● Lamar Smith I: Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) attacked the Rubio bill the moment it came out. Lamar said, “This bill guarantees there will be a rush across the border to take advantage of massive amnesty.” Except, as Lamar knows, the law provides that they need to have arrived prior to December 31, 2011, so any rush to come here now would be pointless – those people will be deported.
● Lamar Smith II: Smith also attacked the bill as “offer[ing] to legalize the relatives of illegal immigrants outside the U.S. and even others who have already been deported back home.” In other words, he wants you to believe that people who were deported can come right back as can the families of those already here illegally. That’s a lie to.
Under the bill, family members of those here and those already deported need to go through the same immigration process everyone else does. What Lamar is really saying is that these people would not be permanently banned from the US, but he’s phrasing it in a way to mislead you by falsely implying that they would instantly be made residents. He’s lying to you.
● The Regulatory Canard: Bunches of conservatives have whined that this bill would result in new regulations. This is misleading. ALL LAWS RESULT IN NEW REGULATIONS. Regulations are how laws get implemented and the government acts on regulations, not laws. So screaming that a law will result in regulations is beyond disingenuous as the same criticism could be made of ANY law.
● It’s Big Government!! I: The Daily Caller attacked the bill because it would impose “big government” upon us. How you ask? Well, all those poor conservative farmers and small businesses would be FORCED to use the “intrusive” E-Verify system. The horror... the horror. Keep in mind that every conservative advocates using the e-verify system, so attacking the bill for using that is sheer hypocrisy.
● It’s Big Government!! II: The Cato Institute argues that improving border security means big government because it means we would need a stronger “biometric” system to monitor who comes and goes. In other words, conservatives argue that the bill must be stopped because it doesn’t fix the borders, yet the bill also must be stopped because fixing the borders would mean big government.
● The $3,000 Canard: There is real deception going around about the idea that the “bill gives the newly legalized a $3,000 hiring edge over US Citizens.” That’s Drudge’s headline and it’s been repeated ad nauseum by conservatives everywhere. Sounds like the law was meant to favor THEM over US, doesn’t it?
Well, the basis for this claim is that these people won’t be allowed on Obamacare, so they will cost employers $3,000 less. Only, that estimate is false. It will be closer to $500 and it will only be true for companies who choose to pay the Obamacare fine rather than providing healthcare to their employees. Secondly, it ignores the fact these people have a massive advantage over Americans already because they don’t get minimum wage or withholdings. These same conservatives simultaneously whine that the problem with the bill is that these illegals will actually get our precious Obamacare.
● They’re Going To Ruin Welfare!: Jim DeMint and basically every other conservative is whining that these illegals will now get welfare and other federal benefits like Obamacare. They ignore the fact that the law expressly precludes that. That makes their argument a lie.
Many, like Ann Coulter, get around this fatal flaw in their attacks by further whining that there’s no way to enforce that part of the law. That’s a lie too. And even if it wasn’t, it’s a disingenuous argument because you could make the same attack on all laws. Why ban abortion if it might not be enforced right?
Heritage did a “study” in which they laughably claim that expanding welfare to include these people will cost $2.5 trillion. That number is bogus. As mentioned above, these people can’t get welfare, so the actual cost is $0. Moreover, there are 50 million people on welfare today and the system costs $1 trillion. Adding all 11 million illegals (a nonsensical assumption) should at most cost another $200 billion.... less than a tenth of what Heritage is pimping. If only 10% apply (which is still far too high) then Heritage’s number is 100 times greater than reality. It is safe to say that Heritage is lying.
● 400 waivers... and a mule: The Daily Caller ran a headline warning that Rubio’s bill includes 400 waivers, exceptions and exemptions. This was meant to scare you into thinking that Rubio’s real intent was to hand Obama the power to not enforce the law and then to grant a secret amnesty. Of course, this is nonsense. For one thing, that’s not a valid way to find waivers, exception or exemptions in a law. Further, anyone who has ever read laws knows that most exceptions are procedural only and therefore meaningless. Most importantly, the fact that only one “exception” has become subject to conservative whining tells us this was false analysis.
That exception is the border security commission. The bill provides that Homeland Security will have five years to secure the border with biometric identification measures. If DHS fails, then that role gets stripped from DHS and goes to a commission to handle. Rubio described this commission as consisting of representatives of border states.
Conservatives pounced on this. First, they accused Rubio of “failing to stay awake in his civil procedure class” in law school because they claim that an error in the way it is written means that the commission could be wiped out if someone challenges the validity of the commission and the Supreme Court takes more than ten years to decide the matter. But there are problems with that. First, the Supreme Court won’t take ten years to decide the issue. Secondly, the fence (the conservative placebo) can’t be challenged. Third, it’s not clear the commission could be defeated in this way in any event. Fourth, even if the critics are right, then the fix is to add a sentence to the bill making sure that doesn’t happen... not to whine like children that the whole bill must be defeated.
These conservatives also squealed that Rubio “lied” when he said the commission would consist of border state representatives because the President, the Senate and the House also would appoint members in addition to the border state governors.
● Ann Coulter: Finally, we come to Ann. Ann smeared Rubio in an article titled, “If Rubio’s amnesty is so great, why is he lying.” I was going to dissect her article and show you the kind of crap she’s using to call Rubio a liar, but it’s just too depressing. Essentially, she invents a quote for Rubio, then she disagrees with a subjective adjective she included in her invented quote, and on the basis of her disagreement with her own invented adjective, she says that “Rubio was the Mount Vesuvius of lies about his immigration bill.”
It is, therefore, rather ironic that Coulter led off her article with this quote: “When Republicans start lying like Democrats, you can guess they are pushing an idea that’s bad for America.” Yes, Ann, that’s true... but Rubio isn’t the one lying.
If conservatives want to object to Rubio’s bill, that’s fine. But it’s not fine to lie, to distort, to scaremonger and to attempt to destroy Rubio in the process. This is a credibility killer, especially as I see this on issue after issue now from the narcissists who run the “genuine conservative” movement. At this point, I simply no longer believe anything they say until I can find the proof independently. . . they have become MSNBC to me.
I’ll tell you what I like about Rubio though, and why I am thinking it is increasingly likely that he will be our next president. Rubio has an unflinching positive attitude. He doesn’t grouse or whine or hide in a bunker telling himself that he’s the purest of them all. He seems genuinely interested in finding conservative solutions to problems and with making the world better. He is everything the above “genuine conservatives” are not. He’s also not afraid of the “genuine conservatives,” which is the kind of person it’s going to take to not only fix the Republican Party but to save conservatism from narcissists who speak for it now.
51 comments:
As an aside, there were a whole slew of "Well, Rubio is finished as president!" articles today, but I think that's entirely wishful thinking.
I am particularly impressed that Rubio continues to get the full credit for this bill. Even ultra-liberal sites mentioned the other day that Obama "endorsed Rubio's bill."
Hey! You guys over there! Go back where you came from or I'll be forced to appoint a commission!
Andrew.......But, but, it's a law now! I really don't know why anyone thinks the passing of a law is going to stop the illegal behavior. I really don't see our southern border becoming securer because of this law. I also don't see how we are going to stop ALL the illegals from utilizing services that should only be available to American citizens (I have never been asked for my citizenship when attempting to get something like unemployment or food stamps. Sure, it asks on the form if you are a citizen (under penalty of law if you lie), yet I don't see how that will prevent the abuse that I'm ssure is happening now and I'm positive will happen in the future after this law, or any law like it, is passed.
And why the big rush to get this bill passed? Who is clamoring for this? Let's debate it like we are now, with all supporting and discrediting arguments heard, BEFORE we vote on it. If it becomes law by being rammed through like O'care, then we're never going to be rid of the acrimony and accusations that have been going on for a while.
I doubt that most Americans, and their elected representatives, believe this is more important than many other issues out there today.
I just don't see the advantage for Rubio and the "Gang of Eight" or for any with the opposite viewpoint.
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2013/04/chuck_schumer_triumphs_on_poli.html
until he proves otherwise, he is the guy I am supporting in 2016. I assume he will go up against the full power of the Clintonian Death Star (Bring out the Hildebeast. It's her turn damn it. And, she gamely took it when Bill, Barry, Tiger, and Beyonce gave each other foot massage while she was busy at the Oscar's)
oops! that was Moochelle, but she has to wait until after Hill cause it's Hill's turn!
It gives me no pleasure to say it, but I wouldn't be surprised if Rubio's presidential campaign and immigration proposal die the death of a thousand paper cuts.
I doubt much of the base favors immigration reform and its extremely clear that the establishment doesn't.
K, Yep, that's what Coulter whined. And in doing so, she ignored the fact that the conservative placebo goes up no matter what happens and that the commission is only about the biometric monitoring.
Patriot,
No law is perfect. To argue that we shouldn't pass a law until we find a perfect one is simply an evasion. But that's what the "conservative" arguments are on this -- an evasion. They keep moving the goalposts, they keep demanding the impossible, and whenever they get what they previously claimed they wanted they claim "well, it will never be enforced."
Anyone who has ever dealt with any sort of negotiation recognizes that behavior and knows that you simply walk away from the people making that argument because they are just jerking you off.
Moreover, these conservatives are only offering half the equation -- what's on the other side? We do nothing and leave 11 million people living here and working illegally? Oh, that's right, we deport 11 million people. No doubt we'll ship them on the backs of unicorns too. Think about the impossible logistics of doing that. Anyone who tells you it can be done is a liar or an idiot... or both.
In terms of why this issue matters, that's simple: electoral politics.
In terms of "why the rush," this is more conservative BS. This bill hasn't been fast-tracked or set for a vote without amendments. This bill is following the same path as every other large, controversial bill -- it gets written by a small group who try to work out the best compromise. It goes to the floor where amendments get offered. It goes to the House where more changes are made. Then it gets negotiated. The idea of "why the rush" is meant to make you think this thing is being rammed through by a secret cabal.
The advantage to Rubio and the Republicans is fixing the mess the "deport them dirty Mexican" types have created for the party.
rlaWTX, I read the first half of the article and I can tell you that his article contains a good deal of misinformation. He's just repeating the arguments I debunk above only less bombastically than the idiots I mention above, and he's calling Rubio a dupe for falling for these things... which aren't true.
I also like this bit of willful blindness: "The muted reaction of the right to the bill is a testament to its fondness and respect for Rubio." Huh, I guess he doesn't read or listen to other conservatives.
Jed, Right now, Rubio is the only conservative politician that gives me hope. Jindal seems to be imploding as the right smears him over birth control. Toomey is now a gun-grabbing RINO. Paul Ryan retreated into an accounting book.
Actually, I guess Paul Rand still holds promise. The right hasn't killed him yet.
But yes, like you, I'm backing Rubio unless something changes or someone better comes along. This has convinced me that he's got a lot more savvy, brains and guts than I thought he had.
P.S. I saw a bumpersticker that said Hillary/Michelle. Blech. I would leave the country at that point.
Anthony, Happily, I disagree. :)
First, I think the bill will pass with majority support from the Republicans and from the Democrats. Outside of talk-radio conservatives and MSNBC-liberals, the bill seems to have been accepted both as necessary and as about as good as we're going to get. And from what I've seen, the Republican establishment supports it as do most Republican Party representatives outside of talk-radio conservatives. Even several big name "genuine conservatives" like Grover Norquist are on-board.
The people who hate this bill are talk-radio conservatives, who simply don't want any answer short of total deportation, which is idiotic at best, and MSNBC-liberals who are furious at Schumer for giving away the farm - they want the bill to be exactly what talk-radio conservatives whine that it is, but it's not, so they are furious.
As for Rubio's presidential aspirations, I am hopeful. If he gets an overwhelming victory on this, then he can parlay that into a lot of momentum. Huge legislative achievements always work that way unless the public absolutely hates them.
He will need to deal with the talk-radio conservatives trying to destroy him, but he has three things going for him there. (1) He's too likeable to be attacked without people seeing the attacker as the bad guy, (2) Romney showed a path where non-talk-radio conservatives can gain the nomination by just ignoring the south and then winning what they need in the bigger states, i.e. he's changed the math so I think fewer people will drop out when they lose in the theological states, and (3) conservatives are so busy cannibalizing their own that it's not likely that anyone better will be left standing. In effect, anyone who runs will go through the same cannibalization process.
BTW, I know a lot of people aren't going to change their minds on this because this is an emotional issue for them, not a rational one and they simply don't care about facts.
But if you want to know why conservatives have ZERO credibility with the public anymore... this is it.
Andrew, Thank you for the information, but it won't help. I don't think conservatives are listening to anything anymore.
I had a discussion the other day which highlighted this all too clearly for me. I was speaking with two conservatives and they were talking about Obama buying up all of the ammo. This is still being talked about on talk radio even though it's been widely debunked.
I point out to them everything you had pointed out and which I had also seen at other places. I even pointed out that the NRA had debunked this.
Their response was not to tell me that I was wrong. No. The one looked at me and said, "I don't care if it's true or not, I like that people are talking about it because it turns people against Obama. Besides, it's probably true anyway."
That is exactly what I am seeing time and again from conservatives. They simply don't care about facts anymore, they just want certain things to be true and they get angry at anyone who tries to tell them differently.
I am very depressed about conservatism's future because of this. And what you outline above just adds more fuel to the fire which is burning so far out of control at this point that we might just be better abandoning conservatism to the talkers and starting over. As a lifelong conservative, that really makes me sad.
First of all, I like the bill. I think it strikes the right balance for all. And if anyone is worried that it will impact 2016, well, we aren't going to make any inroads if we don't do something! Our southern border states are being overrun! We have 12million+ illegals right now, borders that are as porous as a sieve, and we need to do put something solid in place that staunches the flow and gives people who have been law abiding a chance to at least pay taxes. There is something for both sides to agree and disagree. Isn't that what makes for good legislation?
As a side note: As for 2016 hopefuls, can we worry about that later. It is annoying me ;-)
"The muted reaction of the right to the bill is a testament to its fondness and respect for Rubio."
Translation: "Rubio is too popular, he must be opposed!"
"The people who hate this bill are talk-radio conservatives..."
On a positive note, Limbaugh seems to be backing Rubio on this one, or at least affirming Rubio's conserviative bona fides at every opportunity. It'll be interesting to see how dug-in the other talkers are.
One thing that I find particularly disheartening about all this is that there seems to have developed a sentiment among alleged conservatives that not only should there be no amnesty for illegal aliens, but that there should be no citizenship ever. Some of it's just rhetorical confusion, people conflating "amnesty" with "path to citizenship." However, somebody is doing the conflating, and those people are very clearly against the idea that Mexicans should ever become Americans. They're the people who also say obnoxious things like "American citizenship is to precious to be given away. They should have to work for it." One, Rubio is not suggesting giving anything away. Two, how much work did you have to do to be born in America? Those people are racist idiots who should be drummed out of the party.
Speaking of which, we need to come up with a way to drum people out of the party.
Ellen, I'm not sure how to respond.
I see the same thing and I can tell you that I've spoken with a good number of conservatives who feel the same. It's quite obvious actually. So there is hope. I can't make any promises that things will be fixed, but there do seem to be a lot more conservatives than you think who see the problem and want to fix it.
The most likely scenario is that the Republican Party will simply shift away from talk-radio conservatives. That will be hard because they control the party itself, but I am getting a sense that the Republicans are sick of dealing with lunatics and opportunists. So there may be a break coming and this bill might actually be it. If Rubio gets the bill passed, that will be a huge middle finger to the talk-radio conservatives and could well be the end of their influence since it will expose their lack of power. (In politics, to fight and lose is usually fatal.)
Alternatively, there are a great many young conservative groups forming who want no part of the current conservative establishment. They aren't very powerful yet, but they will grow quickly and their message of a return to actual conservatism is pretty appealing for anyone who isn't a hardcore fruitcake.
Will it happen before 2016? I don't think so. But don't give up. Conservatism itself isn't doomed, it just needs a new focus.
Bev, 2016 is upon us. :P
I agree about the bill. This is basically an ideal bill for conservatives. And to the extent there are a couple tweaks that are needed, that is what conservatives should be proposing, not screaming in the woods about made-up flaws and fantasy betrayals.
But the thing is that talk-radio conservatives are not being rational about this. They want all the illegals deported. The end. And they will attack anything less using whatever lies and obstructions they can come up with to scaremonger. It's shameful. Sadly, this is becoming par for the course for talk-radio conservatives. That is, when they aren't worrying about the genitals of the wives of bombers.... see Ann Coulter's latest.
As I said above, if you want to disagree about the merits of the bill, that's fine. But it's not fine to lie and distort and scaremonger just to get your way. And it's absolutely not fine to try to destroy a promising conservative politician just because he doesn't share your tantrum. That is why I wrote this article.
As an aside, think for a moment about what it will take to deport 11 million people.
1. There are 1 million people in prison right now. There are over 900,000 law enforcement personnel just to catch and hold those people. How many people do you think it will take to find, catch and deport 11 million illegals? What will that cost?
2. How intrusive do you think the police state will need to be to catch those people?
3. How many legals will be mistakenly deported?
4. How do you keep the illegals from coming back and making a total mockery of this idea?
5. What do you do when states start to resist?
tryanmax, I see the point about the supposed "muted reaction" as either willful blindness or as an attempt to mislead by making it sound like there isn't this giant tantrum going on. It tries to make it sound like, "the right is rationally considering this, but has some concerns which they've been hesitant to express because they respect Rubio so much," whereas the truth is closer to a witch-burning.
I haven't listened to Rush because I can't take these guys anymore. Almost everything they say is factually wrong and I get frustrating knowing that people are drinking so much KoolAid from them. So thanks for letting me know that Rush isn't joining in the knifing of Rubio on this yet -- though I still recall Rush claiming when the bill first was mentioned that he would be the only reel Amerkan to stand up for America on this. He even smeared Fox News at that point for not being as pure as he is.
On your other point, I have avoided saying this, but there is clearly a racist element to parts of the opposition. That is obvious from much of what is said as well as unspoken assumptions. This is not conservatism's finest hour.
On the citizenship point itself, that's exactly the point they are making: no citizenship for anyone who came here illegally ever. In effect, once you are illegal, you are forever banned from paradise. But that doesn't really sell all that well, so they try to make it sound scarier by lying and distorting what Rubio's bill does. Suddenly "pay fines, pay taxes, be good and go through a minimum 13 year process" becomes "INSTANTLY LEGAL!!!!"
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2013/04/janet-napolitano-testifies.php
rlaWTX, Lets see...
1. This writer repeats the false idea about the 400 waivers, only he gets cagey by saying: "Some have suggested that there are more than 400 instances of new discretionary." Powerline claims to be a bunch of lawyers, so he knows this is false. So why is he repeating it?
2. He is mixing issues because the border fence goes up no matter what. What the 90% issue is about is the biometric system for people who overstay. Right now, we have no way to know who that is because the system isn't in place. That's the problem Rubio is trying to fix. So the argument this guy is making through Napolitano's "statements" is a misleading argument. He's basically saying that since she admits that we have no way to know now if we have 90% compliance, then we won't know after Rubio's system is put in place either, ergo this whole thing is a lie. But that's nonsense. Essentially, he's saying that since we haven't build the car yet and thus have no way to know how fast it will go, it will be impossible for us to ever know how fast it will go when we built it. That's nonsense.
As an aside, I like this bit of false logic he uses too:
First, she testifies that the number of apprehensions has stayed the same except in southern Texas where there has been a spike. But then she testifies that apprehensions, border-wide, are at a 40-year low.
I don’t see how both statements can be true.
The answer is pretty obvious actually: people are shifting their crossing point to south Texas. So does this author really not understand that or is he just pretending not to understand so he can call Napolitano (and Rubio by extension) a liar?
So the premise of his article is misdirection, false logic, repeating a debunked conspiracy theory, and attacking a lie he invented.
BTW, for those who want to know why the 400 waiver thing is false. Consider this.
The guy who invented this whopper simply looked for the word and counted the number of times the word(s) came up. That means a section like,
Section 7.b. Waiver. "The Secretary may grant a waiver in accordance with the waiver provisions of section 7a, 'Waivers and Exceptions.' Said waiver must be documented with the complete basis for said waiver outlined."
... would count as 7 waivers by his count. A sentence like, "No waiver shall be granted" will be counted as one as well.
That's the first problem.
The second problem is that laws always include waivers and exception in how they get implemented because that's usually required for them to be constitutional... and to be usable. Only certain waivers affect the substance of the law.
And since the talk-radio conservatives have found ONLY ONE waiver to whine about, that's a pretty strong indication that the other 399 "waivers" aren't real... it is a bogus bit of scaremongering.
So why would people keep pushing the idea that there are 400 waivers?
Andrew, I know you don't have an answer, because there isn't one, but thanks for trying! I'm just glad to hear that I'm not alone in being shocked and saddened by this insanity. I really can't describe it as anything else. And I can tell that you're frustrated by all of this as well. So hang in there! You're doing a great job!
Andrew: The "conservative placebo" (a triple fence, not double) seems to be working pretty well on the California border at the moment. Secure Fence Act of 2006 for the rest of the country? Not so much.
I'm not sure where you live Andrew, but there are several million people who were born in a third world country within 40 miles of my humble home who were brought here by jobs and stayed for the welfare bennies. (A substantial fraction were brought by the welfare and stayed for the jobs, but I digress). That's roughly one out of every 3rd person you run into according to the 2000 census - and probably higher now.
At the more personal level, it's going into a video rental store you frequented 5 years ago and finding out, as a gringo, you are no longer welcome. Or listening to the day laborers say "chick chick chick" at your wife as you're walking to the shopping center. Or losing your promotion or job offer or college scholarship to someone who has worse grades but immigrant parents and the genes of today's favored power block.
Or realizing that the massive income tax bill you pay underwrites a con scheme where you pay services to attract more illegals who vote for more taxes to pay for more services to attract more illegals.
If I am emotional, perhaps it's because real injustice makes people that way. You don't change things by sitting on your butt and compromising with evil or you quickly get compromised to death.
I ask myself, did I have any input whatsoever for this turn of events? If you assembled every voter in California in 1975 and asked them if they would like to invite 5+ million (yes, wonderful, hard working and just looking for a better life) Mexican citizens to join our happy state, I'm pretty sure the final vote would have been 90% "No!".
What changed a red economic powerhouse into a blue dysfunctional toilet was the combination of naive, or corrupt politicians in league with their crony capitalist enablers. The poster boy for the former is Rubio, for the latter is Obama. That one is giving the other credit for this bill sends shivers up my spine.
As an aside, think for a moment about what it will take to deport 11 million people.
Yep. OBVIOUSLY we aren't going to deport those people. It would be a humanitarian nightmare far exceeding the Japanese interment camps. That most of the Republican candidates in the last election didn't get that was pretty shocking.
Conservatives have been lied to so many times - by their own pols - that it's tough to believe that Obama, who lies just to keep in practice and who is obviously trying to get a permanent Democratic majority out of this, isn't slipping yet another backpack bomb into the immigration debacle.
A 1000 page bill with limited investigation also stinks of Obamacare. The Republicans claimed after that odious bill that they'd break such bills into smaller easy to read bits and pass each one separately after wide debate. More bullpucky obviously.
K, Some responses.
1. Ok, so you're emotional. Why does being emotional also mean you will accept lies? If you really think that 90% of the public will agree, then why not just speak the truth and hope that wins people over?
2. If you agree that we can't deport them, then why oppose the Rubio bill? Tell me how you would actually fix this because that's something NO conservative is talking about. Or is the plan just to leave everything as it is right now because that's working so well?
3. What is one out of three? Not welfare. That's simply not true. Even the worst case conservative estimates only claim that 6% of illegals are on welfare (compared to 4.9% of the general population).
4. Neighborhoods change. And America is and always has been multi-ethnic. You can't change that. So would you rather integrate them or leave them as a subclass who own nothing and have no incentive to fit in?
5. The border fence is a placebo. 40% of illegals came here by overstaying visa, i.e. no fence can stop them. More illegals are now coming from Asia than Mexico. No fence will stop them. The reason the fence "appears" to be working (a claim which flies in the face of conservative criticism of Janet Napolitano, by the way, so be careful because you're committing heresy) is that our economy stinks and because Mexico is out of people.
The fence is the red herring that opportunists use to delude conservatives into following them. It's like promising that we can stop drugs or crime if we just have enough cops.
Thanks Ellen. I am sick of talking about conservatives, but this one had to be done because the attacks on Rubio had been so venomous and so blatantly false and disingenuous, that they had to be answered.
OT: Montana Senator and Obamacare designer Max Baucus has announced he is retiring. I guess the writing was on the wall.
Personally, Andrew, I think you have broken your own rule. I suspect most of the noise out there is to protect their conservative flank later and to raise money. "I actually opposed the bill before voting for an improved version of the bill."-BS and all showmanship. It will pass this year with enough lead time ahead of the 2014 election that no one will really remember what congressman voted for or against.
The vast majority of congress knows that this needs to be done. Everybody (states, bureaucracy, businesses, the illegals) wants better clarification on what to do with these people and this bill helps that. I anticipate a close senate vote across party lines but no desire to filibuster (55-45). Then off to the house where there will be tons of yelling and screaming but a bill similar but with some crazy ideas thrown in (no loud mariachi music after 10 pm). Off to committee where the nutty ideas will be weeded out and back to each floor where it will pass by a large margin.
Then president ding-a-ling will run out and find a bunch of Mexicans and dress them up to look like workers. They will stand behind him as he signs this bill, commemorating his historic achievement. Biden will pop off with some inappropriate statement in Spanish (grande puta!) The press will go wild and fall over one another for a day but the Hispanics and everyone else will know who did the dirty work.
Koshcat, I would be depressed at the image you present if I wasn't laughing so hard! LOL! Especially Biden and the ban on after-hours Mariachi music.
In all seriousness, in terms of representatives and Senators, I think you are right. Except for a couple real fringe nuts, they know the game and they are playing it. They will talk the language of the base, offer some mindless things that will never become part of it, and then they'll "reluctantly" vote whichever way their districts require them to vote so long as it is assured it passes.
I also agree that right now, it appears that Rubio will get all the credit and that's a great thing for him and the Republican Party.
My concern here is the other aspect of this. My concern is the lunatics who have become "the voice of conservatism" have devolved into this insane doomsday cult that thinks nothing of telling lies, using conspiracy theories, and spitting venom at anyone who is not "of the body."
There is really no way we will ever win the public over if they see our side as a bunch of insane, hateful, childish assholes who lie through their teeth and brutalize their own people when they disagree.
There is also no way we will ever get conservative policies put in place if the base is being whipped up into a frenzy to attack anyone who offers anything more than "I hate Obama."
The problem with modern conservatism right now is not the politicians, it's the narcissistic talkers and the zombies who follow them.
P.S. I'm 100% sure this bill will pass.
It wouldn't surprise me some of the GOP use this to help distance themselves from the talking heads a little. Would give them some legitimacy with the center and center-right voter.
Koshcat, I'm hoping they're smart enough to do that, because it could reset the image of the party very quickly doing that. It would also give them a lot of freedom to reshape their agenda, which right now is stuck on "NNNNNNOOOOOO!!!" and "OMG a witch!!!" Changing that will be key.
Will they? I don't know. I get hints that the Republicans are really sick of the talking heads, but they aren't the most courageous bunch either.
I think what will tell us is the way the vote turns out. If it's a really lopsided "pro" vote, then the Republicans will be making a statement and they will actually find it easy to make the talkers irrelevant at that point. If the vote is close, then nothing will change. If the Republicans actually vote against this, then the Republicans are finished and the talkers can (and will) have them.
So there is a lot at stake here.
Ok, so you're emotional. Why does being emotional also mean you will accept lies? If you really think that 90% of the public will agree, then why not just speak the truth and hope that wins people over?
Read my response. The 1975 public is not the 2013 public, which is swimming in a sea of PC lies known as multiculturalism. Ironically, the culture of 1975 would be better equipped to deal with the flood of immigrants but the culture of 2013 makes the situation malignant.
If you agree that we can't deport them, then why oppose the Rubio bill?
Because it's being pushed quickly through in a massive package and enthusiastically supported by people who have shown not just opposition to conservatives, but literally bitter hatred. When the bill has been masticated by folks like Paul and Cruz et al and Chuck Schumer becomes less excited about voting for it I'll be in favor of it's passage. Fool me once, shame on me, fool me a dozen times and I'm a conservative.
What is one out of three? Not welfare. That's simply not true. Even the worst case conservative estimates only claim that 6% of illegals are on welfare (compared to 4.9% of the general population).
One out of three is the fraction of immigrants, legal and illegal, in the LA county population. Talk about culture busting. A percentage of both originally came for the welfare but that has since been reduced for the illegals. It's the second generation citizens that now get the welfare legally and that price is still being paid. So with illegals you get a twofer.
Neighborhoods change. And America is and always has been multi-ethnic. You can't change that. So would you rather integrate them or leave them as a subclass who own nothing and have no incentive to fit in?
Oh please. If they were going to integrate we wouldn't even need a bill now and would be discussing if the Democratic party was doomed forever while the progs would be whining about closing the border. Thanks to multi-culti education, we have what amounts to an alien population inside our borders. As far as I know, this is not addressed in the immigration bill and needs to be a component.
The border fence is a placebo. 40% of illegals came here by overstaying visa, i.e. no fence can stop them. More illegals are now coming from Asia than Mexico.
Having followed the immigration debate for some time I would be very leery of trusting statistics about how many illegals are in residence and the rate at which they are coming over. There have been decades of dueling studies published by left and right think tanks and study groups which rarely come to the same values. At the moment, the establishment "right" wants immigration out of the way and I wouldn't be surprised their statistical results align with the lefts. That does not assure accuracy, unfortunately.
As for tracking down expired visas, I'm all in favor. But then where are the penalties in the bill if the government decides not to do it? Is the President impeached? Do congress critters lose half their salary. I remind you that we already have laws governing illegals and they aren't being enforced except where various political figures make a public case out of it. That's been true of Republican and Democratic administrations. So WHY, Andrew would you support yet another bill that they can just forget to enforce? Stop the merry go round.
I'm happy to support a bill that will be enforced and can't be ignored. I don't think this one is there yet and hasn't been vetted enough.
K and Andrew.....I agree...there is no perfect bill and I'm not in favor of doing nothing because "it's not a perfect bill." As K states, Repugs have been fooled in the past before with amnesty. Give them amnesty and we'll protect our borders......This is the ONLY time we'll pass amnesty for illegals.....
I don't know what the answer is Andrew...only that I think we'll find out that the dems (Shumer et al) have rolled the repubs yet again to increase their voting base. If ANY republican thinks that by supporting this bill they will then get "hispanics" to vote repub then they are really as clueless as we all know them to be.....conservative and middle of the roaders all
And...wasn't E-Verify supposed to be the answer to all this when it passed originally?
Call me a fool, but I really believe the repubs are getting rolled again if they think they will get any votes out of this. All newly minted "illegal" amnestied voters will be voting democrat in order to get a piece of that sweet, sweet redistribution pie.
"All newly minted "illegal" amnestied voters will be voting democrat in order to get a piece of that sweet, sweet redistribution pie."
Remember, they won't become voting citizens for another 10 years.
Patriot, My response.
1. The problem is this. There are three possible courses of action: (1) do nothing, (2) pass a law, or (3) try to deport 11 million people.
What conservatives have been saying, and what you are saying, is that we can't do number 2 because no law will work and because we don't trust the Republicans.
That leaves (1) and (3). The idea of deporting 11 million people is politically and logistically impossible -- not to mention, we would go down in the history books like Hitler II. That means the ONLY option conservatives will accept is (1) do nothing. That's means, conservatives are advocating letting a bad situation fester and continue to get worse for no rational reason.
Who would take anyone seriously who takes that kind of stance?
Rubio has provided a bill that addresses every concern raised by conservatives except the whiny stuff about wishing 11 million Mexicans into the cornfield. If conservatives aren't going to support that bill, (1) what bill will conservatives ever support, and (2) what makes conservatives think this bill isn't going to move far left to find supporters since they won't work with it? When you take yourself out of the process, you have no right to complain about the end result.
2. E-Verify is currently only voluntary. Rubio's bill will make it mandatory. That's when it is likely to have a real effect.
3. In terms of who they will vote for, let me point out that you have to look at how the voting patterns have changed. We've gone from consistent 40% of Hispanics to 20% and falling. Those lost Hispanic voters didn't suddenly decide they want redistribution -- they were drive away by conservatives.
Moreover, look at Texas, where conservatives have not gotten racist and hateful on this issue and lo and behold, the GOP still gets 43% of Hispanics.
4. As for redistribution, I think you're looking at this in a very skewed way. Right now, they pay no tax and yet they can get benefits. Under the new system, they will need to pay tax and they can't get benefits until they are eligible like any other immigrant. This is the thing all the people like Coulter are doing in their attacks -- they are only mentioning the things you won't like without giving you the other part of the equation with the things you will like (and even then, they are distorting the things you don't like to scare you).
Kit, It's actually 13 years and that's only when they can start to become -- they won't all qualify or qualify right away.
13 years. If it went into effect no that means it would not be until 2026 when they could start voting -at earliest.
That leaves us the 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024 elections. That is 6 elections.
K,
I'm happy to support a bill that will be enforced and can't be ignored. I don't think this one is there yet and hasn't been vetted enough.
This is pretty standard from what I’m seeing from the conservatives above, and I don’t think that’s true because the conservative assumption seems to be that the Republicans cannot be trusted to write a bill and the Democrats can’t be trusted to enforce a bill. So I can see no situation where a bill can satisfy the conservative standard. Moreover, rather than stating what they want, conservatives are playing the game of saying “nope, try again,” which is a strategy used by people who want nothing to be done... not by people who actually intend to solve a problem.
truth/lies
As for lying to try to trick the public, the problem is that the only people being tricked are talk-radio conservatives. Nobody else buys these lies and all the lies are doing is making it clear to everyone else that they should ignore anything the talk-radio conservatives have to add. Basically, talk-radio conservatives have made themselves irrelevant to public policy.
who supports it
This is actually a point of frustration for me with talk-radio conservatives. Conservatives constantly judge things based on who they think likes it. All a liberal has to do to fool conservatives is to pretend to like/dislike something and conservative dance like monkeys on a string. Moreover, the other problem with this is that talk-radio conservatives seem to only need to find one person to say something and they attribute that to all of liberalism. Thus, all it takes is one D-list celebrity and all of the talk-radio conservative world changes their minds like lemmings. Also, did you know that the left is furious at Schumer over this bill?
the statistics
Two points on the statistics. First, I point out conservative statistics so you know what the worst case scenario is.
Secondly, statistical evidence is far superior to anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence is worthless. The statistics on this are consistent. So unless you have some evidence to refute that statistics I see no reason to reject those. Moreover, on this issue, conservative stats, liberal stats, the Census stats, the think tanks, and the budgets all show consistent numbers.
why support the bill
Because something needs to be done and “do nothing” is not an answer. Why this bill? Because Rubio’s bill includes all the things conservatives claim they want in an immigration bill. Also, there is no alternative, nor are conservatives willing to come up with one.
Kit, The bigger issue to me is to start to win over those who already vote and vote against us in massive numbers. That's where the change needs to happen or those elections will be pretty ugly.
"The bigger issue to me is to start to win over those who already vote and vote against us in massive numbers. That's where the change needs to happen or those elections will be pretty ugly."
I know. But the idea it will cast us into the wilderness and we will never win another election is a myth.
Kit, Yes, it is a myth. It's yet another false doomsday prediction. Talk radio really excels at those.
So I can see no situation where a bill can satisfy the conservative standard.
Let me help. A non partisan organization similar to the CBO is set up to monitor illegal aliens after amnesty. It will report on a bi-annual basis just prior to the congressional election cycles on the state of immigration in the US. The data will be share with independent institutions to analyse for themselves. A set of parameters - green light, yellow light and red light will be used to measure how the immigration bill is being adhered to.
Problem solved.
Your reasoning seems to be that since conservatives don't like the bill that nothing will satisfy them. Well, maybe if they had a little more time to work on it, rather than forcing it through they could come up with something.
But the idea it will cast us into the wilderness and we will never win another election is a myth.
I've read your earlier thoughts on this and I find it unpersuasive. Your hypothesis predicts that California should be trending right. That's the opposite of what is happening.
"I've read your earlier thoughts on this and I find it unpersuasive. Your hypothesis predicts that California should be trending right. That's the opposite of what is happening."
How?
K, No, my reasoning is that since conservatives are setting impossible conditions and attacking the very ideas they put forward when someone agrees to them. That's what tells me they don't want to pass anything.
What conservatives are doing is an old "negotiation" tactic when you want to crash a deal -- you just keep moving the goalposts and demanding that the other guy meet criteria you won't identify.
I would predict that California should be trending, right? Hardly! California is the classic example of what NOT to do. Republicans in California have responded with open racism to the Hispanics who have come. After decades of that, it's no wonder Hispanics have moved left.
All things equal, if republicans can't convince a religious and family centered group to vote for them, then theyy are dead as a party.
Immigration and perceived anti-immigrant stance is what is driving these people away.
I agree. The problem isn't one of them leaving us, it's one of us shoving them away.
It's difficult to find educated people for this topic, however, you sound like you know what you're talking about!
Thanks
Also visit my site - individual reputation management
Post a Comment