Nov
13
2012

I wish @edmorrissey luck…

…in his argument (which I endorse) for immigration reform.  It’s a touchy subject.  I understand that people in the party are going to disagree with people like Ed or me on it.  But I personally need to make a few things clear…

[pause]

The bullet points that followed turned into a rant, so let me summarize: I’m on the Krauthammer borders-for-amnesty train; I’m also on Reason’s the-legal-immigration-process-is-utterly-[expletive deleted]ed train; I’m tired of nothing ever being done to resolve either; and frankly I don’t like the tone coming from some of the people most exercised about immigration (you may thank my basic loyalty to the GOP for my discretion in not naming names on that).  If you’re upset by any of that, this is your privilege; but I suggest contemplating something before you respond.  There’s a lot of companies out there who are deciding to either layoff existing workers or not hire new ones, thanks to Obamacare.  There’s a lot of liberals out there who have decided to try to stop this via the application of hostile language directed at the companies.

How is that working out for them?

Moe Lane

15 Comments

  • Aruges says:

    As I’ve said before, I don’t see any reason for the Dems to cut any kind of substantive deal. They get exactly what they want weather they wait or if the Republicans cave. Even if they aggree to better border enforcement in exchange for some kind of amnesty, they get to be the ones who do the “enforcement”. They will just do what has been done up to now, i.e. not really enforce the border and claim that enforcement doesn’t work.

    • Doc Holliday says:

      yes, all this has been done before. One need not simply look at the Reagan example, there are other countries in the world, even though we often forget that.

      Spain has done this amnesty + claims that “this will be the last time”, now we will secure the border etc a few times too. It never works, it anything it encourages more illegal immigration.

      As to the timing of all amnesty types, that does not sit right with me. Why are all these conservatives supporting amnesty only after the election? If it really is the “right thing to do” (it isn’t), then it was the right thing to do last week.

      It seems to me the Republican leadership is begging political latinos to be their friends. That weak position is not attractive, and it will not attract new Republican voters.

      JMHO. Hope I am not stepping on toes, this is not my joint, its Moe’s.

  • jbird says:

    It is the right thing to do, figuring this out. However, I expect republicans to get zero credit for anything positive no matter what % of the final bill is republican ideas.

    • acat says:

      A deeper dive into history shows this isn’t news, jbird … file under “it’s amazing what you can accomplish if you don’t care who gets credit”.
      .
      Mew
      .
      .
      .
      .
      p.s. what party were Lincoln, MLK, and the vast majority of the votes *for* civil rights reforms from, eh?

  • Crawford says:

    I have no doubt that we’ll reward lawlessness, er, “grant amnesty” in exchange for promises to enforce immigration laws sometime in the indefinite future, along with a promise to streamline legal immigration at that same future time.
    .
    And nothing that Republicans do will convince racists to vote for them.

  • Cameron says:

    I know that this is an issue you and I disagree with on. I am completely and uncompromisingly opposed to amnesty in any way, shape or form. I don’t care if you call it the DREAM Act or the “Fluffy Kittens Law,” I will never support any effort to grant citizenship towards people who (quite frankly) are too lazy to do it legally.
    .
    Every time amnesty has been floated, it’s always had the underlying promise “this time, we’ll also enforce the borders.” And once amnesty is granted, the second half gets forgotten and those of us who point that out are branded “racists.” We have sections of our country that have signs posted warning Americans away because of the drug runners and the coyotes. I have an uncle who was nearly murdered by an illegal alien. I am not full of the milk of human kindness on this issue.
    .
    Before I listen to any talk of amnesty with any degree of interest, they can handle enforcing existing laws, securing our border and protecting the legal citizens here first as separate issues.

  • Luke says:

    Fix the legal immigration system? I’m all for it.
    Actual enforcement of our borders and laws? You have my full support.
    Amnesty of any variety? Lucy, you can take that football and [unprintable anatomically-impossible act].
    I have a moral objection to pardoning criminals.
    On the practical front, we all know that enforcement will cease as soon as an amnesty is in place. Regardless of whatever safeguards we attempt to put into place.

  • acat says:

    http://ace.mu.nu/archives/334891.php
    .
    Ace asserts that, rather than the GOP problem being “the message”, the problem is a lack of “penetration” .. that is, Romney’s (and the GOP’s overall, like it or not …) message never got to the low-information voters, but Obama’s did.
    .
    I bring this up because, while I agree that both border enforcement and the immigration process are effed up, I’m not convinced that changing that helps us.
    .
    If Ace is right, and we lost on tactics rather than message, then .. all these conversations about how the GOP needs to change are simply not letting a crisis go to waste, no?
    .
    Mew

  • Skip says:

    So immigration’s a tough subject, and too easy to be demagogued on, but my take is pretty simple. There are a large number of people who are spiritually American, but who just happened to be born somewhere else, and want to get here to be free, live the old American Dream, raise families, build lives and businesses, become culturally American. I want those folks, and I want fewer restrictions keeping them out. There’s a second group of people, who just want to come over here for a few years, make a good living, saving up money for a family or sending most of what they make back to the one they already have. There needs to be a legal way to let those folks come over.

    But the third group of folks, the ones with whom we share no common culture and they have no interests in learning ours, but want to come over here to subvert from within, or to live on government largess? Keep those folks the hell away.

    Unfortunately I don’t know how to distinguish, legally, between groups one and three.

    • acat says:

      I don’t suppose you’ve got a proposal in there to reduce the number of the third group who happen to be born here?
      .
      Mew

    • acat says:

      Thought about it a bit. Seems that the best way to determine between groups one and three is, as the saying goes, by their works.
      .
      Simple old-skool proposal: Sponsorship.
      .
      You want to become a citizen? You need a sponsor *with a job* or other visible means of support. (business owner, farm, trust fund…) Nobody without a means of income can be a sponsor, nobody gets in without one.
      .
      Let corporations be sponsors, for that matter. Answers the second group as well.
      .
      The newly arrived potential citizen is not entitled to any government handouts, and the sponsor *forfeits* their government handouts (i.e. no social security or medicare) if the newly arrived person proves to be a mooch.
      .
      Mew

RSS feed for comments on this post.


Site by Neil Stevens | Theme by TheBuckmaker.com