Hello:

Right wingers recognize that they LOST the Hispanic demographic bigtime, and they want to change that.. Apparently, that means they're going to back a comprehensive immigration bill...

But, that bill IS going to let the illegals STAY (amnesty). If it isn't, why even talk about it? How is that going to fare amongst rank and file Republicans who've been told for years, that the illegals are taking their jobs? How is smoothy going to be with it?

I don't think it'll fly.. I don't think the party can or will do an about face. Do you?

excon

I suppose you also think non-Americans should have the right to vote here too... like a certain well known left winger from Kalifornistan was caught publicly saying a few years ago.

Hello smoothy:

I don't know who that is, and I don't care. No, I think only CITIZENS should vote... There. I answered YOUR question.. Now, will you answer mine? Are you cool with amnesty? A yes or no will suffice.

excon

I know we can't send everyone back, but can we secure the borders or do you just want to let 'em keep coming in illegally?

I know we can't send everyone back, but can we secure the borders or do you just want to let 'em keep coming in illegally?
Aren't the borders secure? Canadians aren't rushing in illegally any longer, and drones fly over the Mexican border, plus fences are up and guards are patrolling.

Hello again, Steve:

You remind me of the people who still yell about the federal prison country clubs... Uhhhh, they disappeared 30 years ago..

You've been yelling about securing the border for at least the past 8 years... Uhhhh, without electrifying the fence or building a moat, the border IS secure..

Now, if you mean secure, as in NOBODY EVER crosses it, then a secure border will only happen in your dreams. But, instead of treating our country like an armed camp, why don't we just make immigration INTO the US easier? If we did that, we wouldn't need a fence at all.

You're not afraid of losing jobs are you? Do you want to wash dishes? Do you know anybody who does? Americans don't want those kinds of jobs.. I'm reminded about an episode in Alabama last summer... They had just passed a DRACONIAN immigration law, and all the lettuce pickers fled. Instead of Americans taking those jobs, the crops rotted in the fields...

Or, maybe you don't know the present immigration process takes YEARS and costs $1,000. Our lettuce pickers and dish washers don't HAVE years and $1,000's. The immigration process should take WEEKS and cost a couple hundred $$'s.

You don't get that, or you'd understand why our dishwashers sneak across the border. You accuse them of not waiting in line, when waiting in line ISN'T an option for our dishwashers.. Their family is hungry TODAY. It's not really difficult to understand.

excon

And what you don't understand is that we are more than happy to reform immigration... the Rubio plan works for me.. But in exchange ,at a minimum we want operational security of the border (I'm more concerned with a terrorist and a bomb walking across the border than a dishwasher );,a better method of visa tracking ,(maybe photo id's )and enforcement in the workplace of existing law.
The Dems won't agree to those terms because for them ,immigration is a wedge issue they can continue to play politics with.

Nobody believes the repubs except other repubs, that's the wedge issue. Every solution and policy you guys bring up people run the other way. Except YOU guys.

You got your fence you got your guards and it still ain't enough, now you want your immigration bill. When are you guys going to figure out that hollering, throwing rocks, calling names, ain't going to help your dwindling numbers get any more people on your side.

Seems like you are the only one throwing rocks here. Like I said ;your side has identified this as a wedge issue. It is your side that is not open to rational debate.

My side has identified your sides intransigence as the wedge issue and that's not throwing rocks at all, its an observation of your words and actions that have led many to the conclusion that reasonable debate is not going to happen with your side.

Refusing to make an immigration policy until the border is secure and being a capitalist, knowing the costs the border can never be 100% secure without a whole lot more money.

The whole deal has been blocked for years about what kind of path to citizenship or "amnesty" would become law, but those that say NO amnesty have no solution other than self deportation.

I would hardly call what your side does as reasonable debate.

Who said 100% secure. That's your side putting words in our mouths to steer the direction of the debate. I congratulate them.. The lies and fear mongering against us seems to have worked.

Hello tal:


the border can never be 100% secure without a whole lot more money.Even then, it'll NEVER be 100% secure.. If they can get drugs into a supermax prison, they can get drugs across the border... As long as the right wing holds up THAT red herring, or straw man, or canard (I don't the difference), immigration policy will NEVER be enacted...

Frankly, that'll HURT right wingers more than us. I thought that they were trying to SOFTEN their stance... And, that's why I brought it up in the first place.. It doesn't look like they're changing ANYTHING - not even the language.

Excon

who said 100% secure. That's your side putting words in our mouths to steer the direction of the debate. I congratulate them .. The lies and fear mongering against us seems to have worked.

So where is the immigration policy from you guys? What happened to the dream act you guys walked away from after you wrote it?


Hello tal:

Even then, it'll NEVER be 100% secure.. If they can get drugs into a supermax prison, they can get drugs across the border... As long as the right wing holds up THAT red herring, or straw man, or canard (I don't the difference), immigration policy will NEVER be enacted...

Frankly, that'll HURT right wingers more than us. I thought that they were trying to SOFTEN their stance... And, that's why I brought it up in the first place.. It doesn't look like they're changing ANYTHING - not even the language.

excon

Its an old story EX, delay and distract the posse while the robbers get away with the loot.

I guess I am throwing rocks.

What happened to the dream act you guys walked away fromafter you wrote it?

You mean shamnesty ?
The fact is that by doing nothing i.e. law enforcement (which is what the President and the Dems have done for years ) ;there is defacto amnesty ;and you still get to demagogue the issue. Amnesty means no consequences for breaking the law... and that is the defacto position we find ourselves in today.
Rubio will be introducing a series of proposals that no doubt will sit on Harry Reid's shelf . Therein lies the plan you ask of us. But your side prefers status quo ;and to only bring up the subject when there is a politically expedient reason to do so.

Hello again, tom:


you mean shamnesty ?
The fact is that by doing nothing i.e. law enforcement (which is what the President and the Dems have done for years )Wow! How did you miss THIS (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/immigration-deportation_n_2348090.html)?


WASHINGTON -- Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials announced on Friday that the agency surpassed its record number of deportations in the past fiscal year, but also will enact reform of a controversial immigration enforcement program that could lead to fewer non-criminal immigrants being removed from the country.

The agency deported 409,849 immigrants in the 2012 fiscal year, up from 396,906 immigrants last year. More than 392,000 immigrants were deported in the 2010 fiscal year.

Excon

Hello again, tom:

Wow! How did you miss THIS (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/immigration-deportation_n_2348090.html)?

excon

I wonder if it has anything to do with the current prison population counts ?

Thanks to President Obama's immigration crackdown, Latinos lead federal prison population (http://feministing.com/2011/09/13/thanks-to-president-obamas-immigration-crackdown-latinos-lead-federal-prison-population/)

As parole would normally occur then it seems deportation after time served would be an easy way to show effective numbers.

Wow! How did you miss THIS?

Because that is bogus .all you need to do is to include people who returned to their country on their own into the stats ;and it's easy to make the figures look impressive.
The President also admitted he cooked the books by including people that have been turned away at the border. The truth is that ICE is arresting far fewer people in the interior than ever before. 2010, ICE located fewer than half the number of deportable aliens in 2010 than they did in 2006 (517,000, down from 1.2 million).
So the President's inflated numbers come from people who have done what Romney called 'voluntary deportation' ,and people who have been turned away at the border.

You want real enforcement ? Put the heat on employers ,enforce e-verify to the fullest extend of the law. Keep looking at ways to increase border security . Then we can talk about a 'path to citizenship'.
That's fair... no ? We agreed to amnesty once before with those conditions ;and the Dems reengaged on their end of the bargain.

Hello again, tom:


You want real enforcement ? Put the heat on employers ,enforce e-verify to the fullest extend of the law. Keep looking at ways to increase border security . Then we can talk about a 'path to citizenship'.
That's fair... no ? Fair? Of course not. What it IS, is moving the goal posts..

But, I'm THRILLED you and your fellow right wingers AREN'T going to change your tune. Like Christine O'Donnell insured the election of Harry Reid, your intransigence is INSURING the election of Hillary Clinton.

Excon

I think you mean Sharon Angle insured the re election of Harry Reid ex,

The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2010: A Summary | Immigration Policy Center (http://immigrationpolicy.org/just-facts/comprehensive-immigration-reform-act-2010-summary)

All those things were in the last bill but we know why it wasn't passed don't we?

Hello tal:

Yeah, I got to quit smoking that sh1t..

excon

All those things were in the last bill but we know why it wasn't passed don't we?

There are significant differences also . One major one is that I am not interested in another comprehensive bill. We've seen where that leads ;lots of riders and pork ,and provisions that can be enforced or ignored at the will of the executive. So the Rubio plan breaks down immigration into about 5 bills ;each addressing a specific concern.
Once broken down ;there are plenty of compromises that could be crafted .
However ,I have a sense that the left will have none of that. It's never what points they should concede ;it's always where the Repubics should cave.
So ;in an act of good faith, the left should compromise on this issues that concern us. But they won't ;because as Ex has demonstrated ,they think they hold all the cards on this issue; and don't need to adjust their positions.
What that has meant to the concerned constituency is that the left can demagogue the issues whenever it is politically expedient, and otherwise ignore the issue.

Tom did I just see you use the word compromise

I've always been open to compromise on everything except principles. The problem is that when the word is used by the left ,it almost always means they don't budge ,but we must.

I've always been open to compromise on everything except principles. The problem is that when the word is used by the left ,it almost always means they don't budge ,but we must.

The last 4 years your "principles" have wasted time by walking away from crafted bills you had input on and refused to allow votes on.

Obstruction is your principle, and blaming the other side is the tool you use.

The Republicans (http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/republicans-unprecedented-obstructionism-by-numbers)

Rep. Edwards: Republican Obstructionism Is Keeping America From Moving Ahead - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT2-DeQHvpw)

GOP Kills Science Jobs Bill By Forcing Dems To Vote For Porn | TPMDC (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/05/gop-kills-science-jobs-bill-by-forcing-dems-to-vote-for-porn.php)

And of course I had to include an article that matches your own soaring rhetoric.

Gaming American Democracy: | John Dean | Verdict | Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia (http://verdict.justia.com/2011/10/21/gaming-american-democracy-3)

Narrative watch: Republican obstructionism : COMBAT! (http://combatblog.net/?p=688)


While calling the Republicans obstructionists seems unfair—they are the opposition party, after all—the discrepancy between their principled objections and their voting records is beginning to suggest that they’re playing politics, not government.

Crooks ands liars.. Combat... John Dean ? You want me to take them seriously ? If I posted something from Sean Hannity what would you say ?

Hello again, tom:


I've always been open to compromise on everything except principles.Uhhhh, can you spell out how your principles work ON THE GROUND??

Let's say we do ALL of the requirements you laid down. Can the illegals STAY, or not?

I asked smoothy the same question... He didn't answer either.

Excon

crooks ands liars .. Combat ...John Dean ? You want me to take them seriously ? If I posted something from Sean Hannity what would you say ?

I would take it apart for facts and agendas. The whole point is its just not YOUR principles to consider, but the principles of others you expect them to forego for your own.

Since your sides stated goal was to obstruct, which you have done extremely well, you leave others no choice but to push back harder than you do.

We don't want to go backward to an easier time for YOU, because frankly everyone else was getting their a$$es kicked. A FACT you refuse to recognize, but vilified everyone else but yourselves in your zeal to take your country back.

Move over Jack, I worked for my fair share, so give it up! Thats our principle. We are not the second class citizens you try to make us out to be that deserve no better than you give us.

Let's say we do ALL of the requirements you laid down. Can the illegals STAY, or not?

I asked smoothy the same question... He didn't answer either.
I can't answer for Smoothy . I would say a path should be made for most. For the children of course a quick path to citizenship. For the parents ;the ones who broke the law ;their path to legal residency and possible citizenship is negotiable.
No matter what you say ;their coming here screwed someone who applied legally for admission. We cannot just dismiss that fact... Like I said ,the last time we tried amnesty there was no consequences except perhaps the lawyer fee to fill out the paperwork. That meant there was no deterrence at all for someone entering illegally . This time we have to make it clear that there are consequences ;and there has to be an assurance that ANYONE that crosses the borders illegally or doesn't comply with the terms of their Visas will be removed .In return ,I agree that immigration standards should be streamlined .
However ,I would still prioritize them in a manner similar to what the Canadians do,relatives of Canadians or Canadian residents,skilled workers ,professionals ,people accepted as immigrants for humanitarian or compassionate reasons,and refugees escaping persecution .

Hello again, tom:


This time we have to make it clear that there are consequences ;and there has to be an assurance that ANYONE that crosses the borders illegally or doesn't comply with the terms of their Visas will be removed.

The point of my post was NOT to argue immigration reform with you.. But, in case you're interested, we don't agree.

The point was to ask if you guys were going to change ANYTHING of substance toward the Hispanic community, with the eye toward getting their vote.

I see that NOTHING of substance HAS changed, and that thrills me no end.

If I may be so bold, I'd surmise that YOUR principled view mirrors the Tea Party's principled view, which you said you WON'T compromise, and we KNOW the Tea Party won't compromise... So, I suggest that when immigration reform gets introduced, it won't get past the House because you STILL want to deport their grandmothers. The Hispanics who hate you now, will hate you even worse, and Hillary will be our next president.

It's been said that Hispanics are a NATURAL fit with conservative values and ideas. Just imagine what could have been.

excon

because you STILL want to deport their grandmothers

And here is what I wrote .

For the parents ;the ones who broke the law ;their path to legal residency and possible citizenship is negotiable.
'
Where do you see the word 'deport' in that sentence ?


and Hillary will be our next president.

If not President ,then likely candidate . Joe Biden and Andrew Cuomo are wasting their time prepping for a run. The Dems won't nominate a white guy when there are special interests to pander to.

Hello again, tom:

I read it right here:
This time we have to make it clear that there are consequences ;and there has to be an assurance that ANYONE that crosses the borders illegally or doesn't comply with the terms of their Visas will be removed

Uhhh, did you mean in the future, and NOT the present illegals?

If I'm misunderstanding something, please tell me what NEGOTIABLE means.. I already said, if ALL your terms are reached, will you let them stay? If the answer to THAT question is, it's negotiable, then even though YOU'RE not willing to MOUTH the words, your position is crystal clear. You want to send their grandmothers back to Mexico.

Excon

Small wonder they run from you guys like a plague. You aren't on their side.


The Dems won't nominate a white guy when there are special interests to pander to.

Unlike your side, our side has choices and options besides JUST white guys, and even our white guys know how to treat people like they want to be treated. Unlike your last parade of candidates and that includes the loony white woman, and the singing black guy who didn't have a clue as to what the planet looked like, or how many numbers there were.

Hell as rich as your final candidate was he still couldn't talk, relate or count very well himself. "White man want more money" wasn't a great platform either.

The dems and repubs have never nominated any one but a white guy ever until we broke the cycle with Obama.

So now its pandering if we don't do it again??

You don't think any of our minority candidates are qualified; and if they are ,they are sell outs.

Doesn't matter what we think of your candidates, nor what you think of ours. We vote for our own anyway.

Doesn't matter what we think of your candidates, nor what you think of ours. We vote for our own anyway.

In other words, no open minds on your side.

Speech, back in the day, McCain, Hatch, Dole and quite a few others had my trust, respect and some really credible ideas. But this new crop of national heads doesn't impress me nor give me any hope of bettering the lives of everybody, and the old guys have stopped being the leaders they were.

Its not so much as having an open mind, but self preservation with knowing they ain't working for me and mine. The Dem's may not be the bomb, the answer to prayers, but they don't call us the unwashed lazy undeserving nanny state masses that you guys do. Lets face it after the republican debates and shenanigans we all knew this bunch was a NO WAY.

Not easy to have an open mind when somebody starts talking about cutting programs for the poor and giving Mitt more money. Or its my fault I got laid off.

Obviously I wasn't the only one who felt that way.

Um, it was YOU who started talking about cutting programs for the poor and giving more money to Mitt. You made it up.

Where were you for the last year leading up to the last election?

Listening to your myths.

Hello again, Steve:

You DID hear the myth circulating in lefty circles about the N.M. right wing legislator who introduced a bill that would charge a mother with felony destruction of evidence, if she aborted the offspring of her rapist?

NOBODY believes that, though... It's GOT to be a myth, doesn't it? Nobody is THAT stupid or hates women THAT much that they'd do this, right?

Uhhh, wrong (http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/01/n-m-state-rep-takes-heat-for-bill-that-would-criminalize-abortion-in-cases-of-rape/).

excon

Yes, I believe I responded with "meanwhile, what the hell are they doing for my daughter besides lying through their teeth?" While you're wasting your time with nonsense that stands no chance the good, compassionate liberals in California are busy lying and neglecting a real woman in need while costing me tons of money I don't have to do what they are supposed to be doing, what they promised to do and what they are REQUIRED to do. But hey, I don't know nuthin' about any war on women.

You are hardly the only one who gets angry, and frustrated at trying to navigate the system, and save money you really don't have. I know first hand it's a nightmare, and have real empathy for those going through it.

It ain't easy and the right guidance and support is what I sought out, but its still a difficult process to go through.

My point is your side wants more of the system.It doesn't work now so why would anyone want more? The people we're dealing with should be giving us guidance but they've done nothing but LIE, and we know it for a fact.

And did I mention the poor care and runaround my ailing veteran of a father has been getting from the VA for the last month? The government is going to end up taking every penny of his money, his home and his property to 'care' for him after serving his country and being a working taxpayer all his life.

Forgive me if I bristle at the idea of expanding government, they don't do sh*t unless you're a single black woman with 6 kids, or maybe an auto worker getting paid to sit on his a$$.

maybe an auto worker getting paid to sit on his a$$.
Or a pervert teacher who should probably be in jail.
EXCLUSIVE: Perv music teacher Aryeh Eller, who only worked one year full time, has collected $1 million for 13 years in rubber room - NYPOST.com (http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/rubber_roomer_seat_OWvruBRA85C3E6mmIEiPTM)

... for a minute there I thought I was speaking about Senator Robert Mendendez... who wants to reform immigration laws so he can bring under age prostitutes into the country.

Hello tom:

Still waiting for you to tell me what negotiable means.

But, again, your posts make CLEAR your positions have NOT changed. Again, and/or UNTIL you tell me clearly that they HAVE, the Hispanics will CONTINUE to hate you, and Hillary will be our next president.

All this other stuff is subterfuge, because you don't want to answer my question.

excon

Here is what I wrote :

For the parents ;the ones who broke the law ;their path to legal residency and possible citizenship is negotiable.
Negotiable is negotiable . If they comply with the terms that Congress and the President agree to in a future plan then they can stay and granny isn't sent back .
You have already heard many times the outline for the agreement . On that issue both sides are much closer to an agreement of principles.
The hang up is that your side wants us to go through this kabuki dance in 20 years when the next wave of illegals have crossed the border.
The details ? I already told you that Rubio had a plan I could support .So I'll give you his words on the issue:

The third key area: addressing the undocumented immigrants already here. Those who have committed serious crimes in the United States should be found, arrested and deported.

Most of those who are undocumented are not dangerous criminals. But most are also not victims. They knowingly broke our immigration laws and do not have a legal right to remain here. But they are also human beings who made those choices in pursuit of a dream we recognize as the American dream.

The best thing for our country is to deal with this issue in a humane but responsible way that ensures this never happens again - not because anyone has a "right" to reside here illegally, but because, with or without documents, most of them are here to stay.

We can't round up millions of people and deport them. But we also can't fix our broken immigration system if we provide incentives for people to come here illegally - precisely the signal a blanket amnesty would send.

Instead, the first step should be to require those who have not committed any felonies and are assimilated into America, to have the opportunity to apply for temporary non-immigrant status. To receive this status, they will have to come forward, admit wrongdoing, undergo a background check and pay back taxes and a meaningful fine for violating our laws.

To keep this status, they must maintain clean criminal records. And they will not be able to receive welfare, student aid or any other federal public assistance.

It's not a good idea to have millions of people permanently trapped in an immigration status that keeps them forever at a distance from our society. Therefore, once our new enforcement measures are certifiably in place, they should be allowed to apply for permanent status - not through a special pathway, but through the new and modernized legal immigration process we envision. They will have to wait behind everyone who applied before them legally. And when their turn comes up, they will have to meet the conditions of the visa they apply for.

In the past, efforts to accommodate the undocumented have failed because the enforcement measures were never implemented. That's why this option to apply for a green card and get in the back of the line should not be made available until it is certified that significant progress has been made on enforcement of our immigration laws.

Ex-Las Vegan Rubio outlines a GOP vision for immigration reform - Opinion - ReviewJournal.com (http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/a-gop-vision-for-immigration-reform-188561751.html)

That is the framework .The details are negotiable.

My point is your side wants more of the system.It doesn't work now so why would anyone want more? The people we're dealing with should be giving us guidance but they've done nothing but LIE, and we know it for a fact.

And did I mention the poor care and runaround my ailing veteran of a father has been getting from the VA for the last month? The government is going to end up taking every penny of his money, his home and his property to 'care' for him after serving his country and being a working taxpayer all his life.

Forgive me if I bristle at the idea of expanding government, they don't do sh*t unless you're a single black woman with 6 kids, or maybe an auto worker getting paid to sit on his a$$.

Your response is emotional and inaccurate. I have gone through the same process as you have with 3 different members of my own family (two vets and a non vet), and the outcomes was vastly different than yours.

And be careful who you denigrate as I am a steelworker who gets paid to sit on his A$$, its called a pension. It wasn't free, you actually have to work for decades to get it. Or get hurt on the job, severely I may add.

That offensive statement about the single black woman with 6 kids should be balanced to include the single white woman with 6 kids also. I will attribute this as more emotionally fueled innacuracy, because I know for a FACT, you are not a racist.

Your response is emotional and inaccurate. I have gone thru the same process as you have with 3 different members of my own family (two vets and a non vet), and the outcomes was vastly different than yours.

And be careful who you denigrate as I am a steelworker who gets paid to sit on his A$$, its called a pension. It wasn't free, you actually have to work for decades to get it. Or get hurt on the job, severely I may add.

That offensive statement about the single black woman with 6 kids should be balanced to include the single white woman with 6 kids also. I will atribute this as more emotionally fueled innacuracy, because I know for a FACT, you are not a racist.


Um, my response is clear-headed and accurate.

here is what I wrote :

Negotiable is negotiable . If they comply with the terms that Congress and the President agree to in a future plan then they can stay and granny isn't sent back .
You have already heard many times the outline for the agreement . On that issue both sides are much closer to an agreement of principles.
The hang up is that your side wants us to go through this kabuki dance in 20 years when the next wave of illegals have crossed the border.
The details ? I already told you that Rubio had a plan I could support .So I'll give you his words on the issue:

Ex-Las Vegan Rubio outlines a GOP vision for immigration reform - Opinion - ReviewJournal.com (http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/a-gop-vision-for-immigration-reform-188561751.html)

That is the framework .The details are negotiable.

His plan and the Obama plan are vastly more similar than NOT.

Obama and Rubio Immigration Plans: What's the Difference? - ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/obama-rubio-immigration-plans-difference/story?id=18212543)

So Obama's plan should be just as negotiable on the details.

Then no issue. Like I said already ;I'm not comfortable with 'comprehensive ' plans... consider it 'once bit twice shy '.

I'm also undecided on 'guest workers' . Guest workers too often become "permanent " illegals.


The White House, for instance, hasn't officially announced its plans.
So perhaps their plans are similar . My guess is that Obama will take a version of the Rubio plan as the best he can get.
Me... I suspect we will be having this discussion again as the new wave of illegals cross the border .

He will probably endorse the senate plan.