The New Talking Point: Lack of Amnesty Is “De Facto Amnesty”
In paid ads, and in just about every TV or radio interview, Rubio can be heard to utter the words, “Our current immigration system is a disaster. What we have now is de facto amnesty.” In other words, by not granting amnesty to illegal aliens, we are granting them amnesty, according to the convoluted logic of Florida’s Republican senator.
But Rubio is not the only practitioner of Orwellian amnesty doublespeak in the Republican ranks. A small sampling of what some other prominent Republicans have had to say on the topic recently bears that out:
“[T]he status quo isn’t working — it’s de facto amnesty.” ~ Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
“Millions here illegally have de facto amnesty.” ~ Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
“I’ve got a news flash for those who want to call people names on amnesty. What we have now is de facto amnesty.” ~ Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
“What we have right now is de facto amnesty — meaning there are currently 11 million immigrants living undocumented and without legal status in the United States.” ~ Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)
A cynic might even get the idea that somewhere on Capitol Hill there is a Republican talking points memo on amnesty floating around — or at least a de facto memo.
And what a talking point it is! There is this horrible situation where all these people who came here illegally are being treated as if they were legal. So . . . let’s make them legal. That way, at least we can collect a tiny fine from them give them welfare, deincentivize them to work, and let them start voting for Democrats!
I find myself increasingly convinced by this compelling talking point! How about you?
Ding.
Patterico (9c670f) — 6/14/2013 @ 7:50 amRubio needs to quit talking illogic and incoherent nonsense or its going to be harder to figure out the difference between him and Pelosi/Biden.
SPQR (768505) — 6/14/2013 @ 7:57 amWell, I’ve got news for you. They’re Illegal, collecting welfare already (or disibility, or unemployment or EBT cards) and have no reason whatsoever to work.
My brother has a family living across the street fitting that description to a T right now.
© Sponge (8110ec) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:06 amHow do you take this logic to the next step, where they become de facto citizens and voters?
Oh, wait, oppose voter ID.
I’ve had an epiphany on the citizenship thing: they can become citizens, but only when USCIS has cleared its backlog of legal immigrant’s citizenship cases. If there are legal’s cases pending, they have to wait before their application can be processed.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:07 amRubio is a Democrat spy sent to spy out the Republicans and expose their secrets to the Dems. Okay, not really. But he cannot be trusted.
The Emperor (ca9435) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:12 amDe facto amnesty: In other words, given that this is true, the likes of Rubio, Ayotte, and Paul are saying that it would be better politically for Republicans to support comprehensive immigration reform, including outright amnesty for the dreamers, and a path to citizenship for hard working illegals. Otherwise, Republicans are unlikely to get sufficient Hispanic voter support required to win certain important elections.
Gramps2 (7a0f23) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:14 amHah. The use and construct of manufactured coordinated talking points (on any issue) increasingly fascinates me. I’m willing to bet, for instance, that a huge percentage of America today doesn’t even know what “de facto” means. But the media will love talking to themselves about it.
elissa (136423) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:20 amOne hundred dollar bounty for arrest of an illegal entrant or visa overstay. License them like bounty hunters.
Creates a vast new infrastructure of jobs plus sweet sweet government workers to process the incoming payload.
luagha (fa1a05) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:20 amI hate to break it to people, but most illegal Mexican and South American immigrants don’t give a shit about becoming an American citizen. Most of their children who are American citizens remain loyal to Mexico and do not consider themselves American.
The first immigration reform we need is to bring back Americanization and assimilation.
gahrie (acbb2d) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:22 am“I’m willing to bet, for instance, that a huge percentage of America today doesn’t even know what “de facto” means.”
elissa – Up the ante. Make it “de facto amnesty per se.”
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:25 amPerry – one last chance ….
Commenters who do not use a consistent name, and/or who use a proxy to post, are subject to banning.
All it requires is a hint of honesty on your part.
JD (b63a52) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:28 amWho is writing these scripted words of compromise, a Rovenite?
mg (31009b) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:41 amThe Age of Unreason.
See The Age of American Unreason (2009) by Susan Jacoby.
Gary L. Zerman (95c896) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:45 amhttp://www.amazon.com/The-Age-American-Unreason-Vintage/dp/1400096383
somehow if I’m behind on my tax payments to the IRS I don’t think I’m defacto “all paid up” …
JeffC (488234) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:53 amWell, if it is in fact de facto amnesty, and the pols want amnesty, why don’t we just save 1000 pages of a new bill and let the present situation continue?
Oh, that’s right, they can’t vote for said pols. Legally, anyway.
Patricia (be0117) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:02 amYour summarization in italics says it all. The translation of si se puede is “cheating pays off.”
jb (50c76f) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:05 amRubio and Flake lied in their election and have continued to lie as Senators.
jason (427828) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:28 amThank you for your insight, Jason.
JD (b63a52) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:30 amAnd what a talking point it is! There is this horrible situation where all these people who came here illegally are being treated as if they were legal. So . . . let’s make them legal….
I find myself increasingly convinced by this compelling talking point! How about you?
The de facto amnesty is insecure, and may depend upon people constantly electing a minimum number of Democrats. It might be enough for the president to be a Democrat, but people who care about something might not be so sanguine.
Unlike the case with Social Security, or abortion, or basic civil rights, or the right to vote, Democrats do not have to make up stories to scare people into not voting for Republicans. The Republicans say it themselves.
It’s not really a question of getting people to vote for Republicans, it’s stopping the
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:36 amhemorrhaging that is to come.
Comment by Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:07 am
If there are legal’s cases pending, they have to wait before their application can be processed.
That’s probably enough to keep some other people voting solidly Democrat for years.
Whether people are citizens or not affects mostly statewide, county wide, citywide races and the like.
Everything else is divided into districts and DEPENDS ON POPULATION, CITIZEN OR NOT, LEGAL OR NOT.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:42 am17. Comment by jason (427828) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:28 am
Rubio and Flake lied in their election and have continued to lie as Senators.
More likely they just didn’t know what they were talking about.
It’s now that they are engaging in double talk. Although de facto amnesty is not double talk. The political problem is that the de facto amnesty is vulnerable if too many Republicans get elected.
But actually it will not be so easy to get rid of this issue.
It’s more about preventing further hemorrhaging of suppport, and making it at least respectable in certain quarters to acknowledge voting for a Republican.
Do you really want college students making phoine calls, and importuning their friends to vote for a Democrat for their sake?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:46 amMore likely they just didn’t know what they were talking about.
Like everyone else Sammy disagrees with. Sammy has more perfect knowledge.
JD (b63a52) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:48 am14. Comment by JeffC (488234) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:53 am
14.somehow if I’m behind on my tax payments to the IRS I don’t think I’m defacto “all paid up”
Let’s say you’re a career criminal in jail. Or an addict. Or a prostitute or a pimp. You actually owe taxes on all the money you made or stole to buy drugs.
But nobody’s going to try to collect.
Because they can’t pay, and because nobody ever tries to estimate dollar amounts.
If not, I guess there’s always…
http://wallandassociates.reachlocal.net/
or http://www.freedomtaxrelief.com/…
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:51 amComment by JD (b63a52) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:48 am
Like everyone else Sammy disagrees with. Sammy has more perfect knowledge.
I suppose you could say that, given my SAT and GRE scores.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:52 am8. Comment by luagha (fa1a05) — 6/14/2013 @ 8:20 am
One hundred dollar bounty for arrest of an illegal entrant or visa overstay. License them like bounty hunters.
Creates a vast new infrastructure of jobs plus sweet sweet government workers to process the incoming payload.
Much better: Let anyone work, provide they have somebody else’s permission to use their Social Security number.
The person whose Social Zsecuity number it is pays all the taxes and pays an agreed percentage over to the person actually doing the work, and it is treated like their own income, with higher levels of income taxed at higher tax brackets.
This would be a win-win situation.
It was described in Joe Haldeman’s novel “The Forever War”
http://books.google.com/books?id=jc1eCZlD-ScC&pg=PA130&dq=%22forever+war%22dealer++job&hl=en&sa=X&ei=x0u7UcimAZDM0gGUgoHwDA&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22forever%20war%22dealer%20%20job&f=false
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:59 amI mean if a job is a piece of property, why not let Americans sell the right to a job?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/14/2013 @ 9:59 amI mean if a job is a piece of property, why not let Americans sell the right to a job?
That is one helluva “if”
JD (04b3a3) — 6/14/2013 @ 10:04 amYou could have fooled me, JD. What were your scores?
Gramps2 (7a0f23) — 6/14/2013 @ 10:05 amSo if our current immigration system constitutes de facto amnesty that’s because the people in charge of it aren’t enforcing the law.
And unfortunately that now includes Marco Rubio.
Which means two things.
1. Giving some of the illegal aliens de jure amnesty won’t fix the problem because those who don’t qualify for probationary legal status will retain their de facto legal status.
2. Because the people not enforcing the law now won’t enforce the law in the future, as exemplified by Barack Obama’s DREAM Act by fiat and the fact his ICE released dangerous criminal aliens to take revenge on the American people over sequestration. It’s ridiculous to think that millions of illegal aliens who don’t qualify for legal status will be rounded up and deported. As a matter of fact the law specifically says failure to qualify does not require the government to initiate deportation proceedings.
This is a fraud.
Steve57 (1ca8bb) — 6/14/2013 @ 10:07 amI don’t understand why all these foreigners want to come to the States.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/14/2013 @ 10:28 amAfter all, the USA is an evil racist country that practices capitalism.
We are in our immigration mess because Liberals, with the help of RINOs have FAILED to enforce existing law. If you want to solve the problem, enforce existing law- it is that easy.
Smarty (273307) — 6/14/2013 @ 10:40 amJD wrote:
I am so banned! 😆
The Dana of many adjectives (3e4784) — 6/14/2013 @ 11:26 amOur esteemed host wrote:
I’ve taken a lot of heat on another thread for saying that a de jure amnesty is the only logical choice remaining, but it is this de facto amnesty which makes actual legalization the only reasonable choice. The de facto amnesty is very simple: we will not make any efforts to round up and deport the however many million illegal immigrants that we have now, which means that the penalties for violating our immigration laws are just plain off the table.
If the penalties are off the table, if the illegals are gong to stay here, period, then it makes sense to regularize the situation.
The de facto Dana (3e4784) — 6/14/2013 @ 11:33 am“If the penalties are off the table, if the illegals are gong to stay here, period, then it makes sense to regularize the situation.”
Dana – The question is when and how. There is no morality to amnesty. It is not a conservative principle. People came here knowingly breaking the law. There is no obligation to place their needs in front of people who are trying to follow the correct legal path to become legal residents of this country. It is not rocket surgery.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 11:42 amDoes the bill under consideration in the Senate give the four million people waiting in line to come to this country the ability to move to this country and gain immediate provisional legal residence? I don’t think so. In effect what it does is place knowing lawbreakers ahead of those trying to do the right thing. Not securing the border, enforcing some kind of employment verification system and visa tracking system merely ensures prior to granting provisional legal residence merely ensures we will have this debate again in a few years time.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 11:50 amThe daleyrocks who likes to mix metaphors wrote:
😆 I love that last line.
No morality to amnesty? Perhaps not, and I’ve never argued that there was. But sometimes necessity and practicality are controlling, and this is one of those cases.
Is it right or fair to reward lawbreaking? No, but it is sometimes all that you can do. Will amnesty be a slap in the face of those who have gone through the long process of legal immigration? Yup, sure is, but that, sometimes, is unavoidable. It is just as much a slap in their faces as is the fact that we allow the illegals in, and don’t, and won’t, make the slightest attempt to kick them back out.
It will not be particularly pleasant to do what I have said we must do, but not being pleasant or necessarily right or moral doesn’t mean that we don’t have to do it.
The Dana amused by the metaphor (3e4784) — 6/14/2013 @ 11:57 amif you are here illegally, you are a criminal, and rewarding criminal behavior is both immoral and bad public policy.
any government that can monitor communications like ours does has the wherewithal to locate said illegals.
what we don’t have is a political class that will act as it should, rather than in its own, short sighted and destructive, personal interests.
we do NOT have to allow any illegal, from any country to stay here, nor should we. furthermore, if we won’t enforce immigration laws, why should citizens obey any others?
redc1c4 (403dff) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:03 pm“No morality to amnesty? Perhaps not, and I’ve never argued that there was. But sometimes necessity and practicality are controlling, and this is one of those cases.”
Dana – You have tried to make an argument that Republicans need to pander to Hispanics to win elections, but Hispanics are not a natural Republican constituency. You have argued that the economy will collapse without illegal immigration but have not presented any rational for that perspective or why if low skilled labor is in short supply we cannot fill demand throw a guest labor program or legal immigration.
In short, you have presented no compelling reason for why there is any fierce urgency to do anything other than fix our broken borders, legal immigration system, employment verification enforcement and visa tracking.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:12 pm35. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 11:50 am
Does the bill under consideration in the Senate give the four million people waiting in line to come to this country the ability to move to this country and gain immediate provisional legal residence?
No, they are afraid to do so. They do want to clear up the backlog and are running into heavy slogging in proposing just their limited increase in legal immigration.
In effect what it does is place knowing lawbreakers ahead of those trying to do the right thing.
That’s what you have to do, if you don’t want to stay frozen where you are, and you want to be practical.
What’s more, you have to acknowledge you will do this in the future too, because the opponents of the bill won’t let you claim that it won’t happen again. The prospect of “border control” is a chimera and they will prove it.
The proponents of the bill are not quite acknowledging that if there is a case for amnesty now, there will one in the future too, and it will happen again.
Sounds like a crazy way to run a system, but there are some arguments for it.
1) The people who broke the law probably had more impelling reasons to come to the United States.
2) and they risked more too so not so many people will try, unles sthey ahev very good reason.
3) We need people in the United States who break rules.
Not securing the border, enforcing some kind of employment verification system and visa tracking system merely ensures prior to granting provisional legal residence merely ensures we will have this debate again in a few years time.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:17 pmYou could have fooled me, JD. What were your scores?
Comment by Gramps2 (7a0f23) — 6/14/2013 @ 10:05 am
Either you cannot read, or are functionally illiterate.
JD (04b3a3) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:22 pmIllegals can’t pay their ER bill but will pay their Obamacare and Immigration fines?
Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:23 pm“3) We need people in the United States who break rules.”
Sammy – Try to keep up. We already have them. They are in Obama’s Administration.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:33 pm“Sounds like a crazy way to run a system, but there are some arguments for it.”
Sammy – I would like to hear some actual good arguments for it.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:35 pmSammy, the government can’t even design a decent gas can.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:38 pm@jd
The Emperor (9229cf) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:40 pmI know I have not been a regular here for a while but what happened to sock-puppet Fridays? That was a nice weekend recreational idea that many of us looked forward to, to just unwind and channel our inner creative abilities. 🙂
sock puppet fridays are gone and good riddance
elissa (136423) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:41 pmI hear that Glenn Greenwald and Michael Hiltzik are always up for a little creative sock-puppetry !
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:43 pmIt makes zero sense to let the same crowd that’s been lying to us since the 1986 amnesty, and have been busy taking the penalties off the table all these years to create de facto amnesty, to claim their new plan to “regularize” the situation is the only plan they’ll consider.
They’ll just put a plan in place to put the illegal population they’ve been creating on a path to citizenship and preparing for the next wave of illegal immigrants who they’ll grant de facto amnesty.
Doing nothing is far more preferable than that. There is no pressure outside of political circles to pass this crap sandwich.
Steve57 (1ca8bb) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:47 pmLiberal economics 101. If we import and legalize millions of agricultural workers, day laborers, and roadside flower vendors they’ll pay so much in payroll taxes Social Security and Medicare will be restored to solvency.
See, it’ll be a huge wealth transfer from the impoverished to the retirees!
Steve57 (1ca8bb) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:52 pmComment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:35 pm
Sammy – I would like to hear some actual good arguments for it.
1> Like what Winston Churchill said about democracy, an immigration system with perpetual amnesty is the worst system of all, except for all the others. (if you believe that) You might find the alternatives of more legal immigration and never granting amnesty leaving a permanent underground population less palatable. The latter option leads to corruption, people afraid to co-operate with the law, people with a stake in laws not being enforced and so on.
2> Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so no law should always be enforced.
3> Government planning leads to disaster, and there should be some limitations on the ability to plan. (and immigration law is an example of central government planning)
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:59 pmComment by Steve57 (1ca8bb) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:52 pm
Liberal economics 101. If we import and legalize millions of agricultural workers, day laborers, and roadside flower vendors they’ll pay so much in payroll taxes Social Security and Medicare will be restored to solvency.
See, it’ll be a huge wealth transfer from the impoverished to the retirees!
Of course, since the poor people are overwhelmingly below retirement age.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/14/2013 @ 1:01 pm44. Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:38 pm
Sammy, the government can’t even design a decent gas can.
If the governbemnt can’t design a decent gas can, what makes you think it can design a decent immigration policy?
And if it can’t, for what reason should a badly thought out law be enforced?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/14/2013 @ 1:04 pm@daley
The Emperor (337ece) — 6/14/2013 @ 1:10 pmShocka! Now where is the fun in that?
“You might find the alternatives of more legal immigration and never granting amnesty leaving a permanent underground population less palatable. The latter option leads to corruption, people afraid to co-operate with the law, people with a stake in laws not being enforced and so on.”
Sammy – Yes, I might find it unpalatable if that was the choice, but since nobody is proposing that as a choice I reject it as an argument.
“2> Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so no law should always be enforced.”
Which is why most people according to surveys feel our government already has too much power. I have no idea how your comment about laws not being enforced relates to the subject at hand since you are not specific.
“3> Government planning leads to disaster, and there should be some limitations on the ability to plan.”
Central government planning is by nature authoritarian but for some reason liberals view it as benevolent and progressive – see Obamacare. You are arguing against interest.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 1:32 pm41. Comment by Rodney King’s Spirit (ae12ec) — 6/14/2013 @ 12:23 pm
Illegals can’t pay their ER bill but will pay their Obamacare and Immigration fines?
That’s the difference between paying for something that was done in the past and something you want to get in the future.
And they can ask family and friends and even some charities for help, but nobody will contribute to pay for a past ER bill, which is anyway exaggerated.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/14/2013 @ 1:33 pmSammy – Please advise when you have good arguments to present.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 1:33 pmSammy, so then the I.R.S. shouldn’t expect people to pay back taxes since it is a bill that is in the past ?
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/14/2013 @ 1:36 pmYeah, Sammy, speaking of “future vs past,” please send out an email alert when your future postings will be more helpful than your past ones.
Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/14/2013 @ 1:37 pm“You might find the alternatives of more legal immigration and never granting amnesty leaving a permanent underground population less palatable.
The latter option leads to corruption, people afraid to co-operate with the law, people with a stake in laws not being enforced and so on.”
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 1:32 pm
Sammy – Yes, I might find it unpalatable if that was the choice, but since nobody is proposing that as a choice I reject it as an argument.
Nobody needs to propose it as a choice. That’s the default, espedcially if old policy of “don’t ask, don’t tell” is undermined.
“2> Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, so no law should always be enforced.”
Which is why most people according to surveys feel our government already has too much power. I have no idea how your comment about laws not being enforced relates to the subject at hand since you are not specific.
A government powerful enough to enforce an immigration law against the wishes of millions of people, is powerful enough to …you finish the sentence.
Of course they only talk about border control sometimes, and not internal enforcement, but that’s equivalent to non-enforcement.
“3> Government planning leads to disaster, and there should be some limitations on the ability to plan.”
Central government planning is by nature authoritarian but for some reason liberals view it as benevolent and progressive – see Obamacare. You are arguing against interest.
What do you mean? I don’t think Obamacare is good.
It’s against interest for many of the people on that side of the issue maybe.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/14/2013 @ 1:39 pm57. Comment by Elephant Stone (6a6f37) — 6/14/2013 @ 1:36 pm
Sammy, so then the I.R.S. shouldn’t expect people to pay back taxes since it is a bill that is in the past ?
The only exception would be illegal immigrants, who might stand to gain a future benefit from paying back taxes. The IRS does put liens, but not with that much hope. Do you see them going after drug addicts?
But the tax due won’t be calculated correctly. The right way to do that is to give them, and everybody else by the way, a safe harbor, based on accummulated savings perhaps.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/14/2013 @ 1:41 pmIn the status quo penalties are not off the table, but it’s a lottery nobody wants to win.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/14/2013 @ 1:44 pmWTF
JD (b63a52) — 6/14/2013 @ 1:59 pmIt was to be expected from Rand Paul. The fruitcake does not fall far from the tree. Rubio is appealing to his natural constituency. Ayotte and Alexander are opportunistic hacks. Paul Ryan is still recovering from the heartbreaking rejection he got in November: So out of love, so lost without you ….
nk (875f57) — 6/14/2013 @ 2:45 pmIf anybody buys any bit of this fraud, they’re idiots.
Rubio wants me to believe we need to legalize the illegals so they’ll pay for border security with their fines?
It will never happen.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-boxer-healthcare-costs-uninsured-immigrants-20130613,0,6087718.story
Because of course these illegal aliens will be such a boon to the economy that… taxpayers will be stuck paying their bills.
Boxer wants to take the money that the illegals are supposed to pay in fines that Rubio tells us will be used to secure the border and divert that money to the states and localities that do provide welfare benefits.
This is insane. The Democrats have already turned illegal aliens into government clients. Although it’s not as if there are armies of CPAs, neurosurgeons, or skilled aviation mechanics swimming the Rio Grande. So it wasn’t too hard to turn these illegal immigrants into government clients. Now the Democrats want to reward them until they can turn them into voters so they can return the favor.
And we’re supposed to be for this suicidal idiocy why?
Steve57 (1ca8bb) — 6/14/2013 @ 2:46 pmSo on the one hand we have a U.S. Senator from the most important political state in the entire country, along with a former state attorney general and current federal senator, a former state governor and current senator and the chairman arguably of the 2nd most powerful committee in the entire U.S. House of Representatives. (I’m leaving out the Paulbot, because although apparently he’s experiencing a moment of clarity on this specific issue the underlying reality is that he’s an idiot). Then on the other side of the ledger we have the likes of Rush Limbaugh (who flunked out of a 6th-tier university at a time when a talking mannequin could have received a gentlemen’s C), Glenn Beck (no education whatsoever), a collection of journalists (Lowry, Levin, Malkin, etc.), a collection of full-time academics (Hewitt, Hanson, etc.) and then the occasional idiot savant such as this blog’s author.
Great. Yay, team!
The prospects are bleak. Pretty soon we’ll have to start considering not whether Hillary will win (that’s becoming a foregone conclusion) but whether she’ll exceed Obama’s electoral vote total from ’08.
William Scalia (4fc30a) — 6/14/2013 @ 2:52 pmelissa, I loved Sockpuppet Fridays!
The sockpuppet Dana (af9ec3) — 6/14/2013 @ 3:13 pmElissa, you shouldn’t hate
The Limerick Avenger (af9ec3) — 6/14/2013 @ 3:15 pmSockpuppet Fridays were great!
‘Twas lots of fun
Too bad they are done,
Return them! I just can’t wait!
Honestly, I’m Team Senryu Avenger.
Leviticus (b98400) — 6/14/2013 @ 3:36 pm“What do you mean?”
Sammy – What do you mean what do I mean? You were the person who raised the point about government planning leading to disaster.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 3:41 pmWhere’s Waldo?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 3:42 pmIt was sort of fun but the Sockpuppet Friday event on his site made it harder for Patterico to legitimately rail against some fairly famous and rather egregious media-type sockpuppets who praised or defended their own work on other threads. Sockpuppet Friday also made Patterico’s policy comment at the bottom of the comment box look rather inconsistent. “Commenters who do not use a consistent name, and/or who use a proxy to post, are subject to banning.” Serial trolls who were banned under this policy then complained that everybody did it on Fridays.
I think (but do not know for sure) that these factors were probably at least partly what played into the demise of sock puppet Friday.
elissa (136423) — 6/14/2013 @ 3:54 pmSock Puppet friday was entertaining.
mg (31009b) — 6/14/2013 @ 4:12 pmBring it back
Bring it back
We’ve had a suckpuppet for and a half years straight now.
nk (875f57) — 6/14/2013 @ 4:30 pmIt will not be particularly pleasant to do what I have said we must do, but not being pleasant or necessarily right or moral doesn’t mean that we don’t have to do it.
Why, Dana-with-all-the-screen-names? What great epiphany and wonderfulness will suddenly settle over our society if illegal immigrants are catered to in a way that’s even more over-the-top than what’s true right now?
What great advantage — socially, culturally, politically (at least to non-leftists) and economically — will be draped around the shoulders of this nation if the “undocumented” have an even easier time in treating the US like a soft touch, like a big sap and sucker?
I propose that your next choice of screen name should be: “The Dana whose common sense is AWOL.”
Mark (cd1aee) — 6/14/2013 @ 5:45 pmAnd we’re supposed to be for this suicidal idiocy why?
Because in the immortal words of the great (and former—but only technically speaking) spiritual adviser and preacher of Barack and Michelle Obama: “America, your chickens are coming home to roost.”
Mark (cd1aee) — 6/14/2013 @ 5:47 pmI suppose you could say that, given my SAT and GRE scores.
Get a grip. SAT and GRE scores are a dime a dozen. High IQ does not make you smart, just clever. The President with the highest IQ in the 20th century was Nixon, and look where he ended up.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/14/2013 @ 5:54 pmIf the penalties are off the table, if the illegals are gong to stay here, period, then it makes sense to regularize the situation.
There are degrees to this. Even if we don’t decide overnight to round up all the illegals and send them home (and we won’t), there are many graduations to what we do next.
We could, for example, legalize them so long as they pay a monthly fee and deport them the moment they don’t. I don’t advocate that, but there are many many ways to address this problem other than the two extremes.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/14/2013 @ 5:59 pmLiberal economics 101. If we import and legalize millions of agricultural workers, day laborers, and roadside flower vendors they’ll pay so much in payroll taxes Social Security and Medicare will be restored to solvency.
That worked so well in Europe.
Kevin M (bf8ad7) — 6/14/2013 @ 6:01 pmSAT and GRE measure the ability to retain what schools teach. Nothing more. Allow me to congratulate you on a probably excellent memory and reading skills, Sammy.
nk (875f57) — 6/14/2013 @ 6:02 pmI think that we should proceed with the “amnesty” and “register” them all. Once we have their names and addresses with their attestation that they qualify for amnesty by virtue of being illegal… midnight raids with prison buses fueled for a trip to the border. It’s a perfectly legal law enforcement tactic. Hey, you don’t think that’s what Congress really is up to, do you?
nk (875f57) — 6/14/2013 @ 6:06 pmOf course, under an amnesty program, we could require DNA sampling of all immigrants who accept the amnesty, and then compare the results to any unsolved crimes in which there was DNA evidence left behind. Since accepting amnesty would be voluntary — and with active refusals, yo can deport those who will not comply — and, with the Maryland v King decision just released, it seems that the Supreme Court would not get in the way.
The helpful Dana (af9ec3) — 6/14/2013 @ 6:18 pmDon’t bet on it. They are pretty whacky.
But I like the idea. We already know all illegals are criminals. Might as well screen then for more crimes they committed.
Dustin (303dca) — 6/14/2013 @ 6:25 pmI’d say that what the standardized tests really measure is one’s ability to take standardized tests. My grades in college were pretty decent, but when it comes to the standardized tests, I just happen to have a knack for taking them that left my GPA in the dust.
On the other hand, I’ve known a couple of people of decent intelligence and respectable learning who simply could not do anything with the standardized tests.
The Dana who blew apart the ACT, GRE and LSAT (af9ec3) — 6/14/2013 @ 6:28 pmWhy spend tons of time and money to send to and keep in prison a few thousand, when we could just make the whole eleven million Mexico’s problem. My plan is better.
nk (875f57) — 6/14/2013 @ 6:29 pmI read the following and am amazed at just how drastically socio-political trends can change, within no more than a few generations. It’s almost hard to believe that humans of today are from the same gene pool of decades ago. Even more so when a society that back in 1960 perceived John F Kennedy’s Catholicism as being unusual and controversial, to today, when a racially mixed, (likely, probably) bisexual ultra-liberal — with a hinky life story — in the current White House doesn’t raise an eyebrow.
From the extremes of the past to the extremes of today. And how things will end up is anyone’s guess—although I’d be surprised if today’s skeptics and cynics don’t turn out to be the prescient ones.
Mark (cd1aee) — 6/14/2013 @ 7:05 pmThe illegal hispanics I know are almost all Mexican. They come from a country with corrupt local, state and federal governments and have developed a impressive and inventive portfolio of equal or greater corrupt strategies to circumvent or circumnavigate their leaders.
Victor Davis Hanson has written extensively on the two Californias. One full of ever increasingly crushing rules and regulations for law abiding on the radar citizens and the other California for under the radar, under the table illegal non citizens (or legal residents who have assumed legal status to collect benefits while earning all wages under the table).
Most common is the scenario Patterico has written about before. No drivers license, no insurance, no deinitive ID of who you even really are? no problem… there will be no impound you are free to drive away with your indecipherable signature on this citation.
Illegal drivers who have been previously apprehended, cited and fingerprinted for a previous DUI, just flee from the scene of any subsequent accident, abandoning an unregistered vehicle. Everyone in the illegal community then soon learns that you always, always run from the scene of an accident First time, every time. Drive over the bodies if you have to.
So why come out of the shadows and get a license, give up your fingerprints and get in the State and National ID base? How dumb would that be? You can drive now without any responsibilities at all.
Another way to live for free is to cram your place with anchor babies, workers comp related disability claiming illegal residents. The state pays people to outreach to hispanics and teach them how to work the laws and requirements in their favor and to assist them in filling out the paperwork… sort of like this: “So the box you are going to need to check to get this benefit is this one.. (tap, tap) and here are some very simple statements of fact that have worked previously and THIS ONE HERE (tap, tap) looks exactly like what you need.”
Why become legal if you can get everything from housing, food, medical care, a comp check you can cash at the liquor store using the fake ID you bought in MacArthur Park all while working as a gardener or housekeeper for cash under the table without the negatives of being legal? You have more disposable income now and legality would bring a cut.
Why run a small business that is legal? Want to sell cheap crap? Set up a flea market at an intersection… or send out a dozen kids with bags of oranges or flowers to stand at red lights. No sales taxes, business license, no payroll, no SS.
Go big and pay a dishonest landlord cash rent in a strip mall in the barrio. Your business is under the radar. No sales tax, etc… a restaurant? Ditto except you’ll maybe have to pay off a health inspector. Or run a food truck to construction sites… no inspections, no taxes, dump food waste, grease, dirty water down storm drains or pry off a sewer manhole cover.
VDH’s work is right on and from ground zero.
So why on earth would a large percentage of illegal aliens decide to come out of the shadows, when there is going to be no real enforced consequence to remaining there?
OK so I’m guessing the majority of the illegal millions will sign up for amnesty. But millions will not because even the most mathematically disinclined is likely cagey enough to do a quick benefit analysis and ask: what about that is different from now except I will take home less money, get no larger benefits and may in fact lose some, I will be entered into their system on the side with laws, rules and consequences while now I am only on the end of government that gives away things (often under the cloak of total confidentiality and anonymity)
SteveG (794291) — 6/15/2013 @ 10:50 amA way to live free, Steve. I admire them for that. They have nothing but hang on hanging on. I couldn’t do it. Could you?
Asking only worker’s wages
I come looking for a job
But I get no offers from the hoors
On Constitution Avenue
Just lies and [political] dance
Still I feed my family
And disregard the rest
Nyah nyah ayi! Nyah nyah ayi!
nk (875f57) — 6/15/2013 @ 3:39 pmSu amnestia me importa una mierda!
Nyah nyah ayi, nyah nyah ayi, nyah nyah ayi!
78. Comment by nk (875f57) — 6/14/2013 @ 6:02 pm
SAT and GRE measure the ability to retain what schools teach. Nothing more.
No, they measure an ability to retain what schools don’t teach. Not all schools teach the same things.
A SAT or GRE invariably must test people on lots of things they never heard of in school. Even if confined to some general subject area.
That’s why they don’t correlate so well with grades and why boys do better than girls on them.
Allow me to congratulate you on a probably excellent memory and reading skills.
That’s basically what it amounts to. But the GREs were subject tests.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/17/2013 @ 9:39 am50. 54. 59. 68.
“ 3> Government planning leads to disaster, and there should be some limitations on the ability to plan.”
Daleyrocks: Central government planning is by nature authoritarian but for some reason liberals view it as benevolent and progressive – see Obamacare. You are arguing against interest.
SF: What do you mean? I don’t think Obamacare is good.
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/14/2013 @ 1:32 pm
“What do you mean?”
Sammy – What do you mean what do I mean? You were the person who raised the point about government planning leading to disaster.
How is this an admission against interest? When did I ever think or say planning is very good?
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/17/2013 @ 9:43 amDon’t call it amnesty, call it a “statute of limitations”
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/17/2013 @ 9:44 am61.
62.
The chances are small, like in a lottery, but unlike a lottery, nobody wants to win.
So people would buy the security.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/17/2013 @ 9:46 am“How is this an admission against interest? When did I ever think or say planning is very good?”
Sammy – I see what you did. My argument was about liberals. You made it about yourself in particular and your fear of budgets and planning, which makes no sense since you argue elsewhere that amnesty will make medicaid and social security solvent, which is an argument based on budgeting and planning and cannot actually be what you mean if you think through that argument.
Freely shifting back and forth between arguments based upon your individual thoughts and those based upon the horrible practices of budgeting and planning represents intellectual inconsistency at its worst.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/17/2013 @ 11:43 am91.“How is this an admission against interest? When did I ever think or say planning is very good?”
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/17/2013 @ 11:43 am
Sammy – I see what you did. My argument was about liberals. You made it about yourself in particular and your fear of budgets and planning
This goes back to 39 and 43 where I said:
And you said, at 43: Sammy – I would like to hear some actual good arguments for it.
Then at 50, I said, among oitehr things:
SF: 3> Government planning leads to disaster, and there should be some limitations on the ability to plan.”
And at 54 you said:
Daleyrocks: Central government planning is by nature authoritarian but for some reason liberals view it as benevolent and progressive – see Obamacare. You are arguing against interest.
So this was my argument, not that of liberals. In fact liberals don’t make this argument. Everybody “agrees” this should not be a precedent, and that’s nonsense and impossible.
And those who argue secure the border first, are really arguing against passing any amnesty, or as it might be better called, statute of limitations on illegal immigration, period. Because the border never will be and nmever can be conbtrolled. If you choose a metric they’ll proof the metric is faulty, which is easy to do since it is. And they might tie it to the spending of an enormous sum of money.
and your fear of budgets and planning,
which makes no sense since you argue elsewhere that amnesty will make medicaid and social security solvent, which is an argument based on budgeting and planning
No, that is not real planning. It’s just an overview.
and cannot actually be what you mean if you think through that argument.
It would make Social Security more solvent in the intermediate period, but of course more and more people would have to be born or immigrate in the future. It could very well be we would run into trouble 50 years from now, and even if we scoured the world for immigrants, we would still have trouble around the 2075 to 2090 period, because world population is projected to reach a peak and tehn decline. Except that of course nobody can project anything like that, and all sorts of things could happen in the interim. Per capitra GDP though can safely, absent a disaster or two be assumed to go up, so even givinbg Social S3ecurity recvipienets a lower percentage of GDP than now might be quite all right.
It isn’t so much that it makes Social Security and Medicaid solvent, as it makes them more and not less solvent over an intermidiate period, because you have people payinbg in and not taking oiut so much.
And that’s not all. It is not only what percentage of their income tehy pay in taxes, but how much they raise otehr people’s income. So a thought experiment. Most taxes are now paid by a small percentage of the people. Most people therefore might be consider net tax consumers. So if only the very rich had children…their income would not stay the same.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/17/2013 @ 2:24 pmFreely shifting back and forth between arguments based upon your individual thoughts and those based upon the horrible practices of budgeting and planning represents intellectual inconsistency at its worst.
I’m not doing that. I don’t believe in detailed planning, but you can say whether or not something, taken by itself, makes something, more, or makes something, less, solvent.
I don’t believe the Social Security projections, but it’s easy to argue, as the Wall Street Journal has at:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324659404578503172929165846.html
that it helps and does not hurt.
Now you can only make this argument if you don’t plan or project in detail.
You would be foolish to project the nuimber of jobs independent of projecting the number of people.
But what this means is that the number of jobs is proportional to the number of people looking for them! (This works in practice but maybe not in theory- it’s the kind of problem old Marxists had)
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/17/2013 @ 2:30 pmIf it didn’t come from Ryan Lizza, I would doubt it;
http://minx.cc/?post=340975
narciso (3fec35) — 6/17/2013 @ 2:32 pmThere is not the slightest reasson to doubt any of this.
But, as John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946) wrote in The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money:
Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
There is no other area of government where this is more true.
And the economist is defunct. No living economist argues like them. I just wish I knew who was the defunct economist who started all this.
He must have flourished around 1885, as near as I can tell.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/17/2013 @ 2:34 pm94. One thing. new workers do not undsercut wages, or does so only minimally to the extent that the percentage of workers with similar skills goes up, and still even with them only minimally.
This is one of those things that works in pracrtice but mayeb not in theory.
If what that web page argued was true, then the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while raising the wages of blacks should ahve reduced the wages of whites.
It did not.
Neither has abolishing apartheid in South Africa reduced incomes of whites.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/17/2013 @ 2:38 pm“Because the border never will be and nmever can be conbtrolled.”
Sammy – I love this strawman. Do you mean it can never be 100% controlled? How much can it be controlled, what %?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/17/2013 @ 3:15 pmHow can you apply a Statute of Limitations against someone who doesn’t exist (outside of the shadows)?
askeptic (b8ab92) — 6/17/2013 @ 3:22 pm“So this was my argument, not that of liberals. In fact liberals don’t make this argument. Everybody “agrees” this should not be a precedent, and that’s nonsense and impossible.”
Sammy – Sorry Sammy, liberals love government control and regulation, which is why I gave Obamacare as an example, which a majority of Democrats still approve. You may be a liberal with common sense who does not approve of Obamacare because you prefer single payer health care. You have not said. But claiming “everybody agrees this should not be a precedent” is a falsehood.
Another falsehood you are peddling in this thread is that an increase in the supply of low-skilled labor will result in an increase in wages or not a decline in wages for such labor. I think that must be the “Dump of Labor” theory you and Paul Krugman invented that inverts the labor supply curve based on wishcasting.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/17/2013 @ 3:25 pm“How can you apply a Statute of Limitations against someone who doesn’t exist (outside of the shadows)?”
askeptic – If people are unaware of the crime, when does the clock begin tolling? It is a ridiculous argument.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/17/2013 @ 3:28 pm99.“So this was my argument, not that of liberals. In fact liberals don’t make this argument. Everybody “agrees” this [amnesty] should not be a precedent, and that’s nonsense and impossible.”
Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/17/2013 @ 3:25 pm
Sammy – Sorry Sammy, liberals love government control and regulation, which is why I gave Obamacare as an example, which a majority of Democrats still approve. You may be a liberal with common sense who does not approve of Obamacare because you prefer single payer health care. You have not said
I think single payer is much better than Obamacare, because there’s no individual mandate, but it is not a good system, because there would be nothing to set the price and once in place, governments want to save money and what you get is rationing.
What’s needed is avery complicated system.
But claiming “everybody agrees this should not be a precedent” is a falsehood.
When Democrats assent to “border control” that’s waht they are doing, because the only purpose of “border control” is to avoid this being a precedent. Of course they are cionflating crossing the border with all methods of illegal immigration, buiut nobody’s arguing. Actually there’s also this thing about keeping track of people who leave the United States and biometric measurements for working.
Another falsehood you are peddling in this thread is that an increase in the supply of low-skilled labor will result in an increase in wages or not a decline in wages for such labor. I think that must be the “Dump of Labor” theory you and Paul Krugman invented that inverts the labor supply curve based on wishcasting .
The “Lump of Labor theory” If you beleived that an increase in the supply of low-skilled labor will result in a loss of jobs for others you beleive in the “lump of labor” theory.
Anyway an increase in the supply of low income labor does not depress wages, any more than being able to import things instead of manufacturing them here depresses wages. Or automation,. Same thing.
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/18/2013 @ 2:42 pmWall Street Journal article:
Those ‘Guest Workers’ of the NBA and NHL Would Manu Ginóbili be able to play for the San Antonio Spurs if he needed an H1-B visa?
If sports teams had to play by the rules of other businesses:
1) There would be a low cap on the number of foreign players, well below market demand. There might be limit of one dozen a year with no team allowed more than one.
2) The players would have to wait years, even a decade before joining their teams.
3) Teams would have to prove they advertised for the position but couldn’t find an American.
4) There would be limits on how many players could come from any one country. There would be, say, 10 slots for Canada, 10 slots for the Phillipines and 10 slots for Chad. And no country could have more than 7%, regardless of size or proximity to the United States.
5) Once in the United States, players could never become free agents, but would be tied to their teams.
Right now, of course the majority of layers on hockey teams are from outside of the United States. Of the 32 players on the Boston Bruins,
Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/19/2013 @ 4:44 pm18 are from Canada, others from places in Europe and only 5 from the USA. The Chicago Blackhawks have 13 Canadians out of 27, and only 5 Americans.