U.S. Politics - More of it

[TerraPrime]

quite possibly the stupidest idea I've heard this year.

We're not even in May yet, and we have campaign season to start still. I'm reserving seats for that honor for folks like Bachmann and Malkin, myself.

PS You should check out his other posts. Start with the U.K. social unrest one if you haven't. It gives you some perspectives on just how bad this one post is (not that bad, really).

[SpicyTurkey]

If a Republican president chooses to ignore a law passed on bigotry and substantiated only by bigotry, he/she has my blessing.

Does a state have the same right?

[Dragonfish]

This. The "threat of filibuster" is fucking lame. Make them actually do it, on camera.

Please. For the entertainment value of watching Harry Reid up there in a diaper reading from the phonebook if for nothing else.

Filibusters don't really work like this. Nothing in the Senate rules forces a senator to speak for the entire duration of the filibuster. Technically, the minority opposition only needs one of their number to sit in the Senate chamber and make the occasional quorum call in order to prevent the majority from allowing another Senator to speak. If you were to tune into C-SPAN while this was happening, you wouldn't see a Senator reading from a phone book, you'd just see either silence or an endless series of quorum calls.

[Guest Raidne]

http://www.washingto...ortation-rules/

Oh really? This is a problem for you? Wouldn't have guessed. Let's just run through the immigration law at issue.

In 1996, Congress passed a law barring anyone in the country illegally for more than 6 months from returning for 3-10 years (3 if the person was here illegally for 6-12 months, 10 if the person was here illegally for over a year. This is the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA). There is an analysis of it here: http://www.cis.org/EvaluatingIIRAIRA. This law included a waiver for spouses, sons, or daughters of a U.S. citizen or permanent resident if the waiver applicant can show that extreme hardship would result from being barred.

In 2011, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services has received 23,000 such waiver applications, and granted 17,000 of them.

The change the Obama Administration has made is that waiver applications will no longer have to leave the country while their waiver application is pending.

That's it. I can't see how that a refusal to enforce immigration law.

Anyway, K and I were talking about this the other day and here is what I think we should do to increase immigration enforcement. I suspect that very few immigrants are aware of the 3/10 bar. I suggest that we drop some money on a massive PR campaign educating the immigrant public on the 3/10 rule. I personally do not want to spend time processing waiver applications of people who did not realize the consequences of overstaying their student or worker visas. So, we repeatedly run an ad showing the horrible, terrible consequences of letting your status lapse, and then provide basic information on how to start the process to prevent that from happening - a "check your date, don't be late" campaign telling people how soon to start working on any impending change to their immigration status.

Then we can use the 3/10 rule to deport people who were never here legally or who intentionally stayed in the country illegally and also be certain that they knew the consequences when they did that.

[Fez]

Filibusters don't really work like this. Nothing in the Senate rules forces a senator to speak for the entire duration of the filibuster. Technically, the minority opposition only needs one of their number to sit in the Senate chamber and make the occasional quorum call in order to prevent the majority from allowing another Senator to speak. If you were to tune into C-SPAN while this was happening, you wouldn't see a Senator reading from a phone book, you'd just see either silence or an endless series of quorum calls.

The rules used to though; we can thank Byrd for changing that particular bit of the rules back in the '70s. Its a shame too. I think a visualization of just how much time the senate wastes could be a powerful tool for the majority party, whichever one it might be, to argue that its only the other party's obstruction preventing an agenda from being passed and that next election people need to come out and vote to increase their majority.

And that'd be a good thing. Elections have consequences and all that; if the people elect enough fucking idiots to take the reins of power, the results should fall on their heads. And if they elect competent leaders they should be able to enjoy the fruits of their bounty.

[TrackerNeil]

Per DOMA. I hate the law, but until it is struck down or repealed the administration has the duty to carry it out. I don't know if defending it in court counts as the same thing. Are their historical precidents? Did Bush Jr. defend Roe v Wade in court? I think the admin should follow established precident.

The administration is enforcing DOMA; it's just not defending DOMA in court. Senate Republicans, in contrast are preventing the CFPB from functioning by refusing to allow confirmation hearings on any nominee until the bureau itself is restructured. The difference is clear, and important.

[TrackerNeil]

Does a state have the same right?

Does the state have the same right to have a president ignore a law? Ask me again when states begin electing their own presidents.

[Jon Sprunk]

Elections have consequences and all that; if the people elect enough fucking idiots to take the reins of power, the results should fall on their heads. And if they elect competent leaders they should be able to enjoy the fruits of their bounty.

This makes me think about the poli-philosophical divide in America. I find it difficult to believe that half the country really doesn't care how we treat the poor, the elderly, and the sick. Aren't we better than that? What about all that "Shining City on Hill" stuff? Does that only apply to the "successful" (i.e., NASCAR owners and Wall St execs)?

Before some helpful CINO (conservative in name only) can point out the strawman in my statement, I just want to say that's what it's coming to. The Ryan budget isn't coy, and a lot of repubs are on record in favor of it (both versions), including one man running for president.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

ST, Tracker,

Individuals have rights Governments and parts of Government have powers.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Coco,

I love administrative legal actions. :eyeroll:

[Angeleyes]

ST, Tracker,

Individuals have rights Governments and parts of Government have powers.

This is exactly why I read all of the legal and politics threads. I love distinctions like this, and would have never thought about it or known otherwise. Thanks for the vocab!

[Guest Raidne]

Considering that the number of illegal Mexican immigrants has gone down significantly (they are fleeing our shitty economy and ICE) and ICE is full of fascists and idiots and has deported American citizens, I think our immigration enforcement is fine where it is. in fact, let's have less of it, because they suck at it.

I'm not seeing what they has to do with the PR campaign I proposed.

The issue you are raising, IMO, is whether people facing deportation should have a right to counsel.

[Guest Raidne]

Why on earth would a PR campaign give ICE the authority to deport more people?

I'm okay with talking about ICE and deportation, it just has not thing one to do with anything I posted. ICE enforcement could be more or less stringent, and you could still have a PR campaign letting people know what the legal consequences are for letting their immigration status lapse. I'm saying that there is widespead unawareness of the law, and that that's a problem. Being deported sucks. Overstaying your visa by a year, marrying an American citizen, and then not being able to come back to the United States for 10 years is a real problem for a lot of people.

With regard to what you posted, the problem is access to legal advice. ICE is an enforcement agency. They are like the police. They do not advise anyone of their rights. All of the cases you posted were - obviously - errors, and the people detained and deported were unwilling or unable to pursue their own interest. One guy admitted illegal immigrant status and voluntarily deported himself to avoid other punishment. That's hard to get around no matter how many safeguards are in place - you need counsel to explain the consequences of your actions. On the other hand, providing everyone with counsel would be really expensive.

[TrackerNeil]

Kevin Drum is as usual spot-on, this time about Social Security:

The place where the media falls down, I think, isn't in its description of Social Security's financial problems. The media's real weakness lies in its almost total lack of interest in explaining how those problems can be fixed. The answer is: pretty easily. The only thing stopping a simple, no-drama resolution of Social Security's long-term funding problems is the Republican Party's jihad against taxes. That's it. You could pretty easily put together a Democratic coalition that would support a combination of small, phased-in benefit cuts and small, phased-in tax increases that would fix Social Security forever. If you think Social Security is already too stingy, you might not like the idea of doing this. But it's still a fact that you could get plenty of Democrats to sign up for such a plan, and President Obama has sent plenty of signals that he'd favor it too.

The only thing stopping it is that Republicans simply aren't willing to back such a compromise. Their only solutions are either unfunded privatization schemes, which everyone knows will never happen, or balancing Social Security's books solely by slashing benefits, which is equally unlikely. The truth is that, financially, Social Security isn't a hard problem to solve. It's only hard because the modern Republican Party, which is happy to scaremonger the problem relentlessly, flatly refuses to engage with real-world solutions. That's what the media needs to report more often.

I can't agree more. The Social Security problem, unlike most other political difficulties, is relatively easy to solve...assuming, of course, that the party which controls half of Congress is actually willing to govern.

[Fez]

Kevin Drum is as usual spot-on, this time about Social Security:

I can't agree more. The Social Security problem, unlike most other political difficulties, is relatively easy to solve...assuming, of course, that the party which controls half of Congress is actually willing to govern.

The problem with his solution of benefit cuts and tax increases, which I assume will be means-tested, is that it transforms Social Security from a retirement plan into a wealth transfer program; something it was never meant to be and something that will erode its popular support over time.

From an accountant's point of view, social security is easy to fix; but the long-term consequences must be considered as well.

[Shryke]

The other major issue is the doom and gloom way the SS issue is talked about. They act like it's going to disappear in a few decades. In reality, it just would need to drop to 75% of benefits.

Which, you know, still bad considering the massive number of people that rely on SS for most of their income. But it puts in perspective the size of the actual problem.

[Shryke]

The rules used to though; we can thank Byrd for changing that particular bit of the rules back in the '70s. Its a shame too. I think a visualization of just how much time the senate wastes could be a powerful tool for the majority party, whichever one it might be, to argue that its only the other party's obstruction preventing an agenda from being passed and that next election people need to come out and vote to increase their majority.

And that'd be a good thing. Elections have consequences and all that; if the people elect enough fucking idiots to take the reins of power, the results should fall on their heads. And if they elect competent leaders they should be able to enjoy the fruits of their bounty.

It was originally done to make the Senate actually accomplish shit. A noble goal, but one that has horribly backfired because it's made the ridiculously stupid and convoluted system even more opaque and now the voter is completely in the dark about wtf his government is actually doing.

Time wasting may be bad, but it's very visible to the public because of that. And visibility is extremely important.

Of course, the filibuster itself is just a ridiculous and stupid thing that fell out of bad planning by the people who designed the US congressional system.

[Shryke]

This makes me think about the poli-philosophical divide in America. I find it difficult to believe that half the country really doesn't care how we treat the poor, the elderly, and the sick. Aren't we better than that? What about all that "Shining City on Hill" stuff? Does that only apply to the "successful" (i.e., NASCAR owners and Wall St execs)?

Before some helpful CINO (conservative in name only) can point out the strawman in my statement, I just want to say that's what it's coming to. The Ryan budget isn't coy, and a lot of repubs are on record in favor of it (both versions), including one man running for president.

They probably think charity should and will handle it. It's none of the government's business or some such.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Of course, the filibuster itself is just a ridiculous and stupid thing that fell out of bad planning by the people who designed the US congressional system.

Huh? The internal Senate rules permitting a Senate filibuster didn't even exist until more than fifteen years after the Constitution was ratified, and wasn't first used for that purpose until more htan four decades after ratification.

So where does the "bad planning by the people who designed the U.S. Congressional system" come in?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

Thw filibuster (by definition) is not by design. It is exploiting a loophole in the Senate rules that allows for debate until cloture is called. Cloture needs 60 votes. That's a change brught about after Steom Thurmond's Marathon filibuster in the 60s in opposition to the voting rights act. Before that debate lasted as long as it lasted.