certificate in order to be on the state's ballot.

The House approved the measure on a 31-29 vote after four Republicans joined all of the Democrats in opposing it. The measure still faces a Senate vote.

It would require U.S. presidential candidates who want to appear on the Arizona ballot to submit documents proving they meet the constitutional requirements to be president.

The measure would require the secretary of state to review candidates' documents and withhold a candidate from the ballot if he has "reasonable cause" to believe ineligibility.

[TerraPrime]

Shryke didn't seem to have any trouble understanding the concept. Nor does the President:

Well, when they said it, it didn't make much sense to me, either, so I'm not sure what point you're making.

[Shryke]

The problem TP is that the immigration debate is difficult to pin down. There's many different views and differing flavours of those views and such. More so, imo, then on most other mainstream political subjects. The fact that they cut pretty hard across normal Left/Right lines makes it even harder.

I mean, just a few off the top of my head:

The situation now is fine: A pro-illegal immigration stance generally pushed by business concerns and therefore having quite a bit of traction on the Right. Illegal immigrants provide a big pool of cheap labour that keeps many companies afloat and their profits high.

Illegal Immigration is bad for workers: Generally seen on the left, where illegal immigrants are seen as undercutting worker wages and standards.

I hate Brown People: Pretty self-explanatory.

Illegal Immigrants just want a chance at a better life, we should help them: Generally a push for legilisation of illegals or the like. More popular on the Left from my experience.

Open Borders: Controlling borders and the labour market is an archaic Nationalistic idea that we should discard. I mostly see this on the left.

Probably a few others I'm missing, but I hope you are seeing my point.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Arizona: One Step ForwardBackward, Two Steps Back: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/22/arizona-house-oks-requiring-presidential-candidates-provide-birth-certificate/

I'm not a fan of this whole birther thing. I think it demeans the party and detracts from the real issues. And I don't like this bill, either.

That being said, I think this is probably lawful. States are permitted to set their own rules regarding the selection of electors, so if a state wants to make this a requirement to get on the ballot, and the requirement is consistent with the Constitution, it's probably valid on its face.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, when they said it, it didn't make much sense to me, either, so I'm not sure what point you're making.

I suppose I don't know what to say then. I think it's self-explanatory, and really don't know what else can be said to explain the concept. Sorry.

[Shryke]

I'm not a fan of this whole birther thing. I think it demeans the party and detracts from the real issues. And I don't like this bill, either.

That being said, I think this is probably lawful. States are permitted to set their own rules regarding the selection of electors, so if a state wants to make this a requirement to get on the ballot, and the requirement is consistent with the Constitution, it's probably valid on its face.

Legally this:

The measure would require the secretary of state to review candidates' documents and withhold a candidate from the ballot if he has "reasonable cause" to believe ineligibility.

was the part that worried me.

Other then that, it's just stupid and racist.

[TerraPrime]

Re: lockesnow

GOP uses sexist language?

Wake me when you have news. I can't even be bothered to be outraged at this any more.

Re: Shryke

My issue is that when I hear "we want to reform immigration," I hear "we want lower taxes" - it's the same amorphous "gee wouldn't it be nice to have this" without any real substance defining what "this" is.

It's like asking whether we should support more accountability in government spending. Who doesn't want it? But what form should it take, and what are the details?

[Shryke]

Re: Shryke

My issue is that when I hear "we want to reform immigration," I hear "we want lower taxes" - it's the same amorphous "gee wouldn't it be nice to have this" without any real substance defining what "this" is.

It's like asking whether we should support more accountability in government spending. Who doesn't want it? But what form should it take, and what are the details?

And that's the big issue. Cause once you get into details, people are all over the place with their positions.

[Jon Sprunk]

The themes that sold in 2008 aren't selling in 2010, and I don't think Democrats have yet absorbed that changed political reality

They are still selling with me.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Legally this: was the part that worried me.

That would be subject to court attack if someone tried to exclude a candidate based on that.

Other then that, it's just stupid and racist.

Regarding the motivations of some, you may be right. But the problem is that there doens't seen to be any part of the system that takes the responsibility to ensure a candidate meets constitutional prerequisites. Suppose Arnold ran for President. At what particular point of the process does someone stand up and check off whether or not he is an natural born citizen? The same issue arose with John McCain in 2000, you might recall, and it was never actually resolved properly in a court. The whole issue seems to hang out in limbo because nobody really takes charge of making the determination.

I checked wikipedia, and it's pretty interesting that this issue has been raised with respect to a fair number of candidates, including Chester A. Arthur and Barry Goldwater.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

Now in the case of Obama, I think it's asinine. A contemporaneous newspaper announcement is pretty damn compelling in my view. But on the other hand, I do think it would probably be a good idea to have some process for actually making this determination if it is an issue. For example, with McCain, there are still folks who think he shouldn't qualify, but it never really gets judicially resolved because the process doesn't have a point at which it really gets checked.

So I guess I support the requirement, but don't like the idea of it being passed now because of Obama.

[Shryke]

You don't think anyone checks this stuff ever? You think it never comes up?

And even if it doesn't ever come up, that just proves the uselessness of the provision.

Regardless, it probably isn't legal anyway. The Constitution grants Congress and only Congress the right to define who is and is not a Citizen. Arizona is not allowed to make decisions on who is or is not a Natural Born Citizen.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

You don't think anyone checks this stuff ever? You think it never comes up?

It has, and it does. The problem is that it doesn't really get resolved because nobody seems to know where/when is the right place to challenge it. Read up on what happened with McCain.

And even if it doesn't ever come up, that just proves the uselessness of the provision.

Useless or not, it's still part of the Constitution. So Schwartzennegger should be permitted to run? Hey, I'd have voted for Maggie T, so maybe that's not such a bad idea.

Regardless, it probably isn't legal anyway. The Constitution grants Congress and only Congress the right to define who is and is not a Citizen. Arizona is not allowed to make decisions on who is or is not a Natural Born Citizen.

It's not the states defining who is a "natural born citizen". They presumably would be applying whatever standard is set by Congress, which isn't entirely clear anyway. But here's how I think it would work. If a Secretary of State rejected a candidate, that candidate would have the right to appeal that determination in Federal Court in that state, subject to review by Courts of Appeal, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court. Honestly, this whole area of constitutional law is such a mess that it could probably benefit from a court challenge, or at least motivate Congress to draft a cleaner definition.

Like I said, I wish this whole issue with Obama would just go away. But I think it's interesting from a purely legal perspective how completely messed up this area of the law is.

[Sariel]

Isn't the whole natural born citizen a rather irrational relic to begin with? Perhaps the better solution would simply be to get rid of the provision.