US Politics: Plan for the Future of Immigration

[TrackerNeil]

You know that even in the most homogenous district there are voters who want opposing and mutually exclusive things, right? And hence, a politician's job is not as simple as executing the will of the electorate because there isn't a single electorate will.

Agreed. To make it more frustrating, the will of the voters is often vaguely expressed and incoherent at its core, so what's a pol to do? And let's not forget that people don't always vote based on the performance of specific officeholders but on the party performance. Back in 2006, a number of Republicans with high approval ratings got bounced out of office because of voter anger at the GOP. (Lincoln Chafee, I am looking in your direction.)

[Sir Thursday]

Since you keep focusing in on this one small segment, should we assume the issue for you is income inequality?

Or since you you quoted my response to stoned cat are we to take it you agree with his stance of suppressed wages(we know that this is only true for natives without a HS degree and then only in the short term.) That immigrants are drains on the system? Why restrict people flows when it benefits the native born population? As an aside the flaws in Borjas' model have already been discussed as he makes no distinction between HS dropouts and those with a degree.

Seriously though this conversation has been on going through a few locked threads. Please read what has come before.

In the link Altherion posted (by which I mean this one), Borjas seems to make plenty of distinctions between HS dropouts and those with a degree. Not sure where you're getting that he ignored the distinction...

ST

[Wise Fool]

If a politician's job is defined as winning elections (I thought that was campaign managers anyway, yeah?) then politicians did not exist until and unless the rise of electoral systems of government. What a weird way of looking at the concept of a "job" here. Politicians are really only politicians if they've already gotten elected (or appointed), so it's like claiming "the job is to get hired at the job."

Although it'd be a pretty sweet deal to be the guy who hires the guy whose job it is to get hired at the job.

[BloodRider]

What do you guys think of H1B visa employees? I think that they're unfairly targeted (or have you discussed it already ? )

It is a detriment to the holders of the visa, and it is a detriment to workers in that industry. It is pretty fucking close to indentured servitude, and companies use it to fuck over the holders, and shit on the industry. I hate them as they now work.

[BloodRider]

Reagan and Bush the First didn't hear a whisper of impeachment threats when they used executive authority to extend deportation protections to certain immigrants.

But they are white! It is their privileged to give "those minorities" their largess. It will never be mistaken portrayed as racal cronyism.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

If a politician's job is defined as winning elections (I thought that was campaign managers anyway, yeah?) then politicians did not exist until and unless the rise of electoral systems of government. What a weird way of looking at the concept of a "job" here. Politicians are really only politicians if they've already gotten elected (or appointed), so it's like claiming "the job is to get hired at the job."

Although it'd be a pretty sweet deal to be the guy who hires the guy whose job it is to get hired at the job.

Reminds me of that early scene in Joe Versus the Volcano...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnLDMqPBeKQ

"I know he can get the job, can he do the job?"

[Suttree]

In the link Altherion posted (by which I mean this one), Borjas seems to make plenty of distinctions between HS dropouts and those with a degree. Not sure where you're getting that he ignored the distinction...

You are correct. I mistakenly was referring to a previous study where the methodology was flawed. That said he does himself no favors with the CIS connection. It's part of a network of organizations founded by John Tanton, a white supremacist and eugenics proponent, to stop immigration to the US.

FAIR, CIS and NumbersUSA are all part of a network of restrictionist organizations conceived and created by John Tanton, the "puppeteer" of the nativist movement and a man with deep racist roots. As the first article in this report shows, Tanton has for decades been at the heart of the white nationalist scene. He has met with leading white supremacists and associated closely with the leaders of a eugenicist foundation once described by a leading newspaper as a “neo-Nazi organization.” He has made a series of racist statements about Latinos and worried that they were outbreeding whites.

At one point, he wrote candidly that to maintain American culture, “a European-American majority” is required...

CIS was conceived by Tanton and began life as a program of FAIR. CIS presents itself as a scholarly think tank that produces serious immigration studies meant to serve "the broad national interest." But the reality is that CIS has never found any aspect of immigration that it liked, and it has frequently manipulated data to achieve the results it seeks.

&

a number of controversial statements by CIS senior policy analyst Stephen Steinlight made in July 2014. Steinlight said that the US should ban Muslim immigration because "Muslims believe in things that are subversive to the Constitution",^[35] called immigration reform "a plot against America" and Republicans who support it "psychotic",^[36] and of President Barack Obama that "being hung, drawn and quartered is probably too good for him."^[37]

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

You are correct. I mistakenly was referring to a previous study where the methodology was flawed. That said he does himself no favors with the CIS connection. It's part of a network of organizations founded by John Tanton, a white supremacist and eugenics proponent, to stop immigration to the US.

&

So you were wrong. Again.

But they are white! It is their privileged to give "those minorities" their largess. It will never be mistaken portrayed as racal cronyism.

More proof you don't know what your talking about. I've already posted regarding this lame rationalization that Reagan and Bush granted amnesty. They had a legislative body that was pitching a bipartisan immigration solution. A solution that didn't work obviously, or we wouldn't be in the same situation now. The issue of immigration is extremely divisive, nowhere near bipartisan today. That's why Obama is being opposed. Like most crap you guys post, race has nothing to do with it.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

All you have to say is you don't know. That's an acceptable answer. The house bill which isnt amnesty either goes a good deal further than anything the President is saying.

Give you took the time to post a good deal while dodging the question, I have one more. When looking at the "immigration problem". What aspects of the situation are you most concerned with?

Once again, how did I dodge your question? This was my response to your " What part? ".

What part? Are you serious? Let's look at the definition again and I'll walk you through it suttree.

amnesty

a general pardon (the executive action)for offenses(the illegal immigration),especially political offenses, against a government(U.S.), often granted before any trial or conviction.

The bill you sight is not relevant in the slightest. You're right about the law not changing, it would more than likely be a two year amnesty until Obama leaves office.

I don't remember if it was you or onion that were pointing to Regan to justify the amnesty. But that is exactly why Republicans don't have faith about comprehensive immigration reform. Regan granted amnesty with the reassurance from the legislative branch that immigration enforcement would be tightened. And of course, it wasn't. In fact, illegal immigration increased 44% from '87 to '89.

So here we are, almost 30 years later, with the same immigration problem. Only the number of illegals are upwards of 15-20 million. Regan's amnesty is the reason Republicans want something done about the border first, then deal with the illegal immigrants here.

I answer your question and then some. Seems like you dodged my answer again. This is becoming a habit of yours. It's text book amnesty. You're going to hurt yourself jumping through those hoops trying to prove its not.

[lokisnow]

This is awesome.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/11/14/364152815/court-rejects-challenge-to-obamacare-rules-on-contraceptives?live=1

In rejecting that claim, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia said that "Religious objectors do not suffer substantial burdens ... where the only harm to them is that they sincerely feel aggrieved by their inability to prevent what other people would do ... "

These religious objectors have no right, the court said, "to be free from the unease, or even anguish" of knowing that others are legally entitled to receive or provide birth control. The court noted that birth control coverage was added to the Affordable Care Act because it accounts for a large part of women's preventive health care costs.

Writing for the 3-0 court panel, Judge Cornelia Pillard said the challengers' argument that the opt out harms them by triggering substitute coverage makes little sense in light of the government's need to carry out a duly enacted program. Using the same theory, she said, a religious conscientious objector to the draft would not have to identify himself as a religious objector on a Selective Service form because that would "trigger" the drafting of another person in his place and "thereby implicate the objector in facilitating war."

[Suttree]

So you were wrong. Again.

I wasn't aware that he had updated his methodology due to previous criticism in his model and I freely admitted to that. Given I cited that very professor for the net positive number how does it change anything that's been said? Once again.

This fact, and the yearly adjustment of capital to immigration, imply that average wages of natives benefit from immigration, even in the short run. These average gains are, in the short and long run, distributed as a small wage loss to the

group of high school dropouts and wage gains for all the other groups of U.S. natives.

So what do you disagree with in the info I've posted?

Also you wrote a fair amount of nonsense but didn't answer a thing. Once again the bill went way further than the President's plan and factcheckers said the claims of "amnesty" were false. Specifically what part of Obama's plan would be amnesty? Either give us specifics or stop posting. You dodge every time someone asks you to do so no matter the topic.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

I wasn't aware that he had updated his methodology due to previous criticism in his model and I freely admitted to that. Given I cited that very professor for the net positive number how does it change anything that's been said? Once again.

So what do you disagree with in the info I've posted?

Also you wrote a fair amount of nonsense but didn't answer a thing. Once again the bill went way further than the President's plan and factcheckers said the claims of "amnesty" were false. Specifically what part of Obama's plan would be amnesty? Either give us specifics or stop posting. You dodge every time someone asks you to do so no matter the topic.

The issue that I have with your argument is that it doesn't matter. Your trying to argue illegal immigrants effect on the economy. That doesn't change the fact that they are here illegally, which is the real issue. Illegally entering and residing in the U.S. Pardoning them with executive action is what makes Obama's plan amnesty. You're not this dense Suttree

[Larry of the Lawn]

The issue that I have with your argument is that it doesn't matter. Your trying to argue illegal immigrants effect on the economy. That doesn't change the fact that they are here illegally, which is the real issue. Illegally entering and residing in the U.S. Pardoning them with executive action is what makes Obama's plan amnesty. You're not this dense Suttree

Not really that different then, than say when a governor or the President uses their executive authority to pardon someone for a crime or commute a sentence, right? I mean Presidents pardon people legally all the time, why the big fuss over the quantity, especially considering the context?

edit: shitty usage of apostrophes and confusing plurals and stuff

[Suttree]

The issue of immigration is extremely divisive, nowhere near bipartisan today.

Actually 4 out of 5 Americans support reform and a Senate bill was passed last year with bipartisan support.

The issue that I have with your argument is that it doesn't matter. Your trying to argue illegal immigrants effect on the economy. That doesn't change the fact that they are here illegally, which is the real issue. Illegally entering and residing in the U.S. Pardoning them with executive action is what makes Obama's plan amnesty. You're not this dense Suttree

This really isn't difficult. Cite the specific part of Obama's plan that you object to and why. You clearly have no idea what the plan even is.

Also to be clear. You now realize that immigrants have raised wages, aren't a drain on social services and benefit the economy and yet you don't want the President to use discretion in where to allocate scarce enforcement resources? Just waste a ton more money on draconian laws despite the fact that it will be bad for the country. Sounds totally sensible mate.

[davos]

No, it's the voters' job to make governing politically valuable.

No, they have a job description with responsibilities that they receive monetary compensation for carrying out. We hire them to do perform this job and get to express our approval or disapproval of how they are carrying that job through voting. One can argue that politicians often can better ensure reelection by managing public opinion rather than by actually carrying out their responsibilities. I think that people who created our government would have found your views on this rather disturbing. The basic idea of a representative republic is that the since true democracy is not practical, people vote for representatives to carry out the duties of government for them. If the responsibility of a politician is to always respond to the whims of the electorate and never to actually carry out their responsibilities then our system has fundamentally failed.

[Altherion]

Re: Altherion

I am a union member and a supporter of unions. I am very sympathetic to one part of your argument, which is that illegal status workers are exploited and their wages are significantly lower than their American citizen counterparts so that the benefit is disproportionately in favor of the capitalists (as opposed to labor). For the sake of solidarity for labor, unions ought to support immigration reforms that promote extending protections to the new segment of labor. However, in some (a lot?) of the cases, the unions are against it because they see the influx of labor as competitors for limited jobs, but I think that's a wrong-headed way of analyzing it. These illegal workers are ALREADY employed. Making them legal workers is not going to significantly reduce the available slots. But legalizing these workers will indeed broaden the base of labor and provide us with new members.

The unions behave the way they do because they've seen all of this before. If you make the illegal workers legal, you are taking away the capitalists' reasons for preferring the current cohort -- and fortunately for the capitalists, there is plenty more where they came from. The results is that newly legalized immigrants will almost certainly be replaced by a new set of illegals. This is exactly what happened with the 1980's version of amnesty.

[TrackerNeil]

No, they have a job description with responsibilities that they receive monetary compensation for carrying out. We hire them to do perform this job and get to express our approval or disapproval of how they are carrying that job through voting. One can argue that politicians often can better ensure reelection by managing public opinion rather than by actually carrying out their responsibilities. I think that people who created our government would have found your views on this rather disturbing. The basic idea of a representative republic is that the since true democracy is not practical, people vote for representatives to carry out the duties of government for them. If the responsibility of a politician is to always respond to the whims of the electorate and never to actually carry out their responsibilities then our system has fundamentally failed.

I agree. I think that the most successful politicians manage to sufficiently please their constituents and craft good policy that benefits everyone. Of course that is forgotten when one of the two major parties is post-policy; the GOP doesn't care about policy and wants only to rule, not to govern.

[TerraPrime]

The unions behave the way they do because they've seen all of this before. If you make the illegal workers legal, you are taking away the capitalists' reasons for preferring the current cohort -- and fortunately for the capitalists, there is plenty more where they came from. The results is that newly legalized immigrants will almost certainly be replaced by a new set of illegals. This is exactly what happened with the 1980's version of amnesty.

Which is why I don't think allowing those who are currently residing illegally alone will be sufficient. We must also reform labor laws and the enforcement thereof. But that is far less likely than immigration reform, because, oddly, the GOP is all ok about increasing government presence through hundreds-of-miles long wall of some sort with the attendant manpower needed to patrol it so we can limit the number of illegal residents entering the U.S., but augmenting the enforcement arm of the FBI to crack down on companies hiring illegals is "too intrusive for business."

I also don't think citiznship is the only option for illegal residents. I think there are humane and ethical ways of allowing them to stay in the U.S. without automatically granting them citizenship. We can institute types of work VISAs like the J1, where you have to spend X amount of time back in your home country for every X duration you stay in the U.S. These will be revolving VISAs that you can get up to, say, 5 times. After that, you can apply for Green Card and if you don't have outstanding criminal record, be naturalized.

It seems that the proposals, from both sides, on the issue largely miss the importance balance required and instead of going with a plan with multiple facets to address each component, just going in with a sledgehammer.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179426/new-enrollment-period-starts-aca-approval.aspx

So you liberals on this board are apparently the only ones who want Obamacare. Better hope you win the white house in '16, because this will be history of you don't.

[TerraPrime]

http://www.gallup.com/poll/179426/new-enrollment-period-starts-aca-approval.aspx

So you liberals on this board are apparently the only ones who want Obamacare. Better hope you win the white house in '16, because this will be history of you don't.

That's because the question has the word "Obama" in it.

When asked if people who purchased insurance from the market exchange, a significant majority rated that the quality and coverage as either good or excellent, and 75% of them are happy with the cost.

Link: Another Gallup Poll

Link 2: A blog about that poll.

Hat-tip to Tracker for posting this on my FB first.