Patterico's Pontifications

6/21/2013

Amnesty Will Pass in the Senate

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:09 am

The likely votes have been counted, and they can break a filibuster.

As best as I can tell, it’s now up to our teary-eyed leader in the House to refuse to bring this sham to a vote. That’s our only hope.

Are we feeling confident?

UPDATE: It’s good for the folks!

UPDATE x2: Well done by Laura Ingraham against Bill O’Reilly, who buys the narrative that if we don’t create 8 million new Democrat voters, we’re going to lose elections.

172 Responses to “Amnesty Will Pass in the Senate”

  1. Bill O’Reilly’s understanding of this bill is on par with his understanding of the tides.

    carlitos (49ef9f)

  2. I have no doubt over time, as these Mexicans eventually integrate, 2/3/4 generations later — they will vote Republican.

    But right now the Welfare is too good for mostly ignorant peasants who are trying to get by.

    Republicans are too stupid or benefit directly from these folks.

    I have no doubt, Bill’s mansion is decked out in Mexican Labor. From the hedges, to the kitchen, nanny and handyman.

    Rodney King's Spirit (ae12ec)

  3. I was mercilessly hammered in an older thread for stating that the GOP had to find a way to integrate and assimilate the illegal immigrants who were here, because the rejectionism that is currently in vogue amongst most of my conservative compatriots will wind up pushing Hispanic voters into voting Democratic in percentages approaching those of black voters. My view — which remains unchanged — was thoroughly mocked, but it seems as though those Republicans who actually have to count votes might be a little more in agreement with my position.

    The very realistic Dana (3e4784)

  4. Don’t care what the illegals want. Sure, they can have an opinion, but it’s not the controlling opinion. They can take what they get or they can leave. I don’t care which.

    DEMANDING amnesty? Bite me.

    Oh, and how’s that equalization thing going with Mexican law? Can I buy land there now?

    The arrogance is amazing.

    mojo (8096f2)

  5. I was mercilessly hammered in an older thread for stating that the GOP had to find a way to integrate and assimilate the illegal immigrants who were here,

    That is a gross distortion of why people were hammering you.

    JD (b63a52)

  6. no, its dead on

    E.PWJ (016f5f)

  7. Good Allah.

    I suppose either one of you could provide support for that. I recall people objecting to gross generalizations, insinuations of xenophobia, claims of being anti-immigrant, etc …

    JD (b63a52)

  8. A filibuster isn’t even the important thing.

    Senator Charles Schumer set a goal of 70 votes in the Senate. This is because he wants it to pass the House and he judged he needed that kind of majority to argue this was a bipartisan bill and top get republican votes.

    But the truth is, it’s not automatic.

    Speaker John Boehner said he wouldn’t brinbg abill to the floor that didn’t get a majority of Republican votes.

    The House is working on a bunch of separate bills, and it seems like they are trying to avoid including amnesty in them, which would mean, of course, that nothing at all will happen.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  9. Comment by mojo (8096f2) — 6/21/2013 @ 7:44 am

    DEMANDING amnesty? Bite me.

    Oh, that’s going to happen. Maybe it’s a few years off, but if there’s no Dream Act, that will happen. And the crowds of course will not just consist, or mainly consist, of non-U.S. citizens.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  10. Thius is an issue that can tear the country apart – just as important as the Vietnam War, or abortion.

    The potential is almost as big as the slavery issue in the 1850s. Because this is existential for many people.

    Of course if the policy of Obama continues for years, maybe not, but the Republican Presidenmtial candidate in 2016 will not be able to avoid taking a position on whether he would continue the Obama policy.

    If people oppose amnesty eventually they will get not only amnesty for those who came in the past up to that point but those who will come in the future.

    It’s not like there is no precedent for amnesty.

    Not only 1986, but the United States has a policy of instant amnesty for Cubans, as Marco Rubio well knows. Once they make it to shore, they’re in.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  11. JD wrote:

    I was mercilessly hammered in an older thread for stating that the GOP had to find a way to integrate and assimilate the illegal immigrants who were here,

    That is a gross distortion of why people were hammering you.

    I’m sorry, but could you point out where in my comment above that I made any claims at all as to why many were opposed to my position? Thank you in advance.

    The sarcastic Dana (3e4784)

  12. O’Reilly was truly pathetic last night in his immigration segment w/Laura Ingraham. He was not only wrong on the issue, but characteristically lazy as well. Ingraham said she had read the entire 800+-page Gang of 8 bill, and it was clear O’Reilly had not, to say the least, and was relying instead on his afternoon phone call with that sleazy little huckster Marco Rubio. Reilly knew nothing about the bill’s various outrages, and when Ingraham tried to point them out, he dismissed her with his trademark sneers and bellicosity. I clicked the TV off and won’t watch that lazy, rage-filled, self-absorbed twit ever again.

    Kevin Stafford (1d1b9e)

  13. Dana,

    For those of us who didn’t read or don’t recall your earlier discussion, do you think the GOP is against assimilating and integrating illegal immigrants? It sounds like you do. Do you feel Republicans’ opposition to amnesty is evidence the GOP doesn’t want them to assimilate? Aren’t there other ways than amnesty to do that?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  14. By the way, Dana, this is anecdotal but embracing amnesty is pushing Hispanics in my community away from the GOP. They think Republicans don’t stand for anything.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  15. Good on Laura Ingraham for stepp’n up and exposing Bill O’Phoney. The title of the video is “O’Reilly Battles Ingraham on Immigration” – Where was the battle? That title was false advertising, as O’Reilly was massacred by Ingraham. O’Reilly was reduced to a blithering fool. He clearly had not read the bill, did not know what he was talking about and was exposed for the actual .toady he is for APE. http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/the_self-delusion_of_the_american_political_establishment.html

    So much for the “No Spin Zone” and for “looking out for the folks.” O’Reilly is walking journalistic malpractice.

    More and more, O’Reilly is proving FOX is guarding the chicken coop.

    Gary L. Zerman (95c896)

  16. “I’m sorry, but could you point out where in my comment above that I made any claims at all as to why many were opposed to my position?”

    Dana – The part of you comment above where you made claims about why people objected to your argument is here:

    “because the rejectionism that is currently in vogue amongst most of my conservative compatriots will wind up pushing Hispanic voters into voting Democratic in percentages approaching those of black voters.”

    JD is correct that is did not fully correspond to the arguments you were making on the thread.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  17. I was mercilessly hammered in an older thread for stating that the GOP had to find a way to integrate and assimilate the illegal immigrants who were here,

    Had you said you were hammered for making gross generalizations, insinuations of xenophobia, and claims that we were anti-immigrant, it would have been more accurate.

    JD (b63a52)

  18. I think Dana’s account is just about spot-on. The gist of the objections to Dana’s position in the other thread was “I have no objection to legal immigration from Mexico or anywhere else” – which is fine – but to my understanding (and correct me if I’m wrong) Dana was making the point that preaching acceptance for legal immigrants and rejection for illegal immigrants was bound (as a rhetorical matter, rightly or wrongly) to alienate a large percentage of Hispanic voters.

    The only claim Dana has (implicitly) made about the positions of others with regard to illegal immigrants is that they sometimes amount to “rejectionism.” Is there any objection to that characterization (not rooted in rhetoric)?

    Leviticus (b98400)

  19. 15. From the American Thinker article:

    The mad dash to pass an immigration bill immediately legitimizing 11 to 20 million people illegally in the country is being proposed by the APE as a means of insuring their continued existence. This would be accomplished by the increase in the voting population of those favoring an ever-expanding government while concurrently diminishing the influence of conservatives or the Tea Party movement.

    This delays the increase in voting population many years. It does not affect the number of people counted in the census because it is already the rule thaat everybody counts, and Democrats (and lawyers) would not tolerate it if it was not.

    That the impact on the middle class or low wage workers will be devastating in an already shrinking economy with unsustainable social spending is immaterial

    It’s not immaterial – it’s false.

    Todaay the Wall Street Journal editorial page praised the Congressional Budget office for at last using dynamic scoring.

    http://t.co/u6AQKIbVB9


    The CBO is not the Oracle of Delphi, and its Keynesian convictions and mandate to “score” as gains even the most unrealistic claims of its political masters normally ensures that it is wrong. But here’s a third irony: This time the CBO ditched its usual methods—a move that tends to discredit its usual work and suggests that these estimates are more accurate.

    The budget gnomes normally put an official price tag on legislation on a “static” basis, meaning that it assumes little impact on the economy even when Congress changes the incentives to work and invest. This non sequitur is typically used as a weapon against tax cuts, but it makes even less sense in the case of immigration. By definition a larger labor force from legalized immigrants—about six million new workers in 2023, or a 3.5% increase, the CBO figures—adds to GDP.

    So the CBO was forced to make intellectual progress and dynamically score the bill, meaning it incorporates larger economic effects. But it also produced a second, more dynamic and even more unusual analysis that looks at factors such as higher productivity, capital investment and immigration’s effects on wages for workers with different skills.

    Under that model, GDP is 3.3% higher in 2023 and 5.4% higher in 2033 over the status quo. Those are multitrillion-dollar gains. In the best-case scenario, GDP is 5.7% higher in 2033, and the deficit falls by about $1.2 trillion.

    The restrictionists are seizing on the CBO’s finding that the Senate bill will push down average U.S. wages by 0.1%, but then they also ignore the conclusion that wages will rise by 0.5% in 2033 as the fluid labor market corrects over the long term and this temporary imbalance dissolves.

    Now this has become an issue:

    http://www.cis.org/dynamic-scoring-of-immigration

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  20. DRJ asked:

    For those of us who didn’t read or don’t recall your earlier discussion, do you think the GOP is against assimilating and integrating illegal immigrants? It sounds like you do. Do you feel Republicans’ opposition to amnesty is evidence the GOP doesn’t want them to assimilate? Aren’t there other ways than amnesty to do that?

    That’s a two part question, assimilating and integrating, and quite frankly, I’d say that yes, there are some, certainly not all, but some, who just flat don’t want the Hispanics here, whether illegally or legally.

    Now, not one person here has said that he, individually, was against Hispanic immigration, as long as it was done legally, and I cannot speak to any particular individual’s personal beliefs, but yes, on the whole, I’d say that there are a lot of conservatives who just flat don’t want the Hispanics here, period.

    As far as assimilation is concerned, yes, I believe that most conservatives want the Hispanics who are here to fully assimilate.

    What I just wrote sounds starkly internally contradictory — oppose the immigration but want assimilation — but it really isn’t: it’s a recognition, in both cases, of wanting the majority culture — and yes, I will definitively say majority white culture — preserved. I don’t see conservatives as racists at all, but as people definitely interested in the cultural integrity of the United States. We have already seen how the insular inner-city black culture has been hugely destructive to our society, and don’t want to see a second, significantly sized, separate minority culture take root and grow in the United States.

    Are there other ways than amnesty to accomplish assimilation? Intellectually, I want to say yes, but from a practical viewpoint, I very much doubt it.

    The very serious Dana (3e4784)

  21. “Had you said you were hammered for making gross generalizations, insinuations of xenophobia, and claims that we were anti-immigrant, it would have been more accurate.”

    - JD

    No. It would have been far less accurate.

    Leviticus (b98400)

  22. Leviticus – did I read that correctly that you claim Dana is right, rhetorically, but then request objections that are not rhetorical?

    I disagree, wholeheartedly, with your evaluation, but understand how you arrive there. He was given countless chance to expand upon or clarify, and he chose to stake out that rhetorical ground.

    JD (b63a52)

  23. What I just wrote sounds starkly internally contradictory — oppose the immigration but want assimilation — but it really isn’t: it’s a recognition, in both cases, of wanting the majority culture — and yes, I will definitively say majority white culture — preserved

    Care to try again, Leviticus ?

    JD (b63a52)

  24. but yes, on the whole, I’d say that there are a lot of conservatives who just flat don’t want the Hispanics here, period.

    Or this?

    JD (b63a52)

  25. Mr rocks wrote:

    Dana – The part of you comment above where you made claims about why people objected to your argument is here:

    “because the rejectionism that is currently in vogue amongst most of my conservative compatriots will wind up pushing Hispanic voters into voting Democratic in percentages approaching those of black voters.”

    JD is correct that is did not fully correspond to the arguments you were making on the thread.

    I believe you have missed it, Mr rocks. That is my statement of how the opposition to illegal immigration is seen, and does not make any claims about what motivated individuals here to differ with my position.

    I cannot — not being a mind reader — and will not state that any particular individual’s motivations are X or Y, but I can, and will, say what the motivations of conservatives, in the aggregate, look like to other people.

    Arguments about legality and following form and all of that don’t look like all that much to a lot of people. Rather, this looks more like a “we don’t want you here” type of argument to a lot of people. If people believe that you have said we don’t want you, go the f(ornicate) away, their reaction is not likely to be to vote for your preferred candidates.

    The extremely serious Dana (3e4784)

  26. “Did I read that correctly that you claim Dana is right, rhetorically, but then request objections that are not rhetorical?”

    - JD

    Not exactly. I think that Dana’s point is that conservatives have lost a battle of rhetoric, and can either swallow their pride on the issue and adopt new rhetoric or perist in old rhetoric and lose political power.

    I don’t think that Dana is condoning the rhetorical shift – just acknowledging it.

    Leviticus (b98400)

  27. Apparently words mean whatever we want them to mean, where you can accuse broad groups of people of being anti-immigrant, against Hispanic immigration, or in favor of preserving white culture, but it is just crazy talk to think that they are saying just that, and besides, it is just rhetoric, and in all practical matters, it is true.

    JD (b63a52)

  28. Perception is reality so if they just keep calling you racist xenophobes that are anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant long enough, then it simply becomes true.

    JD (b63a52)

  29. Is it possible for rational and decent people to be highly pro shopper but vocally anti shoplifter when the intended act for both “transactions” is carrying merchandise out of the store? I need to know this.

    elissa (709869)

  30. Ingraham: The Senate bill is not a bill yet and the idea of it becoming law is a pipe dream. You could drive a truck through the loopholes.

    How pay for agents – in the bill they say they will pay for it by deficit reductions. Cornyn complains his amendment was opposed and he only wanted to add 5,000 agents. But Cornyn was not for more immigration!!

    How does O’Reilly let that pass? It’s the added labor force that reduces the deficit that supposedly pays for the immigration agents, and that wouldn’t happen under Cornyn’s scheme, or he’s not willing to admit it..

    O’Reilly didn’t spot the fallacy in Ingraham’s argument.

    Ingraham says the CBO claims unemployment will go up and wages go down the next ten years [she doesn’t mention they project very very marginally, and the newly legalized people are included in the wage statistics!

    O’Reilly doesn’t know enough to know that.
    He just lets it pass.

    Ingraham says that right now Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio would both lose to Hillary Clinton in Florida, and that Republicans could be helped by a pro-growth agenda, rather than this which she claims would “hammer” the middle class.(She should at least find out the name of a defunct economist who claims that)

    O’Reilly has no idea how to argue economics.

    Laura Ingraham just has a bunch of fallacious talking points, but Bill O’Reilly has nothing, except possibly worse talking points. Everybody’s wrong here, exceept that O’Reilly really doesn’t say very much.

    Ingraham says the fact that Schumer and Obama (probably) are for this should be an indication, and O’Reilly says you shouldn’t judge a bill by who is for it, Ingraham says she’s not arguing that and that’s a minor point.

    O’Reilly cites McCain, and McCain is not a liar. Ingraham says McCain doesn’t believe there should be a border.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  31. “I believe you have missed it, Mr rocks. That is my statement of how the opposition to illegal immigration is seen, and does not make any claims about what motivated individuals here to differ with my position.”

    Foolish Dana – Let me get this straight. Are you claiming you got hammered for an argument you did not make on another thread?

    That’s crazy talk. You proffered the same argument on the other thread that you did here and it was rejected by numerous commenters. You also erected fields of blazing strawmen, which is what JD and I were both pointing out.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  32. Comment by The extremely serious Dana (3e4784) — 6/21/2013 @ 9:57 am

    Arguments about legality and following form and all of that don’t look like all that much to a lot of people. Rather, this looks more like a “we don’t want you here” type of argument to a lot of people. If people believe that you have said we don’t want you, go the f(ornicate) away, their reaction is not likely to be to vote for your preferred candidates

    It’s easy to make that argument because saying you are against the law but in favor of enforcement really doesn’t make sense to too many people. If you are against the law: repeal it. If you want to enforce it, then you like the underlying law.

    This is like the Wickersham Commission in 1931 which said Prohibition should be repealed but enforced until then. That sank with a thud.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  33. 29. Comment by elissa (709869) — 6/21/2013 @ 10:09 am

    Is it possible for rational and decent people to be highly pro shopper but vocally anti shoplifter when the intended act for both “transactions” is carrying merchandise out of the store? I need to know this

    Imagine a law thaty onmly allowed certain peole to shop.

    A better idea: A beach that only allowed residents to use it, or a town that only allowed parking spaces to be used by residents. Then other people start to use it.

    can anyone realistically claim to be pro-outsider if they want to crack down on illegal use of beaches or parking spaces?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  34. “Is there any objection to that characterization (not rooted in rhetoric)?”

    Leviticus – Yes, very many in substance. You need to revisit the thread.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  35. My head is spinning.

    elissa (709869)

  36. Dana,

    There are many Democrats who belong to unions that oppose Hispanic immigrants. By your standards, doesn’t that make the Democratic Party anti-immigrant and anti-assimilation? Or does the Democratic Party’s support for amnesty cure all ills?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  37. Comment by JD (b63a52) — 6/21/2013 @ 9:59 am

    you can accuse broad groups of people of being anti-immigrant, against Hispanic immigration, or in favor of preserving white culture, but it is just crazy talk to think that they are saying just that,

    Racism is human but geographicalism is something not very human so logically people are goinbg to believe what’s involved it is some form of racism, or cultural opposition, not geographicalism.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  38. JD wrote:

    Perception is reality so if they just keep calling you racist xenophobes that are anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant long enough, then it simply becomes true.

    I think that JD was attempting to be sarcastic with that one, but whether he was or was not, what he wrote is absotively, posilutely true.

    The Dana whose perception is reality (3e4784)

  39. The words “racism” and “racist” as they are thrown around used today have lost any common meaning and pretty much all of their original meaning.

    elissa (709869)

  40. It is absolutely positively not true, not under any meaning of the word true, and that is where our differences begin.

    JD (91f8a8)

  41. You can call a piece of asparagus a pitching wedge from now until the end of time, and it will still be a piece of asparagus. It will never be a pitching wedge, no matter how many people you recruit to call it one.

    Elissa – racism has long since become opposition to a particular side’s point of view.

    JD (91f8a8)

  42. “Arguments about legality and following form and all of that don’t look like all that much to a lot of people. Rather, this looks more like a “we don’t want you here” type of argument to a lot of people. If people believe that you have said we don’t want you, go the f(ornicate) away, their reaction is not likely to be to vote for your preferred candidates.”

    Foolish Dana – Statements like these is where you got the most pushback. Hispanics are not natural conservative voters and you were shown evidence to support that view. Blacks are more natural conservative voters. Back in #20 you wisely stated ” I cannot speak to any particular individual’s personal beliefs” yet here you are projecting future Hispanic voting patterns, which I find both internally contradictory and a pure fear based reaction to Democratic demagoguery.

    I linked to an opinion survey from Rasmussen showing the American public preferred a border security enforcement immigration reform strategy by a 4:1 margin in that thread and on Tuesday CNN echoed those results showing 62% supported border enforcement first. The term “rejectionist” is pure political rhetoric and there is no fierce urgency to pass a flawed comprehensive immigration reform bill now. We know Democrats will use immigration as a club one way or another, so why not choose to do the right thing for the country rather than your solution of Hispandering for votes.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  43. DRJ wrote:

    There are many Democrats who belong to unions that oppose Hispanic immigrants. By your standards, doesn’t that make the Democratic Party anti-immigrant and anti-assimilation? Or does the Democratic Party’s support for amnesty cure all ills?

    This is another perception vs reality item. Not every Democrat accepts everything in the latest Democratic Party platform, and while your statement that there are union members who oppose Hispanic immigration, it’s also true that not every union member is a Democrat nor is everyone who opposes Hispanic immigration a Republican. Whether it is true of every Democrat or not, the Democratic Party is perceived as being more friendly and open to Hispanic immigration; whether it is true of every Republican or not, the Republican Party is perceived as being more hostile to Hispanic immigration.

    People are voting on these perceptions, because their perceptions are their reality. There is no way, intellectually and philosophically, that black Americans should be consistently giving over 90% of their votes to Democrats, but that’s what happens. There are millions of black entrepreneurs, there are millions of hard-working black Americans, there are millions of black Americans who belong to Baptist and other conservative churches, there are millions of highly educated blacks and millions of very well-to-do black Americans. By any rational standard, these people should be mostly Republicans . . . but they aren’t.

    Why? For whatever reasons they have, they believe that the Republican Party simply doesn’t represent their interests, and that Republicans are hostile to blacks. That perception doesn’t have top be true, and it isn’t true, but we still don’t get their votes.

    The working man Dana (3e4784)

  44. Comment by daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 6/21/2013 @ 10:42 am

    I linked to an opinion survey from Rasmussen showing the American public preferred a border security enforcement immigration reform strategy by a 4:1 margin in that thread and on Tuesday CNN echoed those results showing 62% supported border enforcement first.

    It’s a trick question because:

    1) Most voters have no idea of limitations on legal immigration.

    2) More enforcement than what we have seen is pretty impossible, and it also kills people.

    The polls also show they want more legal immigration.

    On this issue most people are low information voters and they are being manipulated. Would people say they wanted enforcement first if that meant there would be no legalization?

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  45. There are a bunch of problems here that nobody is addressing. The major elephant in the room right now is social security. At the present time we have more people retiring and going on social security than we have entering the workforce. We need to increase the number of people on the tax rolls.

    We can’t put people in the tax rolls unless we have policies that spur economic growth. It should be obvious to everyone that just having the federal reserve print a bunch of cash and throw it into the economy via government spending does not work. We have got to implement policies of economic growth if we want to have the jobs for these people to put them on the tax rolls in the first place.

    Most importantly, these people are ALREADY here. There is no way we can round them all up and send them home. Their kids are already US citizens will full rights including the right to vote. The second and third generations (there are probably illegals here who are grandparents by now) outnumber the first generation, and that is who we are talking about here.

    I would support giving them permanent resident status but no right to vote if they did not go through the proper process. They are free to leave the country and initiate the proper process from outside.

    Bringing them “out of the shadows” and protecting them from exploitation by unethical employers does not have to include a right to vote. Make them legal residents. Let them come “into the light” because they are already here anyway and aren’t going to go anywhere. But with permanent residency, not citizenship.

    But even doing that isn’t going to do a damned thing unless we implement policies of economic growth.

    crosspatch (6adcc9)

  46. “It’s a trick question because”

    Sammy – There you go with the assumption of bad motives again.

    You are flat out wrong. The answer is not dependent on the respondents’ knowledge of the limits of legal immigration. Why the heck would it be? Your statement about more enforcement being pretty impossible is just knee jerk uniformed tripe. If more enforcement is not possible, why did the DOJ sue Arizona to prevent more enforcement, not complete the border fence authorized by Congress in 2006, and Obama tell ICE to stand down on deprtation by executive order.

    Sammy you have no credibility.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  47. whether it is true of every Republican or not, the Republican Party is perceived as being more hostile to Hispanic immigration.

    There is that conflating Hispanic and illegal crap again.

    Leviticus – how many examples are required to move this beyond merely rhetoric?

    JD (b50cac)

  48. 2., Assimilation is not happening much, unless you mean assimilating into the welfare state; the ESL classes in LAUSD are for second generation kids, for instance. And NEVER has the Latino vote gone to Repubs in any significant portion.

    Also, once these illegals are legalized and can demand minimum wage and benefits, etc., what do you think the businesses who depend on their cheap illegal labor will do? Just double their salary and benefits and pass the cost on to us? No way! They will beg the government to ignore the border, and the government will acquiesce.

    The cycle will continue. And once the Obamacare enroll machine is in place and is registering everyone as Dems, the game is over and Obama has won. He is not as dumb as he pretends.

    Patricia (be0117)

  49. I could be wrong, but a lot of Hispanics are against amnesty, or at least want the borders closed. More illegals or more third-world immigrants = more competition for the low-skilled jobs that they do.

    I’m unclear as to why the GOP is not hammering that point home and using it as a wedge with African-American voters, especially those in the inner cities. They don’t need more competition for jobs….

    bridget (84c06f)

  50. Ted Cruz !

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  51. “If people believe that you have said we don’t want you, go the f(ornicate) away, their reaction is not likely to be to vote for your preferred candidates.”

    - The Dana who apparently hasn’t toed the party line hard enough

    That’s Dana’s point, in a nutshell. Do you disagree with that point, JD? daleyrocks? No? Then what is the disagreement here?

    Do you just suspect that Dana secretly condones what he is merely pointing out?

    Leviticus (b98400)

  52. People are voting on these perceptions, because their perceptions are their reality. There is no way, intellectually and philosophically, that black Americans should be consistently giving over 90% of their votes to Democrats, but that’s what happens… Why? For whatever reasons they have, they believe that the Republican Party simply doesn’t represent their interests, and that Republicans are hostile to blacks. That perception doesn’t have top be true, and it isn’t true, but we still don’t get their votes.”

    - Dana

    If that doesn’t make the point clear enough, I don’t know what will. There’s no “conflating” going on; there’s a discussion of the difference between day-to-day perceptions and metaphysical realities, and a disagreement about which you’d rather hang your hat on in November.

    Leviticus (b98400)

  53. Dana’s sin was not bookending his observation with sufficient Rage Against the Dying of the Light.

    Leviticus (b98400)

  54. “If people believe that you have said we don’t want you

    I have not said that, nor have conservatives in general, therefore I see no reason to accept the premise that we have.

    JD (b50cac)

  55. Leviticus I am curious. If people who don’t know you but wanted for some reason to slander you or damage you, insisted by repeating over and over and over again that you were a child pornographer or a serial plagiarizer or that you cheat at sports–and you knew it was not true– would you just shrug and say “well, so be it if that’s the general perception”? Or would you fight back like hell to defend yourself and clear your name?

    elissa (709869)

  56. Dana’s sin was not bookending his observation with sufficient Rage Against the Dying of the Light.

    Bugger off

    JD (b50cac)

  57. JD wrote:

    whether it is true of every Republican or not, the Republican Party is perceived as being more hostile to Hispanic immigration.

    There is that conflating Hispanic and illegal crap again.

    What part of “is perceived as” don’t you understand?

    You can take all of the distinctions you wish about the differences between legal and illegal immigration, or between Hispanic immigration or illegal immigration, and every bit of it might be true about how you are and what you believe, but it doesn’t amount to squat as far as how conservatives are being perceived in all of this.

    The evidence is there: the Republican candidate’s share of the Hispanic vote has been decreasing; Mitt Romney got a whopping 27% of the Hispanic vote.

    I do not care how noble or how correct your position is: if it wins 45% of the vote, it’s a loser.

    The Dana who can count (3e4784)

  58. “I have not said that, nor have conservatives in general, therefore I see no reason to accept the premise that we have.”

    - JD

    Omigod. NO ONE IS SAYING THAT YOU HAVE SAID THAT. DANA IS SAYING THAT PEOPLE BELIEVE YOU HAVE SAID THAT. THERE’S A DIFFERENCE.

    Leviticus (b98400)

  59. Yet your desire to roll over in supplication has no track record of success either.

    JD (b50cac)

  60. elissa,

    Of course I would defend myself, vehemently, and proclaim my innocence to the heavens. But if everyone perceived the charge to be true, I wouldn’t get asked to babysit very often, would I?

    Leviticus (b98400)

  61. I’m not arguing that it’s a good thing that perceptions become realities. I’m saying that perceptions often become realities. This isn’t a normative discussion. It’s an empirical discussion.

    Leviticus (b98400)

  62. ZOMFGWTFBBQ LEVITICUS WENT ALL CAPS therefore be is right. Conservatives are anti-Hispanic and anti-immigrant because perception is reality and that makes it true.

    JD (b50cac)

  63. Raise your hand if you think abandoning principles and rewarding people that have shown a contempt for our Nation’s laws as their first act in our country will result in a net win for Team R.

    JD (b50cac)

  64. You seem to be having trouble grasping the distinction that Dana is making. I felt that blunter instruments were called for.

    Leviticus (b98400)

  65. Leviticus – I have friends who have friends who are Hispanic.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  66. “You seem to be having trouble grasping the distinction that Dana is making.”

    Leviticus – You seem to have trouble grasping the points other people have made. You need to revisit the thread as I have suggested.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  67. I don’t have any problem reading Dana’s point. I don’t accept the premise, or the resultant conclusions.

    JD (b50cac)

  68. daleyrocks,

    Dana and I seem to be on the same page about what point Dana is making. So whose position am I misunderstanding? Yours? JD’s?

    Leviticus (b98400)

  69. Ted Cruz gives me a thrill up my leg.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  70. JD,

    Dana says “people perceive X about Republicans.” Do you disagree that people perceive X about Republicans?

    Leviticus (b98400)

  71. Dana, it’s kind of an oily argument you’re making. On the one hand you make the explicit argument that you were “hammered” for stating X. On the other hand you claim not to be a mind reader and say you don’t know why people opposed you.

    Yes, you did claim to know. You said yourself that the people who opposed you were in opposition to X. Had you said you were hammered after you said X you’d have merely been describing a sequence of events and could reasonably claim not to know your oppositions’ motivations. But you didn’t; you yourself identified the motivating factor.

    As to the substance of your comment @3, we need to find a way to integrate and assimilate all immigrants. And the Tsarnaev brothers demonstrate the fact that it isn’t just our immigration system the vandals in government have been breaking but our assimilation system as well. They were taught to hate America through our educational system. In fact people in Cambridge have been forced to admit that their open anti-Americanism really didn’t stand out in the cesspool of anti-Americanism that is Cambridge, MA.

    Uncle Ruslan if you recall was proudly pro-American. He wasn’t exposed to our education system; he came here as an adult.

    We don’t have an assimilation system. We have a balkanization system. We create new identities for people and teach them that this new group identity commands their primary loyalty. Similar to the pre-civil war period when a person thought of themselves as a Virginian or a Pennsylvanian first, American second, for the most part. Now we teach people to think of themselves as Hispanic or Asian first, American second.

    It’s really odd and historically illiterate to lump all Asians or all people from Spanish speaking countries in the Western hemisphere together.

    In reality people from different countries in Asia hate each other with a passion. For instance a large number of Filipinos hate the Japanese for the atrocities they committed against them during WWII. On the other hand a large number of Japanese despise Filipinos as an inferior race. Yet when children from those countries immigrate here go to our schools (or children of immigrants) they’re taught they both belong to the same group, and that group is supposed to hate America for its imperialist past.

    It’s the same teaching method that was inflicted on the Tsarnaev brothers (not that I’m making an excuse for them; they’re scum). Our schools are eager to teach about the evils of the crusades. Not a peep about the jihad that preceded it which created the situation the crusades attempted to remedy.

    Even this grab bag term “rejectionism” you’re using is obviously a creation of the same hate-America-first crowd that’s running our balkanization system. Rejectionism? Compared to what? We want Mexicans here a lot more than Mexicans want Guatemalans there. We keep flagellating ourselves because we’ve convince ourselves we’re the most racist country in the world. In fact we’re one of the least racist countries in the world. This is bizarre. If you want to see racism, go to Africa. Occasionally it makes the news. The Congo, Darfur, Rwanda. But if you asked the average American which country is more racist, those or the US, they’d pick the one country where people don’t routinely hack each other apart with pangas because of their origins.

    The upshot is we have quite a few dysfunctional systems to fix first before we even consider legalizing a whole new population. The fact of the matter is if the term “rejectionism” (is that like “assault rifle” in that it can mean anything the speaker wants it to mean?) has any relevance to this conversation it’s because I reject the liberal paradigm through which you’re viewing this issue. “Hispanics” only exist because liberals have defined the terms of debate which you accept.

    In reality we have a disparate group of individuals in this country from a variety of countries that speak Spanish (or sometimes Portuguese; I believe Brazilians are lumped in with Hispanics) as as primary language. They’re not all the same. Hell, the Irish went pretty much everywhere. Not all of them got off the boat in this country (it’s kind of a shock when you meet a couple of pasty white, red headed dudes who can’t speak English because they’re from Mexico). The idea that immigration reform is their red line issue comes as real news to many of them who really do want jobs and a better economy first and foremost.

    If we’re going to be forced to use the term “rejectionism” in relation to immigration reform, let’s use it our advantage. Let’s go to blacks and tell them that immigration reform represents the Democratic party’s “rejectionism” of them. That would have the advantage of actually being the truth. And in reality if you’re looking for a wellspring of secret conservatives who vote democratic in spite of that fact, that’s where you’ll find it.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  72. “You seem to be having trouble grasping the distinction that Dana is making.”

    Leviticus – Dana is afraid of being labeled a racist and losing future elections by taking a principled stand on immigration reform. I am not. What is so hard to understand about those different positions?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  73. If a perception is divorced from reality, Leviticus, there is no reason to accept the premise, or the silly ideas designed to help fix the perception. How about addressing the flaws, and dealing with solutions that are based on our actual positions, as opposed to the leftist and MFM narratives?

    JD (b50cac)

  74. daleyrocks,

    Nothing. What’s hard to understand are the accusations being leveled at Dana for stating that position in the first place.

    Leviticus (b98400)

  75. How does this sound: Enforcement first: The speed limit should not be raised above 55 miles per hour until you can show that the speed limit is enforced, but you are not for low speed limits.

    If the speed limit is raised to 60 Miles per hour, people will violate the new speed limit too, so don’t raise it unless you can be assured that what the law says will be what will be.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  76. They are not accusations, Leviticus. He has repeatedly asserted a variety of them, and when called out on them, hides behind perception is reality thus it is true. I don’t get why this is so difficult for you of the fancy learning to understand.

    JD (b50cac)

  77. ==I’m not arguing that it’s a good thing that perceptions become realities. I’m saying that perceptions often become realities. This isn’t a normative discussion. It’s an empirical discussion==

    So despite the big words, and seeing that you are aware that the perceptions may well be lies, and you sure are sorry that that happens sometimes,—hey, it is what it is so as a country let’s just roll with it. For someone who has appeared to sniff out and decry what you perceive as situational ethics or hypocrisy in past threads, you seem a little wobbly on those principles here.

    elissa (709869)

  78. 70. JD,

    Dana says “people perceive X about Republicans.” Do you disagree that people perceive X about Republicans?

    Comment by Leviticus (b98400) — 6/21/2013 @ 12:11 pm

    If you don’t mind I won’t wait for JD. I’m pretty sick of the passive voice. Mistakes were made, targeting was done, James Rosen was somehow branded a criminal, guns were walked into Mexico, etc. It just sorta happened.

    People don’t spontaneously perceive certain things about Republicans. Other people indoctrinate those people to believe certain things about Republicans. Those other people are called Democrats. For instance blacks don’t spontaneously perceive Republicans are racists. Democrats in the CBC go around telling blacks that Republicans want to bring back slavery, Jim Crow, and the lynching tree (I believe the lynching tree comment came from CBC chairman Emanuel Cleaver himself).

    So the question is what do you do about it. The wrong answer is that you don’t confirm that the accusations made against you were right all along and change your policies. “Yeah, our immigration policies were anti-Hispanic. We’re sorry, we’ll change.”

    What you do is defend your policies on the basis that the accusations are false, and show why.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  79. I am really having trouble understanding why people are missing adjective-Dana’s point so often and so thoroughly. I usually read the site these days through a medium that doesn’t let me reply (literally… I labor to type out a response through a clunky interface and it disappears into the ether!), so lurking comes easier than going to a computer that lets me speak.

    Leviticus is correct in how he characterizes Dana’s oh-so-very-consistent-and-precise point which is fairly simple if you don’t read into it. Dana is saying that the GOP is not going to get votes from Hispanics if they think the GOP is hostile to them. Even if that hostility is undeserved for whatever reason.

    You all know and respect Dana, even if you don’t agree with him. Take a second to re-read what he’s written and pretend it’s signed by your Mom or Dad. You would at least give them the courtesy of understanding exactly what they were trying to say, right?

    Don’t make me come down there!! ;)

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  80. At #14 DRJ wrote, They (Hispanics) think Republicans don’t stand for anything. That’s close, but not quite.

    The Stupid Party stands for self-deception, the complacent cowards won’t fight for the principles the Party espouses, but they’ll pay lip service to individual freedom and limited government if that’s what it takes to placate Conservative voters long enough to extract enough campaign contributions to keep the Party’s pampered Mandarans competitive through the next election cycle.

    The GOP establishment despises Conservatives and Conservative policies almost as much (and almost as openly) as they despise the TEA Party. The GOP’s wrongheaded embrace of so-called Immigration Reform is nothing less than a suicide pact on steroids and coming down the tracks like a runaway freight train.

    The Grand Old Party can’t survive this fundamental betrayal of the rule of law. Rewarding blatant in-your-face lawbreakers with amnesty, food stamps, welfare, and health care along with the promise of eventual citizenship is as sure a prescription for national extinction as surrendering to Islamic terrorism.

    The GOP’s might as well adopt the wooly mammoth as it’s mascot, or the lemming, either would signal accurately where the Party, and by extension the USA, is headed.

    ropelight (d5a0bb)

  81. The notion that Hispanics will magically reward Republicans for voting for this bill, is a premise I just don’t understand.
    To paraphrase what Patterico said yesterday, “Ya mean just like they did following the passage of the 1986 amnesty bill ?!”

    Good grief, Charlie Brown.

    If “X” represents the number of Latinos who currently vote Democrat, then “X + zillions more” represents the number of Latinos who will be voting Democrat once this de facto amnesty bill kicks in.

    And we already have laws prohibiting illegal immigration that we don’t enforce. The notion that inserting language into this new bill that “promises to get tough with the border !” will somehow appease our concerns is just laughable.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  82. How we combat that perception is a different argument than the one Dana-of-the-many-names is making.

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  83. elissa,

    What kind of uncharitable reading attributes hypocrisy to the words you quote? Do you want to talk, as you so often indicate? I will talk with you. If my choice of words bothers you, I’ll use different ones. You offered an analogy that raised a question, and I answered that question in good faith. Did you miss that?

    Dana is pinpointing a problem: the negative perception of the Republican party in the eyes of a large percentage of Hispanic voters. He is not saying that this perception is well-founded. He is saying that the perception exists.

    So:

    Do you think the perception exists?
    If it exists, do you think it’s a problem?
    If it’s a problem, how do you propose it be addressed?

    Leviticus (b98400)

  84. Dana:

    So your position is that Republicans should agree to immigration legislation — specifically, amnesty — because the public perceives the GOP as anti-immigrant? Apparently you think this will help remedy that misperception, even though the 1986 amnesty did not.

    Further, you apparently base your hypothesis on your assertion that some (perhaps many) people in the GOP are secretly against Hispanic immigrants, both legal and illegal. However, you aren’t willing to use the same criteria to judge Democrats or the Democratic Party, some of whom are overtly anti-immigrant, because the public perceives the Democratic Party as pro-immigrant.

    Nevertheless, let’s assume your personal beliefs are correct. Wouldn’t it make more sense to address public perception of GOP policies with legislation that dramatically increases legal immigration, instead of amnesty? In other words, why would embracing the Democratic Party policy of amnesty convince the public the GOP has suddenly become more open to Hispanic immigrants than Democrats?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  85. Comment by ropelight (d5a0bb) — 6/21/2013 @ 12:25 pm

    This.

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  86. STashiu – I respect you as much as I do DRJ, so I will limit my response to 2 words – we disagree.

    JD (b50cac)

  87. How we combat that perception is a different argument than the one Dana-of-the-many-names is making.

    A good first step is to not propose policy solutions, based on fear, designed to assuage a BS perception.

    JD (b50cac)

  88. See? It’s not so hard to be polite to those you respect, after all!

    (I mean Dana, obviously).

    Leviticus (b98400)

  89. “Dana is saying that the GOP is not going to get votes from Hispanics if they think the GOP is hostile to them. Even if that hostility is undeserved for whatever reason.”

    Stashiu3 – With all due respect, Dana’s argument is clear. People just do not agree with it. It’s that simple.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  90. The stand alone bills that House Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor want to pass, according to the Wall Stgreet Journal’s Political Diary would be border security, H1-B visa increases for high-skilled immigrants, guest worker programs for low-skilled workers, E-Verify work authorization for employers and the like.

    In that case, the Senate might amend them and combine them and add amnesty. The visa increases themselves might have all kinds of problems, mainly being too tough or too limited to be practical.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  91. The GOP is also starting to lose votes from Asians (who also are recent immigrants)

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  92. The only way the Republicans can gain back the Hispnaic vote is for their candidate (s) to virulently attacked by Numbers USA. Nothing else will move the needle.

    And have some other issues..

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)

  93. I apologize for not being as charitable to someone who has insinuated xenophobia to broad swaths of conservatives, claims we are protecting white culture, or that conservatives are anti Hispanic and anti immigrant. Had Stashiu done so, repeatedly, I don’t see how my responses would have been any different.

    JD (b50cac)

  94. Stashiu3, I don’t think anyone is missing Dana’s point. The “GOP” is perceived as anti-Hispanic. And will be as long as it continues to embrace its current policies.

    The point you’re trying to carve out for Dana is just one pebble in the rock garden that is Dana’s position on legalizing illegal immigrants.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  95. JD, my dear friend,

    The not-so-pretty-Dana (although he may be handsome IRL, no idea) has been stating a reality. Not that what Hispanics believe is true, but that they believe the GOP is hostile to them. He hasn’t said they should feel that way… just that they do. What to do about it is another discussion.

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  96. The Obamessiah Administration justifies looking at our phone records, our emails, and sending drones overhead to observe our backyard Memorial Day barbeques all in the name of national security, yet he won’t seal the southern border in the name of national security.

    We cannot allow the Democrats and MSM to dictate the terms of discussion on this issue.
    Illegal immigration is about national security, and we have to make the converstation about national security.
    After all, Obama has to access our phone records and emails, so that’s the perfect stepping stone for us to insist on sealing the border.

    All this talk about “hating Latinos !” ad nauseum is merely an acquiescence to the left wing talking points.

    The truth is, we probably can’t change the perception that we “hate Latinos !” because it is the only game the Democrats have. They will continue to play that card no matter what.
    In 2016, we can nominate Ted Cruz to be the GOP nominee, yet the Democrats and their lapdog media will still be saying, “You hate Latinos !”

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  97. Stashiu – and I am suggesting that is a BS contrived and created perception. It is part and parcel of a narrative pushed by the left and the MFM, and we don’t have to try to craft leftist policy “solutions” in an attempt to change the BS perception.

    JD (b50cac)

  98. 91. The GOP is also starting to lose votes from Asians (who also are recent immigrants)

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/21/2013 @ 12:35 pm

    I don’t want to go full metal liberal and start lumping all Asians together, but one characteristic I’ve found in all the Asian cultures I’m familiar with is they don’t leave money on the table. Just as soon as they’re able to bring over relatives and sign them up for welfare benefits they do.

    If their elderly mom or dad qualifies for some sort of welfare, practically to a man they think they’d be fools not to take it.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  99. Steve57,

    But he hasn’t been making those arguments, at least not recently. His point has been pretty consistent. I don’t agree completely with his previous arguments about what to do about it. I went through an extremely difficult legalization process with my daughters when they were adopted. It nearly broke us. The immigration process is broken far beyond an easy fix. That said, I would be outraged if masses of folks were allowed to bypass it completely. I like the idea about making permanent residency easier without a path to citizenship unless they start the process from scratch. Even if they simplified the process, it would be more fair that way.

    My position would be secure the borders first, deport all illegals starting with the criminals, then revamp the immigration process completely and take USCIS to the woodshed. I could live comfortably with some minor modifications to steps two and three.

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  100. Dana,

    I would appreciate it if you would specifically and clearly state whether this perception (that the GOP is anti-immigrant) is, in your view, also true. In other words, do you believe the Republican Party in general or more than 10% of individual Republicans in particular are hostile to Hispanic immigrants?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  101. and I am suggesting that is a BS contrived and created perception.
    Comment by JD (b50cac) — 6/21/2013 @ 12:44 pm

    No argument from me. I suspect no argument from Dana or Leviticus either.

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  102. Leviticus,

    Hey bud, “This isn’t a normative discussion” is a good one. I rank it up there with “Don’t taze me, bro !”
    :)

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  103. Stashiu3, I don’t know how you define recently but I stand behind all the comments I made last Friday on this thread.

    http://patterico.com/2013/06/14/the-new-talking-point-lack-of-amnesty-is-de-facto-amnesty/#comments

    I believe Dana does as well. So I don’t see how I’m supposed to disregard those and pretend they’re not part of the milieu.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  104. “Do you think the perception exists?” Yes.

    “If it exists, do you think it’s a problem?” Yes.

    “If it’s a problem, how do you propose it be addressed?” By not acquiescing to being bullied into passing a bad bill that is strictly political on all sides, is poorly crafted, is massively expensive, is unable to be implemented either fairly or efficiently, and that is not even in the top ten issues of concern for the American people right now. The perception that there is a fierce urgency is as hollow and false a perception as the other perceptions which we are discussing on these threads.

    elissa (709869)

  105. I think the GOP is perceived as anti-immigrant because of a sustained and unified assault by Democrats and the media. Agreeing with Democrats and the media that the answer is amnesty will only reinforce the idea that Democrats are right about the GOP and its motives, and evidence Republicans are trying to make amends. Is that really the message we want to send?

    It would be far better to adopt Ted Cruz’s approach and pass legislation that dramatically expands legal immigration, something easy to campaign on and that IMO voting Hispanics would like even more than amnesty. (It would also reinforce the GOP as the party of law and order, values we should embrace.)

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  106. I think the global climate change refugees is just a swell addition, Elissa.

    JD (b50cac)

  107. I should have said “offer legislation,” not “pass legislation.” There’s no way the GOP will pass anything that helps Americans or the GOP in today’s Senate.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  108. “The perception that there is a fierce urgency is as hollow and false a perception as the other perceptions which we are discussing on these threads.”

    - elissa

    I agree.

    Leviticus (b98400)

  109. Are “empirical” and “normative” really obnoxious words to you folks?

    Leviticus (b98400)

  110. Are “empirical” and “normative” really obnoxious words to you folks?
    Comment by Leviticus (b98400) — 6/21/2013 @ 1:08 pm

    Not me, but “GOP” would qualify. ;)

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  111. 105. I think the GOP is perceived as anti-immigrant because of a sustained and unified assault by Democrats and the media. Agreeing with Democrats and the media that the answer is amnesty will only reinforce the idea that Democrats are right about the GOP and its motives, and evidence Republicans are trying to make amends. Is that really the message we want to send?

    Comment by DRJ (a83b8b) — 6/21/2013 @ 1:03 pm

    I completely agree, obviously. I’d add it isn’t just the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself) that paint the GOP as anti-immigrant. Specifically anti-Mexican.

    John McCain enthusiastically denounced the base of his party as racists the last time he tried to pass an amnesty bill. There were others as well; prominent people who had been associated with the Bush WH. Jeb Bush isn’t helping as every time he speaks about what he perceives as the need to legalize illegal aliens he can’t help but do so in a way that implies a great deal of hatred in anyone who disagrees with him. And then Grover Nordquist and former GWB speech writer Michael Gerson are just flat out saying it.

    As Ace has observed about Gerson, but it applies to all establishment Republicans really, George Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” (i.e. big government enthusiasm) marks the rightward limit of respectable conservatism. Anyone who goes beyond that is an extremist who is beyond the pale.

    So the Democrats and the media (but I repeat myself again) have a lot of help painting anyone who isn’t onboard the amnesty bandwagon as socially unacceptable.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  112. Leviticus,

    Obviously you should write the way you want but since you asked: I don’t see the point of using fancy words when everyday words get the point across. Thus, instead of normative and empirical, might it also work to talk about theory and experience?

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  113. DRJ,

    I started out with “is” and “should be” but they didn’t seem to be working.

    Leviticus (b98400)

  114. Leviticus -Why is it that you seem to believe we don’t or won’t understand the position advocated by you and Dana of the Perpetual Adjectives, but seem intent on not understanding those that disagree?

    JD (b50cac)

  115. Why do you say that? I think you got your point across from the beginning, but that doesn’t mean people had to validate your what you said by agreeing with you.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  116. Tell me, if we double the number of border agents but tell them to ignore the law, how does that help border security?

    Meanwhile, what’s this I hear that we are going to send troops to Egypt to help Morsi put down demonstrations???

    My perception is that Obama can’t be trusted.
    I also think that is a fact that can be verified by evidence.

    I don’t think I have any problems with any words as long as they are properly used to clearly communicate a point.

    MD in Philly (3d3f72)

  117. In other words, Leviticus, instead of doubling down by saying the same thing over and over, what about restating the contrary view to show you understand it?

    I’m not saying this critically because I could certainly do this more often, but I think it’s especially valuable when everyone seems to be talking past each other.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  118. Haven’t you heard, MD? It’s a “virtual human fence.” Apparently that and money solves any problem.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  119. I believe Dana does as well. So I don’t see how I’m supposed to disregard those and pretend they’re not part of the milieu.
    Comment by Steve57 (ab2b34) — 6/21/2013 @ 1:00 pm

    Part of the milieu, yes. As I said, I don’t agree with his arguments about what to do. I’m not going to conflate his position on a solution with his observations of how Hispanics view the GOP though. I think he’s right there. Whether it’s because of the media or the Democrats (we really need a term to acknowledge they’re one and the same), or some other reason, they have the perception that the GOP is hostile to them which they frequently ascribe to racism. I know the GOP is not racist, you know the GOP is not racist, and Dana knows the GOP is not racist. Hispanics still believe it and that perception is what should be addressed.

    Dana’s answer is not my answer, but I understand his desire to do something. I think doing nothing is preferable to doing the wrong thing. Legalizing illegals would be the wrong thing. Everyone says kicking them out is impossible. I say, how do we know? We’ve never really tried.

    Dana has said that this would be bad for us. My answer is the same. How do we know? We’ve never really tried. Pretending scofflaws don’t exist (in the legal sense) doesn’t do it for me. Still, I don’t want to see another Dem presidency. If the stupid party continues to follow the John McCain path, that’s exactly what we’re in for.

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  120. “How we combat that perception is a different argument than the one Dana-of-the-many-names is making.”

    Stashiu3 – That’s not an argument I have bothered considering. I focused on Dana’s original argument that conservatives need to support amnesty solely to win votes. I don’t agree. My view is that without border security, visa stay enforcement and e-verify enforcement, amnesty makes no economic sense, is not moral, and not good for the country because based upon the current bill we will just be having the same conversation again in another 10 years. The CBO scoring bears that out, saying it would only reduce illegal immigration by 25% from what they project, IOW the issue of creating a permanent U.S. underclass is not solved.

    I have no idea what Leviticus considers accusations versus argument, but he seems pretty fuzzy on this topic.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  121. DRJ – it would be my contention that accepting a flawed perception as reality, and advancing policies based on said flawed perceptions is simply surrendering, and will do nothing but damage. I suspect you agree?

    JD (b50cac)

  122. “In other words, Leviticus, instead of doubling down by saying the same thing over and over, what about restating the contrary view to show you understand it?”

    - DRJ

    Because I have no horse in the substantive argument – like Stash, I probably wouldn’t be commenting on this thread if I didn’t think that the Dana with the Simple Point had been treated rather poorly.

    Leviticus (b98400)

  123. ropelight:

    The Grand Old Party can’t survive this fundamental betrayal of the rule of law. Rewarding blatant in-your-face lawbreakers with amnesty, food stamps, welfare, and health care along with the promise of eventual citizenship is as sure a prescription for national extinction as surrendering to Islamic terrorism.

    I was going to let this pass by without comment, but I just can’t. Even before Obama came along but especially after his appearance, liberal elements in the Democratic Party pushed the Clinton establishment to the left. It’s time for conservatives in the Republican Party to push the GOP to the right.

    Frankly, I understand those who have given up on the GOP and are looking elsewhere for answers given the recent Presidential nominees and national leaders, and I don’t criticize anyone for feeling that way. But that doesn’t mean we all have to agree these Beltway and establishment Republicans represent the only possible future of the Republican Party. We have some fine state Governors and other possible leaders. Our job is to push the Party in their direction.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  124. Yes, JD.

    So you and Stash are the hall monitors, Leviticus? I used to do that. Tread lightly.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  125. Could you be more specific? And are you talking to me and Stash, or just me?

    Leviticus (b98400)

  126. Mr rocks wrote:

    “You seem to be having trouble grasping the distinction that Dana is making.”

    Leviticus – Dana is afraid of being labeled a racist and losing future elections by taking a principled stand on immigration reform. I am not. What is so hard to understand about those different positions?

    First of all, my immigration stand is not based upon being afraid of being called a racist: it is what it is, period. I have argued that the perception being taken from those on the conservative side of this are being perceived as racists, whether they are opposed out of racism of are just taking what they believe to be a principled stand.

    We have had these discussions in the past. We didn’t have any immigration laws at the time, but there were a whole bunch of people very opposed to the large Irish immigration; that still didn’t stop it or send the Irish back home. We had similar waves against eastern Europeans; they are still here. We had restrictive immigration laws aimed at the Chinese in the late 19th century; the Chinese came, and stayed. We didn’t want too many Jews in the 1930s and early 1940s, put restrictions on immigration which never specified Jews as Jews, but were meant to do the same thing; there are more Jews in the United States than in Israel. Some people weren’t happy about the arrival of the Vietnamese boat people, but they came, and stayed.

    I am trying to think of an ethnic group or nationality which started to immigrate to the United States that opposition stymied, and simply cannot. Like it or not, the Hispanics are coming, and their desire to get here outweighs their concerns about violating our immigration laws. You had better get used to that fact, period, because it is a fact, a “principled stand” notwithstanding.

    Many are already here, and more and more of them are becoming citizens and voting. Their children born here are citizens, automatically, and they can vote upon turning 18; get used to it.

    Your “principled stand” may be very principled indeed, but it’s a stand which is going to push Hispanic voters to the Democrats in percentages approaching that of blacks. None of your principled stands, regardless of on what topics they happen to be, will mean diddly if conservative candidates lose elections.

    The historian Dana (3e4784)

  127. Oh, shoot. I quoted the wrong section from ropelight’s earlier comment. I meant to quote this:

    The Stupid Party stands for self-deception, the complacent cowards won’t fight for the principles the Party espouses, but they’ll pay lip service to individual freedom and limited government if that’s what it takes to placate Conservative voters long enough to extract enough campaign contributions to keep the Party’s pampered Mandarans competitive through the next election cycle.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  128. Dana,

    Almost 40% of Texas’ population is Hispanic compared with 16% nationally, yet Texas is one of the reddest states in America. We don’t need amnesty. We need policies that speak to Hispanics and, most of all, we need jobs.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  129. Leviticus,

    I guess I was talking to you but it applies to Stash, too, although he already knows this. It is a big responsibility to moderate here. You want to keep things civil but also facilitate lively and knowledgeable discussion. One thing I learned is to let the discussion go where it wants. Some of the best moments come from the most unexpected diversions.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  130. I am trying to think of an ethnic group or nationality which started to immigrate to the United States that opposition stymied,

    Nobody is trying to stop legal immigration.

    Like it or not, the Hispanics are coming, and their desire to get here outweighs their concerns about violating our immigration laws. You had better get used to that fact, period, because it is a fact,

    Nobody is trying to stop legal immigration, Hispanic or otherwise.

    JD (31a4da)

  131. None of your principled stands, regardless of on what topics they happen to be, will mean diddly if conservative candidates lose elections.

    What makes you think that abandoning principles, and the rule of law, is going to make them change their voting habits? Is there historical precedent that leads you to this conclusion?

    JD (31a4da)

  132. Maybe Leviticus can explain to me why the above quoted positions are merely rhetorical.

    JD (31a4da)

  133. The GOP is also starting to lose votes from Asians (who also are recent immigrants)

    Comment by Sammy Finkelman (d22d64) — 6/21/2013 @ 12:35 pm

    Because they don’t support amnesty?

    Gerald A (b44a50)

  134. “First of all, my immigration stand is not based upon being afraid of being called a racist: it is what it is, period.”

    Dana – But that is why you are saying conservatives need to support amnesty, because we will be branded racists, anti-immigrant and lose future elections. I don’t know you’re personal beliefs and don’t care. I am merely repeating the argument you have made.

    What part did I get wrong?

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  135. I surrender to the “it is what it is” argument.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  136. For my part, it seemed like good people were talking past each other based on previous conversations. Yes, context is important, but listening is important too.

    Comment by The historian Dana (3e4784) — 6/21/2013 @ 1:55 pm

    I don’t see anything here I disagree with.

    Nobody is trying to stop legal immigration, Hispanic or otherwise.
    Comment by JD (31a4da) — 6/21/2013 @ 2:06 pm

    Which I also agree with. I may have missed Dana asserting that, but I don’t think so.

    It’s kind of like Dems claiming that any disagreement with President Obama is based on racism. It’s not true, but some people are going to believe it anyway because they keep hearing it over and over again. Should we keep going further and further to “prove” we’re not racists? I don’t think so. This just validates the tactic because it worked to change our normal response and encourages them to keep using it. It’s the same with immigration. We emphasize legal immigration, they claim it’s all immigration, we feel the need to do something to “prove” we’re not “anti-immigrant”. I think caving on any of it encourages them to continue accusing us of being racists. Let’s simplify getting in legally and enforce the laws against illegals.

    Stashiu3 (e7ebd8)

  137. “Maybe Leviticus can explain to me why the above quoted positions are merely rhetorical.”

    - JD

    They are valid concerns, and not merely rhetorical. My sincerest apologies for lending insufficient texture to your position.

    Leviticus (b98400)

  138. DRJ’s point is well-taken, by the way.

    Leviticus (b98400)

  139. Leviticus,

    I’m afraid my earlier “hall monitor” comment offended you (probably with good reason) so please let me explain.

    First, I was glad to see you join the conversation, especially your efforts to clear up a possible misunderstanding among several valued commenters here. That made me glad because it suggests to me that you were as concerned about these commenters as many of us are about you. As Sally Field might say, it told me “You like us, you really like us!” and that possibility makes me very happy.

    Second, even though moderating a blog isn’t really a big deal, it’s still a position of power and I never wanted it to go to my head. Thinking of it as a “hall monitor” reminded me of my grade school days when hall monitors were people with a lot of power over people with no power, so it kept me from taking myself too seriously. I used that term here because that’s how I think of it, but it probably sounded patronizing. I apologize and that was not my intent.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  140. “Your “principled stand” may be very principled indeed, but it’s a stand which is going to push Hispanic voters to the Democrats in percentages approaching that of blacks. None of your principled stands, regardless of on what topics they happen to be, will mean diddly if conservative candidates lose elections.”

    Dana, the other immigrant groups, the Jews for example, continued to be Democrat voters for several generations. My family was very upset when they learned I had voted for Nixon in 1960.

    We can expect that Mexican immigrants will be reliable Democrat voters for the next 50 years, if history is a guide. Whether the country can survive that is another matter I see no reason to facilitate illegal immigration for Republicans.

    I don;t know why Asians are leaning Democrat when they are victims of affirmative action, like whites.

    A Cuban friend of mine was applying to medical school 20 years ago. He hadn’t heard from UCSF for several months. He finally drove to San Francisco to the school and asked what was going on. He was told that his application was in a “Hispanic applicants” committee. He asked if he could just be considered white. They did and he was accepted in a couple of weeks.

    Cubans are the only Republican Hispanic group that are new citizens and for the same reason why Vietnamese are.

    Mike K (dc6ffe)

  141. Don’t taze me, lend insufficient texture to my positions, bro !

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  142. No, I wasn’t offended at all. I just felt that I was making the same point as Stash, and wanted to make sure there wasn’t a separate consideration that you wanted me to be aware of.

    I do really like you folks, and I’m glad that makes you happy.

    I didn’t feel patronized at all – even though I can be hyper-sensitive to that at times.

    Leviticus (b98400)

  143. Since we’re already on the topic of rhetoric and vanity, The Obamessiah had his goofy lofty Berlin speech critiqued by George Will, and it ain’t too purdy.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/george-f-will-obama-hits-a-wall-in-berlin/2013/06/20/bfff0426-d9df-11e2-a016-92547bf094cc_story.html

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  144. I think you need to listen to Maria Espinoza.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=smXr7Zo_QG8#at=32

    This amnesty bill isn’t going to be the winner with Hispanics that the Democrats have convinced the establishment GOP it’s going to be.

    The idea that Hispanics are all in for amnesty could only occur to someone who is completely out of touch or perhaps only deals with their foreign born domestic help. But giving a bunch of people something they don’t want simply because Chuck Schumer told you to is a bad idea. Chuck Schumer won’t have to live cheek by jowl with the problem he’s creating.

    Listen to Maria Espinoza.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  145. Seriously, if Chuck Schumer, Hairy Reid, and Barry Obama had heard any inkling from Latinos that they would vote Republican as a result of amnesty, then the Democrats sure as hell wouldn’t be shoving this God-awful bill down our throats.

    Elephant Stone (6a6f37)

  146. When will all these free loaders be paid in full?

    mg (31009b)

  147. Well,

    No one is going to stand to see millions frog marched across the border jobless, homeless, with the panorama of the sick, the elderly and the young dying.

    Yeah, the buzz is that’s what is the option other than amnesty.

    killing thousands for more largess for the rest..

    E.PWJ (c3dbb4)

  148. Open borders stink, said the American Indian from his casino reservation job.

    mg (31009b)

  149. What I just wrote sounds starkly internally contradictory — oppose the immigration but want assimilation — but it really isn’t: it’s a recognition, in both cases, of wanting the majority culture — and yes, I will definitively say majority white culture — preserved. I don’t see conservatives as racists at all, but as people definitely interested in the cultural integrity of the United States. We have already seen how the insular inner-city black culture has been hugely destructive to our society, and don’t want to see a second, significantly sized, separate minority culture take root and grow in the United States.

    How does that compare to the experience of the Irish?

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  150. I don;t know why Asians are leaning Democrat when they are victims of affirmative action, like whites.

    Comment by Mike K (dc6ffe) — 6/21/2013 @ 2:34 pm

    I believe Asians leaned Republican for a couple of decades or more. In the immediate aftermath of last year’s election it was said that Asians were leaving the GOP because they were scared off by Christian fundamentalists and the impression that conservatives are anti-science. I don’t know if that’s been confirmed by any research – it could have been made up by the same people who have concocted the idea the GOP needs to be in favor of amnesty. But there has to be some reason for the shift and that makes as much sense as any theory.

    If true it’s traceable to the liberal control of our educational system and media. Probably the main Asian shift to the GOP has been among young voters.

    Gerald A (b44a50)

  151. I mean the main Asian shift from the GOP.

    Gerald A (b44a50)

  152. How does that compare to the experience of the Irish?

    Comment by Michael Ejercito (2e0217) — 6/21/2013 @ 6:39 pm

    The Irish had moved into the middle class by the time government social services came about.

    Gerald A (b44a50)

  153. Mr Ejercito wrote:

    What I just wrote sounds starkly internally contradictory — oppose the immigration but want assimilation — but it really isn’t: it’s a recognition, in both cases, of wanting the majority culture — and yes, I will definitively say majority white culture — preserved. I don’t see conservatives as racists at all, but as people definitely interested in the cultural integrity of the United States. We have already seen how the insular inner-city black culture has been hugely destructive to our society, and don’t want to see a second, significantly sized, separate minority culture take root and grow in the United States.

    How does that compare to the experience of the Irish?

    In some ways, the Irish experience is similar, in that the Irish were almost all Catholic, and the United States was very heavily Protestant at the time. At least some of the negative reaction to the Irish was due to that religious divide.

    The historian Dana (af9ec3)

  154. Something for everybody. Look! we have an FBI-Red State-illegal alien trifecta story!

    The IRS sent more than $46 million in tax refunds to 23,994 “unauthorized” alien workers who all listed the same address in Atlanta, Ga., in 2011, according to an audit report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA).
    However, the Atlanta address that received millions of dollars in refunds was not the only address apparently housing thousands of “unauthorized” aliens. In fact, it wasn’t even the only address in Atlanta that was claiming such a situation.

    The TIGTA audit report, published last year at the request of members of Congress, revealed 10 addresses in the U.S. that were issued anywhere from 1,846 to 23,994 tax refunds each. Four of those 10 addresses were located in Atlanta.

    But no worries for Blue staters. They got a fair share, too. Kali was well represented.

    Other locations on the IG’s Top Ten list for singular addresses that were theoretically used simultaneously by thousands of unauthorized alien workers, included an address in Oxnard, Calif, where the IRS sent 2,507 refunds worth $10,395,874; an address in Raleigh, North Carolina, where the IRS sent 2,408 refunds worth $7,284,212; an address in Phoenix, Ariz., where the IRS sent 2,047 refunds worth $5,558,608; an address in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., where the IRS sent 1,972 refunds worth $2,256,302; an address in San Jose, Calif., where the IRS sent 1,942 refunds worth $5,091,027; and an address in Arvin, Calif., where the IRS sent 1,846 refunds worth $3,298,877.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/06/21/irs-sent-46-million-in-tax-refunds-to-23994-unauthorized-aliens-all-at-the-same-address-in-atlanta/?

    elissa (b84065)

  155. “At least some of the negative reaction to the Irish was due to that religious divide.”

    The historian Dana – With all due respect, I don’t think any negative reaction is at all similar for a lot of people, although I can only speak for myself. Pointing to earlier eras when the demographics of the country were different and the laws were different to me is a pointless exercise. It’s like Jews and Muslims pointing out that Christianity is a violent religion because of the crusades. What difference, at this point, does it make?

    The U.S. now has a set of laws governing immigration and border security. That overall system is broken and laws are not being enforced. Finding a way to fix a broken system without unfairly rewarding those who have taken advantage of it while it while it was broken or deliberately unenforced relative to those who tried to follow the rules would normally be considered a conservative goal. Instead, there is some contrived urgency address the immediate needs of non-citizen lawbreakers with a flawed bill rather than a real comprehensive long-term solution of our border, immigration and employment verification policies.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  156. They wrote a 190 page amendment, which leaves discretion to Napolitano, what could go wrong;

    narciso (3fec35)

  157. Well at least Janet can ask Sebelius for advice and tips on handling all that discretion stuff.

    elissa (b84065)

  158. The IRS sent more than $46 million in tax refunds to 23,994 “unauthorized” alien workers who all listed the same address in Atlanta, Ga., in 2011, according to an audit report by the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA).

    elissa – Good thing I flew under the radar with a few hundred, plus those Pigford rebates.

    Wanna go for a ride in my new Ferrari?

    /sarc

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  159. I didn’t know the Tardis had an Atlanta address.

    narciso (3fec35)

  160. O’Reilly was truly pathetic last night in his immigration segment w/Laura Ingraham. He was not only wrong on the issue, but characteristically lazy as well. Ingraham said she had read the entire 800+-page Gang of 8 bill, and it was clear O’Reilly had not, to say the least, and was relying instead on his afternoon phone call with that sleazy little huckster Marco Rubio. Reilly knew nothing about the bill’s various outrages, and when Ingraham tried to point them out, he dismissed her with his trademark sneers and bellicosity. I clicked the TV off and won’t watch that lazy, rage-filled, self-absorbed twit ever again.

    Comment by Kevin Stafford (1d1b9e) — 6/21/2013 @ 9:04 am

    I stopped watching him in 2008 when he, like the rest of the LSM, said Obama was a good guy and he softballed Obama.

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  161. I stopped paying any attention to him when he didn’t know the difference between loofah and falafel.

    nk (875f57)

  162. You weren’t kidding about the Ferrari, daley.

    8393 IRS refund checks went into the same bank account. The audit triggers and checks and balances in our government computer systems are awesome.

    http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/06/irs-sent-23994-refund-checks-to-aliens-at-same-address-in-atlanta-sent-8393-refund-checks-to-same-bank-account/

    elissa (b84065)

  163. In the immediate aftermath of last year’s election it was said that Asians were leaving the GOP because they were scared off by Christian fundamentalists and the impression that conservatives are anti-science.

    I don’t know if there’s much to that any more than the belief that a lack of support for the legalization of illegal immigrants by the right will push even more Latinos to the left (oh, look at how conservative and sensible the political scene in Mexico, or Brazil, or Argentina, or Venezuela is!!). I think liberalism is a pernicious human trait that affects (and infects) all people, at any given number of times.

    I suspect a bit of self-indulgence and greed (ie, people believing that a pushover, big-mommy government is easier to take advantage of in times of decline or dysfunction), an embrace of lazy self-entitlement, and a lot of superficial feelings of compassion for compassion’s sake (of talking the talk, but not walking the walk—ie “limousine liberalism”), are the main reasons why people lean left and vote accordingly, regardless of their race, ethnicity, gender, ethnicity, sexuality, religion and nationality.

    Mark (67e579)

  164. Comment by elissa (b84065) — 6/22/2013 @ 4:31 pm

    8393 IRS refund checks went into the same bank account. The audit triggers and checks and balances in our government computer systems are awesome.

    I don’t think they send checks anymore. That must have been debit cards.

    Debit cards are themselves a problem because ethere may be nothing to trace who actually got teh money besides an address.

    In Floroida people were using abandoned or incompleted developments. They put up a mailbox, and the post office delievered it.

    They used to use the Social Secrurity numbers of dead people, but then they cracked down on that, they weren’t being made public so fast.

    So now they started using Social Security numbers of elderly people who were unlikely to file tax returns – residents of nursing homes for instance,, which they obtained one way or another for corrupted people.

    Of course some people did file tax returns and get their returns rejected and there’s a little problem with people getting their own refunds.

    This problem is growing every year.

    The only check they have is that a real Social Security number of a living person is used.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  165. With Asians the issue is legal immigration – fanily reunification – which Republicans want to lower.

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

  166. I am really having trouble understanding why people are missing adjective-Dana’s point so often and so thoroughly. I usually read the site these days through a medium that doesn’t let me reply (literally… I labor to type out a response through a clunky interface and it disappears into the ether!), so lurking comes easier than going to a computer that lets me speak.

    Leviticus is correct in how he characterizes Dana’s oh-so-very-consistent-and-precise point which is fairly simple if you don’t read into it. Dana is saying that the GOP is not going to get votes from Hispanics if they think the GOP is hostile to them. Even if that hostility is undeserved for whatever reason.

    You all know and respect Dana, even if you don’t agree with him. Take a second to re-read what he’s written and pretend it’s signed by your Mom or Dad. You would at least give them the courtesy of understanding exactly what they were trying to say, right?

    Don’t make me come down there!!

    Comment by Stashiu3 (e7ebd8) — 6/21/2013 @ 12:24 pm

    At this point we don’t care. Giving the left what they want won’t change people’s opinions of the right. It will confirm their biases instead by saying that the right really was anti-Hispanic all along by being against illegal immigration and the only reason they are backing down is because they want you to vote for them.

    How can you not see this?

    We are tired of the people we elect who lie to our faces and say they are going to represent us in Congress, in order to get elected, then when they get there, the first thing they do is stab us in the back.

    NJRob (fe68e7)

  167. I don’t think they send checks anymore. That must have been debit cards.

    I don’t think Sammylanche actually thinks.

    JD (d7a645)

  168. And if anyone seriously believes that illegal immigrants are not getting welfare benefits, its an explicit program of the USDA to get them enrolled.

    SPQR (768505)

  169. There is no limit to this government’s willingness to insult our intelligence. First they say that SNAP isn’t intended for illegal immigrants. But then they tell illegal immigrants their anchor babies are qualified for SNAP.

    And we’re supposed to believe that the illegal immigrants aren’t receiving the aid.

    Also as Sen. Sessions points out:

    In some circumstances, SNAP benefits can be conferred upon people who merely state, upon penalty of perjury, that they are in the country legally.

    “Applicants need only attest that they are citizens of the United States, and the state must accept that attestation as conclusive,” Sessions explained in his letter.

    And we’re supposed to believe that the feds don’t intend to give illegal aliens benefits when they deliberately avoid requiring applicants verify they’re legally in this country.

    And now the feds are joined by Marco Rubio et al in insulting our intelligence by claiming their amnesty bill isn’t an amnesty. Not only is it amnesty, the only question is how many crimes are they giving illegal aliens amnesty for?

    I and others have pointed out that lying and attesting under penalty of perjury that one is legally able to work in this country on an IRS I-9 form is one felony. Providing the false documents to support the lie is a separate felony. Both those crimes are being amnestied, and now we know that illegal aliens who perjure themselves to receive federal benefits will be amnestied for that.

    I don’t know if it does any good for me to call or write the people in my Congressional delegation multiple times each. But I hope everyone has written at least once to tell their’s to stop this insulting stupidity.

    Steve57 (ab2b34)

  170. Dana,

    I’d say that the answer is a vigorous counter-offensive. We need more skilled workers and professionals in our population, and we need an immigration policy that reflects that. Also, massively increase legal Mexican immigration, with priorities based on the labor market.

    The enforcement arm should be presented as guarding against criminals and the reign of terror brought by gangs in Mexico. Deport the criminals first to protect families, especially immigrant families, from violent thugs.

    OmegaPaladin (f4a293)

  171. Another day, another problem with the immigration bill comes to light. Sadly, only Ted Cruz seems to be reading these bills and thinking about their consequences.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  172. Since the non-green card holders are not required to have insurance there is no reason for an employer penalty.

    There is no way to rtesolve all the contradictions.

    Another provision requires that guest workers be paid more than Americans. It is objected this might encourage employers to relocate abroad (like Microsoft did by establishing a campus in Vancouver Canada – but the current law does that but more so.

    Sammy Finkelman (d22d64)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6697 secs.