Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

[ExileOnDaytonStreet]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

So she doesn't think Arizona needs help simply because Texas has a longer border with Mexico than Arizona does? Holy Toledo!

Here in Wisconsin, we don't exactly have a good track record for politicians.

Our current crop of democrats isn't very bright. And their "you can trust the benevolence of corporations" counterparts on the other side of the aisle aren't any better. Leave it to one side, and our economy would fall apart in two months. Leave it to the other side, and "Big Brother Government" will be replaced by "Big Brother Corporation" in one.

Keep in mind: this is the same general pool of voters that produced Sen. McCarthy.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Here in Wisconsin, we don't exactly have a good track record for politicians.

Our current crop of democrats isn't very bright. And their "you can trust the benevolence of corporations" counterparts on the other side of the aisle aren't any better. Leave it to one side, and our economy would fall apart in two months. Leave it to the other side, and "Big Brother Government" will be replaced by "Big Brother Corporation" in one.

Keep in mind: this is the same general pool of voters that produced Sen. McCarthy.

Speaking of good ol' Joe:
10 Russian Spies Captured in US

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Peggy West keeps digging herself deeper and deeper:
"She later explained that she meant to say Texas had a longer border. "Had Texas come out with the legislation, having the largest border, I think that I would be more receptive to the fact that there was a problem. But having it be Arizona, having it be the second largest boarder and knowing there are troops on the border in Arizona, it didn't seem to me that this legislation was particularly necessary at this moment in time," West told Newsradio 620

http://www.11alive.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=145731&catid=186

So she doesn't think Arizona needs help simply because Texas has a longer border with Mexico than Arizona does? Holy Toledo!

I went and re-watched the video and that's not what she meant. SHe meant it isn't on the border. Numerous statements within the video make it quite clear that's what she thought.

I think I'm actually offended by her implication that she meant it was a longer border. I'm offended that she thinks we're dumber than she is, in that we might believe this bull **** that is erupting from her mouth.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I went and re-watched the video and that's not what she meant. SHe meant it isn't on the border. Numerous statements within the video make it quite clear that's what she thought.

I think I'm actually offended by her implication that she meant it was a longer border. I'm offended that she thinks we're dumber than she is, in that we might believe this bull **** that is erupting from her mouth.

It wasn't a misplaced word, or badly worded statement.....this was a phrase+ that stated what AZ is. Embarrassing. And amazing.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

It wasn't a misplaced word, or badly worded statement.....this was a phrase+ that stated what AZ is. Embarrassing. And amazing.

I'd forget about this whole thing if she just said she was being stupid. Everyone has their stupid moments. You, me, everyone. Just own up to it and people will forget (unless you're signature quoted, in that case, you're royally *****ed). But no, now she tells us we're the retarded ones.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I'd forget about this whole thing if she just said she was being stupid. Everyone has their stupid moments. You, me, everyone. Just own up to it and people will forget (unless you're signature quoted, in that case, you're royally *****ed). But no, now she tells us we're the retarded ones.

All I have to see is "blah blah blah FROM WISCONSIN" and I know. Oh, I know.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Yeah, typically I hear the word wisconsin and somehow the brain just goes, *click* and the rest is a blur.

Edit: Actually it's more like the charlie brown muted trumpet sound.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I didn't say it isn't an issue. However, I will stand by my statement that its being used more as a political issue than anything else. The solution to the problem, a bipartisan solution at that, is already out there. Why is this still being argued about?

Same two reasons it takes Congress forever to take most action: Fear of public reaction and the continuing availability of lobbying dollars.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I went and re-watched the video and that's not what she meant. SHe meant it isn't on the border. Numerous statements within the video make it quite clear that's what she thought.

I think I'm actually offended by her implication that she meant it was a longer border. I'm offended that she thinks we're dumber than she is, in that we might believe this bull **** that is erupting from her mouth.

You're speaking to the original video and gaff. My comment you responded to was talking about a subsequent, supposedly clarifying statement from her where, instead of saying she botched it on the original comment, she tried to weasel out of it by saying she really meant that Texas had a longer border. So her second botch just builds on the first one and makes her look even more clueless.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I didn't say it isn't an issue. However, I will stand by my statement that its being used more as a political issue than anything else. The solution to the problem, a bipartisan solution at that, is already out there. Why is this still being argued about?

I'm pretty sure that there isn't broad agreement on a specific solution. If there is, please identify the major components of such a solution. The lefties want to hand out citizenship to everyone who is here illegally, while a lot of folks on the other side don't like that idea one bit. I think that's one major sticking point in finding a "comprehensive" solution. Everybody, more or less, now or later, believes in some sort of more secure border (and one would hope funding to actually make it a reality someday).

 

[Priceless]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I'm pretty sure that there isn't broad agreement on a specific solution. If there is, please identify the major components of such a solution. The lefties want to hand out citizenship to everyone who is here illegally, while a lot of folks on the other side don't like that idea one bit. I think that's one major sticking point in finding a "comprehensive" solution. Everybody, more or less, now or later, believes in some sort of more secure border (and one would hope funding to actually make it a reality someday).

Uhhh.."lefties" don't all want to hand out citizenship. And not all righties oppose the idea. Some "lefties" see handing out citizenship as big business' solution to its labor problem. There are a lot of "righties" who see making 12 million people legal as the answer to their problems. That's a nice labor pool that they can now dip from legally, and keep wages for everyone down nice and low.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Uhhh.."lefties" don't all want to hand out citizenship. And not all righties oppose the idea. Some "lefties" see handing out citizenship as big business' solution to its labor problem. There are a lot of "righties" who see making 12 million people legal as the answer to their problems. That's a nice labor pool that they can now dip from legally, and keep wages for everyone down nice and low.

Obviously I was generalizing.

 

[Rover]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I'm pretty sure that there isn't broad agreement on a specific solution. If there is, please identify the major components of such a solution. The lefties want to hand out citizenship to everyone who is here illegally, while a lot of folks on the other side don't like that idea one bit. I think that's one major sticking point in finding a "comprehensive" solution. Everybody, more or less, now or later, believes in some sort of more secure border (and one would hope funding to actually make it a reality someday).

IIRC the agreement between Bush II and the Dem Congress (and Sen. McCain at the time) was to 1) secure the border via fence, increased patrols, etc, 2) have all illegals "register" or whatever, pay any back taxes owed, and then go to the back of the line for citizenship behind the people who have already applied and are in legal status. What happens to them in the meantime (worker visas, etc) I think was still a little fuzzy, but most of the pieces were in place. And for the record, I have no problem with building a fence/wall etc.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

Obviously I was generalizing.

I think everyone understood that, although it's my observation that the immigration problem is not one that fits neatly into, or fall directly down, party lines. I suspect there are large numbers of conservatives, or members of the Republican party, who think the immigration policy of this country needs to be substantially loosened, and an equally large number who would like to build a 50' fence and station tanks at the border. The same is likely true of "progressives", or members of the Democratic party.

That may be part of the reason no solution seems to be forthcoming.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I think everyone understood that, although it's my observation that the immigration problem is not one that fits neatly into, or fall directly down, party lines. I suspect there are large numbers of conservatives, or members of the Republican party, who think the immigration policy of this country needs to be substantially loosened, and an equally large number who would like to build a 50' fence and station tanks at the border. The same is likely true of "progressives", or members of the Democratic party.

That may be part of the reason no solution seems to be forthcoming.

Cross-party issues like this make "us good, them bad" types' heads asplode. It really interferes with simplistic morality narratives when half your party is on the "wrong" side and half the other is on the "right" one.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

IIRC the agreement between Bush II and the Dem Congress (and Sen. McCain at the time) was to 1) secure the border via fence, increased patrols, etc, 2) have all illegals "register" or whatever, pay any back taxes owed, and then go to the back of the line for citizenship behind the people who have already applied and are in legal status. What happens to them in the meantime (worker visas, etc) I think was still a little fuzzy, but most of the pieces were in place. And for the record, I have no problem with building a fence/wall etc.

I'm not sure something Bush worked out with Congress at the time has a whole lot of meaning to what would be broadly acceptable now. McCain's major shift in stance is one of the most obvious examples of changing circumstances. Maybe in the horsetrading you end up with something in the ballpark of what Bush and Congress had, but that's only one of many possible directions this could go.

 

[Rover]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I'm not sure something Bush worked out with Congress at the time has a whole lot of meaning to what would be broadly acceptable now. McCain's major shift in stance is one of the most obvious examples of changing circumstances. Maybe in the horsetrading you end up with something in the ballpark of what Bush and Congress had, but that's only one of many possible directions this could go.

McCain is a great example, as he's trying to save his hide. 2010 is a bad year to try to get something like this enacted.

2012 is a great year to, and here's why. Dems are more than happy to cement their recent gains amongst the Hispanic electorate (I think they won 2/3rds of that vote in the '08 election). Deliving a win on this certainly benefits them. Some veteran GOP strategists (Rove in particular, Jeb Bush also) see the need to fight for these voters too and move beyond the old election model of driving up old angry white guy voters while lowering turnout elsewhere. That leaves this one issue alone as a place where compromise can be found, for self serving reasons on both sides, in an election year. I'd be very, very surprised if whoever wins the Republican nomination does not come out in favor of this, under the cover of the last GOP President was on board with the plan too. Simply put, the math isn't there if a key voting block in Florida, New Mexico, Nevada, Colorado, and Arizona is voting against you by a 2-1 margin. This is going to cause problems for both Dems in old industrial states, and conservatives vulnerable to a primary challenge. However, what's more important: holding onto a couple of Senate seats or winning the Presidency? That calculation most likely gets immigration reform passed - finally.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

That calculation most likely gets immigration reform passed - finally.

That calculation gets each party to bring forward an immigration reform bill, but does it mean there is consensus on the terms? The Dems want citizenship, the Republicans want cheap labor for southern and western Agribusiness. Those are antithetical goals: to the extent the Dems get what they want, there is no longer a non-unionizable underclass to pick over.

One would have thought both health care and, especially, financial reform were good candidates for bipartisan measures, but the GOP had to stonewall both of them because of prior ideological (and donor) commitments. Why won't the same thing happen here?

I don't think real immigration reform gets passed unless Obama gets an even bigger portion of the Hispanic vote in 2012. That may drive home the point to Republican funding sources that until they Sister Souljah the Minutemen they aren't going to get within sniffing distance of the White House or control of the House. They will have to trade giving Mexican guest laborers basic wages and labor rights (thus also raising the wages for Anglos who compete with them in the labor pool) and risk the ire of Agribusiness (a serious donor hit) in order to even have the ability to get back into power and keep the top marginal rate depressed (the windfall that has driven GOP campaign contributions since 1980). Stay pure or compete.

 

[Rover]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

That calculation gets each party to bring forward an immigration reform bill, but does it mean there is consensus on the terms? The Dems want citizenship, the Republicans want cheap labor for southern and western Agribusiness. Those are antithetical goals: to the extent the Dems get what they want, there is no longer a non-unionizable underclass to pick over.

One would have thought both health care and, especially, financial reform were good candidates for bipartisan measures, but the GOP had to stonewall both of them because of prior ideological (and donor) commitments. Why won't the same thing happen here?

I don't think real immigration reform gets passed unless Obama gets an even bigger portion of the Hispanic vote in 2012. That may drive home the point to Republican funding sources that until they Sister Souljah the Minutemen they aren't going to get within sniffing distance of the White House or control of the House. They will have to trade giving Mexican guest laborers basic wages and labor rights (thus also raising the wages for Anglos who compete with them in the labor pool) and risk the ire of Agribusiness (a serious donor hit) in order to even have the ability to get back into power and keep the top marginal rate depressed (the windfall that has driven GOP campaign contributions since 1980). Stay pure or compete.

Whatever my disagreements may be with the Republican party, they tend to learn quickly from their defeats. In fact, I'd say campaigning is their greatest strength.

This is the reason why immigration reform gets done. Its serves a purpose for both sides. At some point in time, sooner rather than later, people in the GOP will look at the polls and realize they can't afford to get killed again with the fastest growing segment of the voting population. Fillibuster an immigration reform bill when it comes up in the summer of 2012 and you have a replay on a national level of what happened to the California GOP a decade ago. Even a total idiot like Harry Reid (provided he's still around then) can figure out the advantages of bringing a bill up at that time. Similar to the gay marriage ballot initiatives in 2004, this is an awfully tough one to deal with at the worst possible time.

Health care opposition was a no brainer. Its been a liberal dream for 50 years. No kidding the GOP wanted to defeat it. Financial reform hits their biggest donors, so again no big surprise over the opposition (although they've been pretty muted given the public's support for reform). Having Hispanics vote Dem in the same %'s as blacks do has to be a strategists biggest worry at this point in time, and I would expect them to do whatever it takes to avoid that.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Illegal Immigration Pt. III: It's Illegal to be Illegal? Really?

I think you underestimate the strength of the push to secure the border first, talk comprehensive reform of any sort later, nationwide, but especially in places like Arizona. Here in Arizona it's such a strong issue that the Dems who are running this fall are now criticizing the administration and saying a lot more needs to be done on securing the border first. Even a decent chunk (though likely a minority) of Hispanics are on board with the issue. The border issue has turned Jan Brewer's political star 180 degrees, going from someone hardly anybody thought could be elected this fall to, as an AZ Republic article today says, rock-star status among conservatives. Securing the border first is a rock solid campaign winner in way more places than it isn't. And it's in the cards that Obama will make tepid steps at the most to secure the border unless he gets comprehensive reform at the same time. I just don't see it lining up for comprehensive reform until a significant shift takes place on the issue.