Immigration Reform 2013: Marco Rubio Dreams of the White House

«‹›4 »

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Immigration Reform 2013: Marco Rubio Dreams of the White House

Houston Euler: Nov 5, 2012; by Y Kant Ozma Post

News reports indicate that next week negotiations will begin in the Senate to overhaul US immigration law. Amazingly, for a congress that agrees about nothing, Senate leaders already have "basic agreement on core principles."

quote:

Senators nearing agreement on broad immigration reform proposal

By Rosalind S. Helderman and David Nakamura, Published: January 25

A working group of senators from both parties is nearing agreement on broad principles for overhauling the nation’s immigration laws, representing the most substantive bipartisan effort toward major legislation in years.

The three Democrats and three Republicans, who have been meeting quietly in recent months, plan to announce a final agreement as early as next Friday.

The move would amount to the first tentative step toward comprehensive immigration reform after long-standing gridlock on the issue. The new effort was spurred in large part by the growing influence of Latino voters who strongly backed President Obama and other Democrats in November.

Obama has also called immigration reform one of his top legislative priorities and is launching his own public campaign on the issue next week in Nevada. But a significant number of Americans, particularly within the Republican Party, remain opposed to laws that would make it easier for illegal immigrants to stay in the country or obtain legal status.

The senators are expected to call for normalizing the status of the nation’s 11 million undocumented immigrants, including allowing those with otherwise clean criminal records to obtain legal work permits, officials said. The group is also likely to endorse stricter border controls and a better system for employers to verify the immigration status of workers.

It was not clear, however, whether the final agreement will offer guidance on perhaps the thorniest issue in the immigration debate: what mechanism illegal immigrants could use to pursue full citizenship.

“We have basic agreement on many of the core principles,” Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin (D-Ill.), a member of the group, said this week. “Now we have to draft it. It takes time.”

Other senators involved in the talks are Democrats Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) and Republicans Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), John McCain (Ariz.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.).

Two others, Sens. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Michael F. Bennet (D-Colo.), have also been involved in some of the discussions.

Congressional aides stress that a final agreement has not yet been reached. But the negotiations mark the most in-depth immigration talks involving members of both parties since a similar attempt broke down in 2010 without producing a bill.

McCain, who spearheaded an earlier failed effort in 2007, said Republican attitudes have dramatically shifted since the party’s losses at the polls in November. Obama won more than 70 percent of the vote among Latinos and Asians, and a growing number of GOP leaders believe that action on immigration is necessary to expand the party’s appeal to minority groups.

“Obviously, it’s had a very distinct impression,” said McCain, who lost his own bid for the White House in 2008. “It’s time to move forward on this.”

But, he added, “I don’t claim that it’s going to be easy.”

The accelerated pace signals that immigration reform is expected to be one of Congress’s highest priorities, and it comes as the White House prepares to launch its own public campaign on the issue.

Obama will travel to Las Vegas on Tuesday to speak about the need to “fix the broken immigration system this year,” the administration announced Friday. Nevada has a rapidly growing number of Hispanic voters, who overwhelmingly supported Obama’s reelection.

Obama also met with members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus on Friday, and aides said he vowed that immigration reform will be his “top priority.”

“What has been absent in the time [since] he put principles forward is a willingness by Republicans to move forward with comprehensive immigration reform,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said Friday. “He hopes that dynamic has changed and there are indications what was once a bipartisan effort to push forward . . . will again be a bipartisan effort to do so.”

Past efforts begun amid similarly high hopes have sputtered.

In 2007, a bill crafted in the Senate died after failing to win support of 60 members despite backing from President George W. Bush. Many Republicans, and some centrist Democrats, opposed that effort because it offered a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

In 2010, extended negotiations between Graham and Schumer broke down without producing legislation.

The timetable would aim for a bill to be written by March or April and potentially considered for final passage in the Senate as early as the summer. Proponents think a strong bipartisan vote in the Senate would make it easier to win adoption in the GOP-held House.

The working group’s principles are expected to address stricter border control, better employer verification of workers’ immigration status, new visas for temporary agriculture workers and expanding the number of visas available for skilled engineers. They would also include a call to normalize the status of the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants and help young people who were brought to the country illegally as children become citizens.

But obstacles abound. For instance, Rubio has said he thinks immigrants who came to the country illegally should be able to earn a work permit but should be required to seek citizenship through existing avenues after those who have come here legally.

Many Democrats and immigration advocates fear Rubio’s approach would result in wait-times stretching for decades, creating a class of permanent legal residents for whom the benefits of citizenship appear unattainable. They have pushed to create new pathways to citizenship specifically available to those who achieve legal residency as part of a reform effort.

It is not yet clear whether the Senate group will endorse a mechanism allowing such people to eventually become citizens — something Obama is expected to champion. Schumer said it would be “relatively detailed” but would not “get down into the weeds.”

A source close to Rubio said he joined the group in December at the request of other members only after they agreed their effort would line up with his own principles for reform. As a possible 2016 presidential contender widely trusted on the right, Rubio could be key to moving the bipartisan effort.

Rubio and other Republicans have said they would prefer to split up a comprehensive immigration proposal into smaller bills that would be voted on separately, but the White House will pursue comprehensive legislation that seeks to reform the process in a single bill.

“I doubt if there will be a macro, comprehensive bill,” said Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), who supported the 2007 effort. “Anytime a bill’s more than 500 pages, people start getting suspicious. If it’s 2,000 pages, they go berserk.”

But Schumer said Friday that a single package will be key for passage. “We’ll not get it done in pieces,” he said. “Every time you do a piece, everyone says what about my piece, and you get more people opposing it.”

Eliseo Medina, secretary treasurer of the Service Employees International Union, which spent millions recruiting Hispanic voters last year, said immigration advocates expect Obama to be out front on the issue.

“The president needs to lead and then the Republicans have a choice,” Medina said. “The best way to share the credit is for them to step up and engage and act together with the president.”

Raising caps on high skill immigration visas is an issue that supposedly has broad bipartisan appeal but keeps getting killed in Congress. The reforms might actually address this:

quote:

Computerworld - WASHINGTON -- A bipartisan group of Senators is planning to introduce a bill that not only hikes the H-1B cap, but allows it to rise automatically with demand to a maximum of 300,000 visas annually.

This 20-page bill, called the Immigration Innovation Act of 2013 or the "I-Squared Act of 2013," is being developed by Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and Chris Coons (D-Del.).

Presently, the U.S. has an H-1B visa cap of 65,000. There are another 20,000 H-1B visas set aside for advanced degree gradates of U.S. universities, for 85,000 in total.

Under the new bill, the base H-1B cap would increase from 65,000 to 115,000. But the cap would be allowed to rise automatically with demand, according to a draft of the legislation.

There are a ton of political angles here, the most prominent of which is Rubio's White House aspirations. Will the GOP anti-immigration wing kill reform? Will Democrats kill it for not going far enough and to deny Rubio a key accomplishment that could lift him to the White House? STAY TUNED!

# ? Jan 27, 2013 00:12

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2013 08:29

Houston Euler: Nov 5, 2012; by Y Kant Ozma Post

In lieu of a bump, let me add an update

quote:

The Senate’s second-ranking Democrat said Sunday that a soon-to-be-proposed set of principles to reform the nation’s immigration laws will be a broad package that will include a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
“We are committed to a comprehensive approach,” Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on “Fox News Sunday.”
Durbin is part of a bipartisan working group of senators nearing an agreement on proposed reforms to the nation’s immigration laws. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is also part of the group, said it will outline joint principles for action this week.
“We’ve been working together for some weeks now. We’ll be coming forward,” McCain said on ABC News’s “This Week With George Stephanopoulos.”

# ? Jan 27, 2013 20:39

flavor: Sep 15, 2003; Yeah boyeeeeeee, cold chillin in effect y'all!

This part seems like a paraphrase of the "they should go to the end of the line" bullshit that always comes up when these people talk out of their asses to appeal to some imbecile constituency:

"Rubio has said he thinks immigrants who came to the country illegally should be able to earn a work permit but should be required to seek citizenship through existing avenues after those who have come here legally."

There are no "existing avenues" for illegal immigrants. If there were, they'd have used them in the first place. The fiction that people like Rubio and others want to keep up is that illegal immigrants are all bad and lawbreaking people who need to be punished and also that immigration has a "line" for everybody and that illegal immigrants have "skipped the line" and therefore need to get back to the end of it. I don't know where to begin on that, but in a nutshell:

1. There is no single "line" for everybody, there are different "lines" that move at different speeds, which is by design.
2. Even within the same category, processing speeds depend on several factors and therefore it's not a "first in, first out" system like a real line.

Most importantly: If you "skip the line" at the movie theater or bus or whatever, you get the same benefit that the people who waited their turns did. As an illegal immigrant, you may not have to wait for your paperwork to be processed, but you're not gaining the same legal status and you have to live in fear.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 00:43

The Insect Court: Nov 22, 2012

Houston Euler posted:

News reports indicate that next week negotiations will begin in the Senate to overhaul US immigration law. Amazingly, for a congress that agrees about nothing, Senate leaders already have "basic agreement on core principles."

Raising caps on high skill immigration visas is an issue that supposedly has broad bipartisan appeal but keeps getting killed in Congress. The reforms might actually address this:

There are a ton of political angles here, the most prominent of which is Rubio's White House aspirations. Will the GOP anti-immigration wing kill reform? Will Democrats kill it for not going far enough and to deny Rubio a key accomplishment that could lift him to the White House? STAY TUNED!

The reason why high-skill immigration visas gets killed is because both sides want to use it as a sweetener in larger immigration packages with parts less palatable on the Hill. That and bat-poo poo crazy GOP nativists stuck on a poison pill amendment last time that cut total immigration by one for every new high-skill visa issued.

I really hope Obama doesn't sign on to some weak tea "reform" that doesn't include citizenship guarantees just to appear "bipartisan". It's a given that there will be centrist squishes in the Senate who will sign on to anything that will get them more invites to the Sunday shows, so hopefully the White House is smart enough to know that it needs to get its own plan out first.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 01:43

Amalek: Jan 3, 2012

This Rubio clown is still born, Hispanics are already joking about this guy, hes suppose to be the Hispanic version of Herman Cain.
Meant to get Hispanics to vote for Republicans because minorities only vote for minorities.

Even if he helps get immigration reform passed the response form the hispanic community is going to be:
"Hey Thanks!, but we already promised to go to the prom with this other guy since he drove us here, lawl"

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jan 28, 2013 02:00

Houston Euler: Nov 5, 2012; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Yeah, calling Marco Rubio the Hispanic Herman Cain is utterly absurd and ignorant. The guy is slick and not to be underestimated, and he's showing up at the perfect time.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 03:50

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; "If they're shooting at you, you know you're doing something right."

Houston Euler posted:

Yeah, calling Marco Rubio the Hispanic Herman Cain is utterly absurd and ignorant. The guy is slick and not to be underestimated, and he's showing up at the perfect time.

The thing is, there's a huge amount of skepticism in the community about Rubio from various angles. A lot of the non-Cuban constituencies don't trust him because he's Cuban and aligned with a bunch of really prominent anti-Hispanic voices, and a lot of the Cubans don't trust him because he's thrown in with the Tea Party, which isn't tremendously popular among the shrinking number of Cuban-Americans who still vote Republican because the Tea Party is closely associated with "crazy white people who don't much care for us."

Rubio is a fairly competent politician, but he's also dirty as poo poo and I'm not sure he'll be able to survive a GOP primary.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 04:03

Amalek: Jan 3, 2012

Houston Euler posted:

Yeah, calling Marco Rubio the Hispanic Herman Cain is utterly absurd and ignorant. The guy is slick and not to be underestimated, and he's showing up at the perfect time.

ROFL.

I'm not sure if youre trolling me, but heres some reading material/polls that show this guy is DOA.

You must have no connection to minoritiy communities if you think this guy is being taken seriously by Hispanics.
I made sure to mix up the sources for you as you appear to be conservative as I have yet to see a liberal asking not to underestimate clown shoes Rubio.

http://prospect.org/article/will-ma...es-probably-not

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/po...latino-leaders/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70364.html

Also this:

The Warszawa posted:

The thing is, there's a huge amount of skepticism in the community about Rubio from various angles. A lot of the non-Cuban constituencies don't trust him because he's Cuban and aligned with a bunch of really prominent anti-Hispanic voices, and a lot of the Cubans don't trust him because he's thrown in with the Tea Party, which isn't tremendously popular among the shrinking number of Cuban-Americans who still vote Republican because the Tea Party is closely associated with "crazy white people who don't much care for us."

Rubio is a fairly competent politician, but he's also dirty as poo poo and I'm not sure he'll be able to survive a GOP primary.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 04:07

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; "If they're shooting at you, you know you're doing something right."

I mean, it also needs to be taken into consideration that the era of the solid Republican Cuban-American vote carrying Florida is over. Cuban-Americans are increasingly identifying as "Latino/Hispanic" when before they were not - some of this is generational and some of this is cultural/national climate-related - while, at the same time, Republicans have very prominently alienating Latinos and Hispanics. In '08 and I think '12, the Cuban vote split almost 50-50.

This aside, Cuban-Americans make up like 3.5% of Hispanics, and they've never been the most popular subgroup because of perceived divergences in interests and resources (your historical refugee vs. immigrant distinctions), so it's not like Hispanic faces are interchangeable here. However, being Hispanic is likely to gently caress Rubio in a GOP primary.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 04:16

Amalek: Jan 3, 2012

The Warszawa posted:

I mean, it also needs to be taken into consideration that the era of the solid Republican Cuban-American vote carrying Florida is over. Cuban-Americans are increasingly identifying as "Latino/Hispanic" when before they were not - some of this is generational and some of this is cultural/national climate-related - while, at the same time, Republicans have very prominently alienating Latinos and Hispanics. In '08 and I think '12, the Cuban vote split almost 50-50.

This aside, Cuban-Americans make up like 3.5% of Hispanics, and they've never been the most popular subgroup because of perceived divergences in interests and resources (your historical refugee vs. immigrant distinctions), so it's not like Hispanic faces are interchangeable here. However, being Hispanic is likely to gently caress Rubio in a GOP primary.

All true, in fact even even if Cuban Americans still voted more so for republicans, they still would not have won Florida for Romney.
All the swing states are now "slightly" Democratic rather than actually swing states, in fact this was the case 8 months before the election, but of course that wasnt gonna be news worthy so they ignored it and faked a horse race.

ANY action republicans take now to appeal to the hispanic community is simply going to be seen as a desperate attempt to win back some votes, simply put, that ship has sailed. Republicans have lost the Latino vote for AT LEAST a generation and by then, the republican party is gonna wish for 2012 numbers.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 04:29

Communocracy: Oct 5, 2004; Because it works so well in Canada

I found this really informative when I saw it in the print edition last year.

The Immigration Hardliner Family Tree from Mother Jones:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...mmigration-laws

quote:

The anti-immigration movement has come out swinging in the past several years, writing and proposing hundreds of restrictive state-level bills and berating a president who has deported more than a million people for not being tough enough. During this year's Republican presidential debates, candidates have peppered their arguments with plans for double-layer border fences, the theory of self-deportation, and even praise for Arizona's immigration crackdown.

This should come as no surprise, given the myriad connections among border hawk politicians, pundits, advocacy groups, PACs, foundations, and legal advisers. Just below, see all those links—family-tree style. And then scroll (or jump) down to see more an in-depth analysis on the clusters that surround John Tanton | Kris Kobach | Daryl Metcalfe | PAC Funding.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 04:47

Houston Euler: Nov 5, 2012; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Amalek posted:

ROFL.

I'm not sure if youre trolling me, but heres some reading material/polls that show this guy is DOA.

You must have no connection to minoritiy communities if you think this guy is being taken seriously by Hispanics.
I made sure to mix up the sources for you as you appear to be conservative as I have yet to see a liberal asking not to underestimate clown shoes Rubio.

http://prospect.org/article/will-ma...es-probably-not

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/po...latino-leaders/

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1211/70364.html

Also this:

ROFL

Did I say he's going to single-handedly deliver the GOP the Hispanic vote? I doubt it -- but that doesn't mean he's the Hispanic equivalent of a moronic pizza chain CEO, which what I said was stupid, and what you still haven't explained.

On the other hand, I'm not convinced by your links. Your first link is from March and mostly meaningless. Your second link quotes a woman from La Raza, who is hardly unbiased towards Republicans. Your third link is just a poll asking people if Rubio running would influence their vote. It doesn't take a genius to realize that a real life Rubio campaign could probably change that. (Do you think anyone asking black Democrats in 2004, "how would you feel about an Obama campaign?" would accurately reflect how powerful his identity was?)

In short, there's no strong evidence that he'll revolutionize the GOP, but it's hard for me to see why he couldn't reach Bush levels of Hispanic support. Meanwhile, my original post was just mocking your hyperbole.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 05:03

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; "If they're shooting at you, you know you're doing something right."

Houston Euler posted:

ROFL

Did I say he's going to single-handedly deliver the GOP the Hispanic vote? I doubt it -- but that doesn't mean he's the Hispanic equivalent of a moronic pizza chain CEO, which what I said was stupid, and what you still haven't explained.

On the other hand, I'm not convinced by your links. Your first link is from March and mostly meaningless. Your second link quotes a woman from La Raza, who is hardly unbiased towards Republicans. Your third link is just a poll asking people if Rubio running would influence their vote. It doesn't take a genius to realize that a real life Rubio campaign could probably change that. (Do you think anyone asking black Democrats in 2004, "how would you feel about an Obama campaign?" would accurately reflect how powerful his identity was?)

In short, there's no strong evidence that he'll revolutionize the GOP, but it's hard for me to see why he couldn't reach Bush levels of Hispanic support. Meanwhile, my original post was just mocking your hyperbole.

Rubio is very much comparable to Herman Cain not in his actual "seriousness," but in that his oft-discussed draw as a candidate comes from the same place - "we'll show those Democrats we got minorities too". The reason he won't be able to push Hispanic support to Bush levels is because both the Republican party and the Hispanic electorate have changed since the Bush campaigns. (It's also worth noting that Obama's black support didn't actually coalesce until after Iowa, because there was a widespread perceived viability problem. I don't think Rubio will be able to get over the hump, but even then he's got a much messier in-group issue to deal with that you're just pretending doesn't exist).

Talking about NLCR's "bias" is stupid. Groups like National Council of La Raza or MALDEF or PRLDEF aren't partisan, but if they're aligned against certain groups it's because certain groups - like the Republican party - have decided to oppose the advancement of civil rights and equity for Hispanics and Latinos. Trying to disqualify non-partisan racial justice groups from the discussion because of "bias" is silly, and unintentionally plays into a long, storied history of trying to ensure that the only people who get to have serious talks about race in America are white people so nothing goes "too far, too fast." Seriously, what do you think La Raza's bias against Republicans is?

# ? Jan 28, 2013 05:18

Houston Euler: Nov 5, 2012; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Well, that was quick! We've got an "outline of a deal." More at the link.

quote:

Senate group reaches immigration deal

A powerful group of senators from both parties has reached a deal on the outlines of a comprehensive immigration overhaul, a development that will drive an emotional debate on a hot-button issue unseen in Washington for more than half a decade.
The group is expected to unveil the basics of its proposal at a Monday news conference on Capitol Hill, essentially laying down a marker on the issue one day before President Barack Obama heads to Las Vegas to unveil more details about his own immigration proposal.

According to a five-page document provided to POLITICO, the sweeping proposal — agreed to in principle by eight senators — would seek to overhaul the legal immigration system as well as create a pathway to citizenship for the nation’s roughly 11 million illegal immigrants. But establishing that pathway would depend on whether the U.S. first implements stricter border enforcement measures and new rules ensuring immigrants have left the country in compliance with their visas. Young people brought to the country as children illegally and seasonal agriculture industry workers would be given a faster path to citizenship.

The broad agreement by the influential Gang of Eight senators amounts to the most serious bipartisan effort to act on the highly charged issue since George W. Bush’s comprehensive measure was defeated in the Senate in 2007.

It remains to be seen if Obama will embrace the Senate effort, or how closely his own proposal hews to the Senate one. But the Senate proposal is expected to take precedence on Capitol Hill, given that bipartisan backing will be crucial to getting anything through the Democratic-controlled Senate — let alone the Republican-controlled House.

The bipartisan coalition includes influential Democrats such as Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois and Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York, the No. 3 in the leadership. It also has the backing of Sen. Bob Menendez, the Cuban-American Democrat from New Jersey poised to be chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. And it has the support of Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, the new chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

(PHOTOS: 9 wild immigration quotes)

Republican heavy-hitters also have signed onto the deal’s framework, including two veterans of the bruising 2007 effort: Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. But it also won the support of Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a rising GOP star and possible future presidential candidate. And the freshman Arizona Republican, Jeff Flake, who endorsed similar comprehensive plans during his House tenure, has also backed the proposal.

House Republicans are likely to be a tougher sell, but Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) recently endorsed Rubio’s approach and could be an important partner in selling the legislation to conservatives.

Many of the details have yet to be worked out since the plan has not yet been turned into legislation. There are bound to be fights within the group and off Capitol Hill as the legislative process begins in earnest, and it’s unclear whether the bipartisan group can stick together.

Key quote:

quote:

Before a pathway to citizenship can happen, the group says that new border security measures first must take effect, including an increase in the number of unmanned aerial vehicles and agents at the border, new rules tracking people entering the country on temporary visas and the creation of a commission of southwestern political and community leaders to ensure the new enforcement mechanisms take effect.

As those security measures take effect, the proposal says, illegal immigrants would be forced to register with the government, undergo a background check, and pay a fine and back taxes so they can obtain a legal status on a probationary basis. That would allow them to live and work legally in the United States, unless they have committed serious crimes, which could subject them to deportation. Those who have obtained probationary legal status would not be allowed to access federal benefits.

After the enforcement measures take effect, those who have obtained their probationary legal status would be required to undergo a series of requirements — including learning English and civics and undergoing further background checks — before being able to obtain permanent residency. The proposal insists that those who have entered the country illegally would not get preferential treatment over legal immigrants playing by the rules.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 05:19

Amalek: Jan 3, 2012

Houston Euler posted:

ROFL

Did I say he's going to single-handedly deliver the GOP the Hispanic vote? I doubt it -- but that doesn't mean he's the Hispanic equivalent of a moronic pizza chain CEO, which what I said was stupid, and what you still haven't explained.

On the other hand, I'm not convinced by your links. Your first link is from March and mostly meaningless. Your second link quotes a woman from La Raza, who is hardly unbiased towards Republicans. Your third link is just a poll asking people if Rubio running would influence their vote. It doesn't take a genius to realize that a real life Rubio campaign could probably change that. (Do you think anyone asking black Democrats in 2004, "how would you feel about an Obama campaign?" would accurately reflect how powerful his identity was?)

In short, there's no strong evidence that he'll revolutionize the GOP, but it's hard for me to see why he couldn't reach Bush levels of Hispanic support. Meanwhile, my original post was just mocking your hyperbole.

He is EXACTLY like Herman Cain in that he is out of touch with the community he THINKS he can represent.
His links to the Hispanic community are about as good as Herman Cains links to the Black community in that, unless you have a good reason to be associated with him, you dont know him and you dont want to know him.

Is he a pompous sexual harrassing bafoon? Maybe not, but he smells like a fake and comes from a party of minority fakes.

Bush levels of Hispanic support? Bush who spoke about immigration reform and never said anything idiotic like immigrants "self deporting" ? And Bush from the Republican party of '08 that was considered "reasonable" on immigration by todays republican standards? Well I hoped you liked those numbers, because those will never happen again because of statements from republicans on immigration in the past 4 years

And in any case, Bush level support isnt gonna be good enough in 2016.

The Warszawa posted:

Rubio is very much comparable to Herman Cain not in his actual "seriousness," but in that his oft-discussed draw as a candidate comes from the same place - "we'll show those Democrats we got minorities too". The reason he won't be able to push Hispanic support to Bush levels is because both the Republican party and the Hispanic electorate have changed since the Bush campaigns. (It's also worth noting that Obama's black support didn't actually coalesce until after Iowa, because there was a widespread perceived viability problem. I don't think Rubio will be able to get over the hump, but even then he's got a much messier in-group issue to deal with that you're just pretending doesn't exist).

Talking about NLCR's "bias" is stupid. Groups like National Council of La Raza or MALDEF or PRLDEF aren't partisan, but if they're aligned against certain groups it's because certain groups - like the Republican party - have decided to oppose the advancement of civil rights and equity for Hispanics and Latinos. Trying to disqualify non-partisan racial justice groups from the discussion because of "bias" is silly, and unintentionally plays into a long, storied history of trying to ensure that the only people who get to have serious talks about race in America are white people so nothing goes "too far, too fast." Seriously, what do you think La Raza's bias against Republicans is?

drat, Are you me?

# ? Jan 28, 2013 05:22

Houston Euler: Nov 5, 2012; by Y Kant Ozma Post

The Warszawa posted:

Rubio is very much comparable to Herman Cain not in his actual "seriousness," but in that his oft-discussed draw as a candidate comes from the same place - "we'll show those Democrats we got minorities too". The reason he won't be able to push Hispanic support to Bush levels is because both the Republican party and the Hispanic electorate have changed since the Bush campaigns. (It's also worth noting that Obama's black support didn't actually coalesce until after Iowa, because there was a widespread perceived viability problem. I don't think Rubio will be able to get over the hump, but even then he's got a much messier in-group issue to deal with that you're just pretending doesn't exist).

Come on. This thread is about an honest-to-god, serious chance at immigration reform. You can argue that Hispanics value economic policy over immigration reform, but the latter is a very real, substantial boon to many Hispanics -- even Rubio's conservative vision of it. Thus he's obviously not comparable to Herman Cain, who offered nothing to African-Americans, aside from being one, as you say.

As for your point about how "Republican party and the Hispanic electorate have changed since the Bush campaigns", can you elaborate on that? Honest question because I don't know this stuff that well.

quote:

Talking about NLCR's "bias" is stupid. Groups like National Council of La Raza or MALDEF or PRLDEF aren't partisan, but if they're aligned against certain groups it's because certain groups - like the Republican party - have decided to oppose the advancement of civil rights and equity for Hispanics and Latinos. Trying to disqualify non-partisan racial justice groups from the discussion because of "bias" is silly, and unintentionally plays into a long, storied history of trying to ensure that the only people who get to have serious talks about race in America are white people so nothing goes "too far, too fast." Seriously, what do you think La Raza's bias against Republicans is?

Bias was probably the wrong word, since it recalls silly debates about fairness in the press in whatnot. All I meant is that NCLR doesn't have a very strong incentive to be very positive about a Hispanic who has a very, very conservative vision of immigration reform and has all the wrong ideas about health care, welfare, etc. A Rubio Presidency would hurt their organization quite a bit.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 05:27

The Warszawa: Jun 6, 2005; "If they're shooting at you, you know you're doing something right."

Amalek posted:

He is EXACTLY like Herman Cain in that he is out of touch with the community he THINKS he can represent.
His links to the Hispanic community are about as good as Herman Cains links to the Black community in that, unless you have a good reason to be associated with him, you dont know him and you dont want to know him.

Is he a pompous sexual harrassing bafoon? Maybe not, but he smells like a fake and comes from a party of minority fakes.

Bush levels of Hispanic support? Bush who spoke about immigration reform and never said anything idiotic like immigrants "self deporting" ? And Bush from the Republican party of '08 that was considered "reasonable" on immigration by todays republican standards? Well I hoped you liked those numbers, because those will never happen again because of statements from republicans on immigration in the past 4 years

And in any case, Bush level support isnt gonna be good enough in 2016.

drat, Are you me?

No, because I take pretty serious issue with your whole "minority fakes" line of analysis. Our community isn't well-served by playing "browner than thou". The internal national/ethnic/quasi-racial politics that make Rubio a non-starter with a lot of Hispanics are bad for the Hispanic community. That he's willing to play ball with racists is a legitimate disqualified though.

Also wow that loving deal. I'm not sold by any stretch (drones on the border, really?) and from the sound of it, it's all "If you get enforcement up, you MIGHT get what you want," when that just sounds like an excuse to pass the border enhancements and then filibuster the systemic reform. I'm also curious to see what resources will be provided to help with the "learning civics and English" part (oh wait, none).

Houston Euler posted:

Come on. This thread is about an honest-to-god, serious chance at immigration reform. You can argue that Hispanics value economic policy over immigration reform, but the latter is a very real, substantial boon to many Hispanics -- even Rubio's conservative vision of it. Thus he's obviously not comparable to Herman Cain, who offered nothing to African-Americans, aside from being one, as you say.

Immigration is a complex issue within the Hispanic community. It's a focus of a lot of the civil rights organizations, but rank-and-file voters tend to be more mixed (there's often tension between "I waited in line, why shouldn't they" and "Hey, I know undocumented people and this is hosed up") - you do have to keep in mind that the Hispanics who will benefit directly from immigration reform aren't voters, yet.

In the GOP primaries, especially in Latino-light states, Rubio's position on immigration reform may be a liability more than a benefit.

quote:

As for your point about how "Republican party and the Hispanic electorate have changed since the Bush campaigns", can you elaborate on that? Honest question because I don't know this stuff that well.

Around 2004, when Bush was pushing what would basically be the last sane Republican option on immigration reform, the rest of the party went loving apeshit. This has continued with some truly disturbing rhetoric surrounding Hispanics and undocumented immigrants. The Hispanic electorate has grown but it has also reacted to this insanity by aligning more solidly with the Democrats. The problem is in putting too much weight on Rubio while undercounting the impact of "crazy downticket white dude."

quote:

Bias was probably the wrong word, since it recalls silly debates about fairness in the press in whatnot. All I meant is that NCLR doesn't have a very strong incentive to be very positive about a Hispanic who has a very, very conservative vision of immigration reform and has all the wrong ideas about health care, welfare, etc. A Rubio Presidency would hurt their organization quite a bit.

I mean, it wouldn't hurt their organization at all - they're policy focused, not candidate focused. As a pressure group, they might work through different channels in a Rubio presidency than in, say, a Julian Castro presidency.

They don't have very strong incentive to be positive about someone who is bad on the issues they advocate for, you're right. But that doesn't invalidate what the group says about Rubio or Rubio's plan.

The Warszawa fucked around with this message at Jan 28, 2013 around 05:42

# ? Jan 28, 2013 05:30

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001; One of the most pathetic aspects of human history is that every civilization expresses itself most pretentiously when the decay which leads its to death has already begun

It doesn't seem to me that surprising that Democrats and Republicans could agree on core principles. Only most ardent Tea Party supporter could think that stopping the flow of people on the southern border could be a good idea, especially after the disaster of Georgia's (I think?) attempt to stop migrant workers from working in the state.

The question comes down to the kind of exploitation migrant workers and immigrants face when coming to the United States, and who the government will protect in those cases where the person didn't arrive through legal means.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 05:33

Amalek: Jan 3, 2012

The Warszawa posted:

No, because I take pretty serious issue with your whole "minority fakes" line of analysis. Our community isn't well-served by playing "browner than thou". The internal national/ethnic/quasi-racial politics that make Rubio a non-starter with a lot of Hispanics are bad for the Hispanic community. That he's willing to play ball with racists is a legitimate disqualified though.

Also wow that loving deal. I'm not sold by any stretch (drones on the border, really?) and from the sound of it, it's all "If you get enforcement up, you MIGHT get what you want," when that just sounds like an excuse to pass the border enhancements and then filibuster the systemic reform.

Youre right, lots have written him off (perhaps wrongly) because he seems like one of those log cabin republicans (Ya lets join the republican party that hates us so we can change it from the inside!).

In any case, its too late for him.

Houston Euler posted:

Come on. This thread is about an honest-to-god, serious chance at immigration reform.

As for taking a second look at Rubio because of his immigration reform ideas; Why would I bother?
Obama who actually fought for minorities is going forward with his immigration reform ideas which are just as good if not better.

Hispanics are being asked to abandon the person and the party that brought them to the cusp of legalization and for what?
To keep the republicans from being neutralized as a significant political faction? Should have thought of that four years ago!

And lets be honest, if Romney won, minority interests of ANY KIND would maybe be a "Year 8" type priority for him. Thats assuming he would ever think of doing anything at all.
And republicans would not have so much as taken a second look at immigration if they won, Hispanics know this and will act accordindly.

Amalek fucked around with this message at Jan 28, 2013 around 05:42

# ? Jan 28, 2013 05:34

cheese: Jan 7, 2004; Shop around for doctors! Always fucking shop for doctors. Doctors are stupid assholes. And they get by because people are cowed by their mystical bullshit quality of being able to maintain a 3.0 GPA at some Guatemalan medical college for 3 semesters. Find one that makes sense.

Houston Euler posted:

Well, that was quick! We've got an "outline of a deal." More at the link.

Key quote:
quote:
Before a pathway to citizenship can happen, the group says that new border security measures first must take effect, including an increase in the number of unmanned aerial vehicles and agents at the border, new rules tracking people entering the country on temporary visas and the creation of a commission of southwestern political and community leaders to ensure the new enforcement mechanisms take effect.

As those security measures take effect, the proposal says, illegal immigrants would be forced to register with the government, undergo a background check, and pay a fine and back taxes so they can obtain a legal status on a probationary basis. That would allow them to live and work legally in the United States, unless they have committed serious crimes, which could subject them to deportation. Those who have obtained probationary legal status would not be allowed to access federal benefits.

After the enforcement measures take effect, those who have obtained their probationary legal status would be required to undergo a series of requirements — including learning English and civics and undergoing further background checks — before being able to obtain permanent residency. The proposal insists that those who have entered the country illegally would not get preferential treatment over legal immigrants playing by the rules.

So a path to citizenship that is impossible - I knew there was a catch.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 05:38

Amalek: Jan 3, 2012

cheese posted:

"including learning English and civics "

I loved this part.

How many Americans could pass an English and civics class? Lets say this became a requirement for ALL people born here in order to get certain benefits like voting, and just .00001% of Americans failed, would we be ok with deporting them or denying them the right to vote? No? Then why would we do it to immigrants?

All the security stuff is a non-starter. You want to do it? Great ! but its success or failure should have no bearing on implementing the immigration reforms.
Immigrants shouldnt be penalized if politicians arent able to keep up or implement security arrangments, and do we want to wager how many republican govenors in these states will drag their feet for years to make sure the process doesnt move forward?

Amalek fucked around with this message at Jan 28, 2013 around 05:52

# ? Jan 28, 2013 05:47

Emanuel Collective: Jan 16, 2008

That 'enforcement' trigger is ridiculous and seems legally dubious: without some concrete goals like an exact specification on the length of the border fence or number of border guards, it will be held up in courts forever. And besides, since the great recession hit, there has been net migration back to Mexico.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 05:50

Amalek: Jan 3, 2012

Emanuel Collective posted:

That 'enforcement' trigger is ridiculous and seems legally dubious: without some concrete goals like an exact specification on the length of the border fence or number of border guards, it will be held up in courts forever. And besides, since the great recession hit, there has been net migration back to Mexico.

Exactly right.

The migration back to mexico has slowed and may have stopped already, it was mostly people who just recently came here thinking it was gonna be lots of work available, but they saw otherwise, and it was easy for them to just move back over the border as they had no investment here like homes or children born here, etc. but even if that continued, there are still about 10 million who arent gonna be going anywhere.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 05:55

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

Emanuel Collective posted:

That 'enforcement' trigger is ridiculous and seems legally dubious: without some concrete goals like an exact specification on the length of the border fence or number of border guards, it will be held up in courts forever. And besides, since the great recession hit, there has been net migration back to Mexico.

A good chance to build the GOP dream concrete Berlin wall to keep out all the sneaky anchor babies.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 06:08

cheese: Jan 7, 2004; Shop around for doctors! Always fucking shop for doctors. Doctors are stupid assholes. And they get by because people are cowed by their mystical bullshit quality of being able to maintain a 3.0 GPA at some Guatemalan medical college for 3 semesters. Find one that makes sense.

Dreylad posted:

It doesn't seem to me that surprising that Democrats and Republicans could agree on core principles. Only most ardent Tea Party supporter could think that stopping the flow of people on the southern border could be a good idea, especially after the disaster of Georgia's (I think?) attempt to stop migrant workers from working in the state.

The question comes down to the kind of exploitation migrant workers and immigrants face when coming to the United States, and who the government will protect in those cases where the person didn't arrive through legal means.

It is something of an unusual subject because for once, the Republicans really don't actually want to succeed. The corporate interests that fund both parties have zero desire to see the masses of unprotected illegal workers hampered in any way. They don't want it more difficult for their migrants workers to get in and out of the country, they don't want any protections for the workers afforded by legal residence, and they don't want workers to feel comfortable enough to attempt organization or unionization.

This proposal solves their goals. It looks like substantive immigration reform (because they hope to court latino voters), but its extreme enough that Dems will never go for it and it won't pass (cause they dont' want immigration reform).

# ? Jan 28, 2013 06:11

The Insect Court: Nov 22, 2012

The Warszawa posted:

Rubio is a fairly competent politician, but he's also dirty as poo poo and I'm not sure he'll be able to survive a GOP primary.

He is and I don't think he will. I think the fascination with him is a Beltway villager phenomenon, and seems to be drive partly by the fact that his last name ends in a vowel and partly by his good looks. Come to think of it, a lot of dream Republican candidates of the "center-right" respectable media seem to be the result of some weird submerged homoeroticism. Gerge W. Bush and his flight-suit crotch bulge, David Brooks' John Thune crush, and now this.

I see this failing mostly because of lunatic nativist opposition in the House, but Rubio et al. may use it to try to appear less bigoted and to hurt the President("Why didn't Obama fulfill his promise of immigration reform?" repeated ad nauseaum by GOP talking heads) which is unfortunately a lot easier than it should be because of Obama's lovely record on deportations and immigration more generally. Latinos will probably still lean Democratic, but Obama's gently caress ups and general indifference to this issue offer real opportunities for Republican gain.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 06:15

Badger of Basra: Jul 25, 2007; Don't tell Maliki!

Houston Euler posted:

Key quote:

This just seems like a way to say "a pathway to citizenship will never become available."

Also, why do people keep letting Lindsey Graham into Senate "gangs"? I'm pretty sure he's killed every single "bipartisan compromise" effort he's been involved with in a fit of pique.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 06:24

cheese: Jan 7, 2004; Shop around for doctors! Always fucking shop for doctors. Doctors are stupid assholes. And they get by because people are cowed by their mystical bullshit quality of being able to maintain a 3.0 GPA at some Guatemalan medical college for 3 semesters. Find one that makes sense.

The Insect Court posted:

He is and I don't think he will. I think the fascination with him is a Beltway villager phenomenon, and seems to be drive partly by the fact that his last name ends in a vowel and partly by his good looks. Come to think of it, a lot of dream Republican candidates of the "center-right" respectable media seem to be the result of some weird submerged homoeroticism. Gerge W. Bush and his flight-suit crotch bulge, David Brooks' John Thune crush, and now this.

I see this failing mostly because of lunatic nativist opposition in the House, but Rubio et al. may use it to try to appear less bigoted and to hurt the President("Why didn't Obama fulfill his promise of immigration reform?" repeated ad nauseaum by GOP talking heads) which is unfortunately a lot easier than it should be because of Obama's lovely record on deportations and immigration more generally. Latinos will probably still lean Democratic, but Obama's gently caress ups and general indifference to this issue offer real opportunities for Republican gain.

That depends. If fringe/tea party elements continue to run rampant, the way they did in 2012, it may not matter how clever Rubio's immigration position is. Romney's positions were largely irrelevant since once Obama regained the ground lost in the first debate, "legitimate surprise sex", self deportation and other horrible far right comments from other Republican entities that he couldn't control ensured it was over. If they can't control the tea party, they can't stay on message.

cheese fucked around with this message at Jan 28, 2013 around 06:36

# ? Jan 28, 2013 06:33

etalian: Mar 20, 2006

cheese posted:

That depends. If fringe/tea party elements continue to run rampant, the way they did in 2012, it may not matter how clever Rubio's immigration position is. Romney's positions were largely irrelevant since once Obama regained the ground lost in the first debate, "legitimate surprise sex", self deportation and other horrible far right comments from other Republican entities that he couldn't control ensured it was over. If they can't control the tea party, they can't stay on message.

Or GOP canidates like Hermann Cain expressing how he would build a better new Berlin Wall with a electrocute immigrants feature and you also having nutty GOP governors in places like Arizona alienating hispanics even more.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 06:47

Brigadier Sockface: Apr 1, 2007; I say! Damn fine show old fruit! Absolutely top hole! That ought bally well show them what's what, what.

When I saw that they rushed the announcement of their plan so they could beat Obama by one day I knew it would be because theirs is lovely.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 08:28

Adar: Jul 27, 2001; William "J." Fillmaff in training

Brigadier Sockface posted:

When I saw that they rushed the announcement of their plan so they could beat Obama by one day I knew it would be because theirs is lovely.

Yeah, before anybody gets too worked up about this let's be clear that this has no chance whatsoever in its current form.

Amalek posted:

I loved this part.

How many Americans could pass an English and civics class? Lets say this became a requirement for ALL people born here in order to get certain benefits like voting, and just .00001% of Americans failed, would we be ok with deporting them or denying them the right to vote? No? Then why would we do it to immigrants?

Eh, every single country in the world has a language proficiency exam as part of naturalization. The US is also much more lenient than most in waiving those requirements for the disabled and elderly and in the test's initial requirements in the first place. More than one person I represented in N-648 proceedings would get their waiver denied, try the test (examiners will offer it with no penalty), then pass it to their own surprise. They weren't lying about their disabilities, but when you need a 7 out of 10 for questions like "name two Allies in WW2", even a 70 year old woman with early stage dementia listening in her third language would occasionally pull it off.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 09:15

Antti: Oct 10, 2006

Adar posted:

Eh, every single country in the world has a language proficiency exam as part of naturalization. The US is also much more lenient than most in waiving those requirements for the disabled and elderly and in the test's initial requirements in the first place. More than one person I represented in N-648 proceedings would get their waiver denied, try the test (examiners will offer it with no penalty), then pass it to their own surprise. They weren't lying about their disabilities, but when you need a 7 out of 10 for questions like "name two Allies in WW2", even a 70 year old woman with early stage dementia listening in her third language would occasionally pull it off.

The language and civics requirement is for permanent residency, though, not citizenship. How many countries require you to pass a test in the dominant language of the country to get a residence permit? The whole proposal's a minefield that people won't want to enter because if there's one wrong turn they're going to be deported.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 12:50

Petey: Nov 25, 2005; I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but the Patriots secondary happeneth to them all.

- Ecclesiastes 9:11

quote:

Before a pathway to citizenship can happen, the group says that new border security measures first must take effect, including an increase in the number of unmanned aerial vehicles and agents at the border, new rules tracking people entering the country on temporary visas and the creation of a commission of southwestern political and community leaders to ensure the new enforcement mechanisms take effect.

As those security measures take effect, the proposal says, illegal immigrants would be forced to register with the government, undergo a background check, and pay a fine and back taxes so they can obtain a legal status on a probationary basis. That would allow them to live and work legally in the United States, unless they have committed serious crimes, which could subject them to deportation. Those who have obtained probationary legal status would not be allowed to access federal benefits.

After the enforcement measures take effect, those who have obtained their probationary legal status would be required to undergo a series of requirements — including learning English and civics and undergoing further background checks — before being able to obtain permanent residency. The proposal insists that those who have entered the country illegally would not get preferential treatment over legal immigrants playing by the rules.

Wow, that's horrible in so many ways.

Is this whole bill just showmanship by these 8 then? "Well look, we're very serious people, we tried to actually craft a compromise," and then blame it on intransigence on the left and the right, which is a narrative the political media will eat up and shower these 8 with praise?

# ? Jan 28, 2013 14:14

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; Pam you better not be making pornos!

Antti posted:

The language and civics requirement is for permanent residency, though, not citizenship. How many countries require you to pass a test in the dominant language of the country to get a residence permit? The whole proposal's a minefield that people won't want to enter because if there's one wrong turn they're going to be deported.

Looking at the Swedish requirements, they only have an article for EU citizens, which admittedly isn't that bad but is not applicable for people in the (eg) US.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 14:45

Mo_Steel: Mar 7, 2008; "We don't need a toilet. The pile of clothes in the hallway has worked fine for us for years, and it will continue to work."

Petey posted:

Wow, that's horrible in so many ways.

Is this whole bill just showmanship by these 8 then? "Well look, we're very serious people, we tried to actually craft a compromise," and then blame it on intransigence on the left and the right, which is a narrative the political media will eat up and shower these 8 with praise?

That's the vibe I got from it; whether or not it passes all 8 can say they put forth "serious effort" on immigration reform.

One of the issues with immigration is that it's a complicated loving mess that takes forever; as far as I'm aware this image is still accurate, and should serve as a decent primer for where we are now when discussing where we ought to be:

(Click for the larger version, breaks tables.)

# ? Jan 28, 2013 15:20

Dreylad: Jun 19, 2001; One of the most pathetic aspects of human history is that every civilization expresses itself most pretentiously when the decay which leads its to death has already begun

Petey posted:

Wow, that's horrible in so many ways.

Is this whole bill just showmanship by these 8 then? "Well look, we're very serious people, we tried to actually craft a compromise," and then blame it on intransigence on the left and the right, which is a narrative the political media will eat up and shower these 8 with praise?

For all the crowing about reducing the federal government and government spending, that sure does seem like it would greatly expand the federal institutions and federal spending.

Then again, I guess that line is usually about reducing the visibility of the federal government for American citizens, not for people at the border.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 15:20

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009

Dreylad posted:

It doesn't seem to me that surprising that Democrats and Republicans could agree on core principles. Only most ardent Tea Party supporter could think that stopping the flow of people on the southern border could be a good idea, especially after the disaster of Georgia's (I think?) attempt to stop migrant workers from working in the state.

The question comes down to the kind of exploitation migrant workers and immigrants face when coming to the United States, and who the government will protect in those cases where the person didn't arrive through legal means.

My understanding was that this issue had become moot anyway as the US was experiencing net emmigration, not immigration, due to falling job rates, political persecution, etc. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/...d-perhaps-less/

I won't say this is "a solution in search of a problem" because there are millions of people in this country who need their status legalized but I'm not sure anyone in this debate has realized how much the immigration issue has fundamentally changed due to the recession.

What can Obama do unilaterally on this issue? Could he simply grant a pardon to all illegal immigrants? Could he direct his agencies to issue green cards to everyone?

# ? Jan 28, 2013 15:27

the2ndgenesis: Mar 18, 2009; You, McNulty, are a gaping asshole. We both know this.

Who is most likely to try to torpedo this deal from the Republican side? Would only Tea Partiers be against the naturalization plan or are there any specific interest groups who'd oppose the idea?

# ? Jan 28, 2013 15:31

cheese: Jan 7, 2004; Shop around for doctors! Always fucking shop for doctors. Doctors are stupid assholes. And they get by because people are cowed by their mystical bullshit quality of being able to maintain a 3.0 GPA at some Guatemalan medical college for 3 semesters. Find one that makes sense.

Petey posted:

Wow, that's horrible in so many ways.

Is this whole bill just showmanship by these 8 then? "Well look, we're very serious people, we tried to actually craft a compromise," and then blame it on intransigence on the left and the right, which is a narrative the political media will eat up and shower these 8 with praise?

It is a half hearted effort to begin the healing as all the sane Republicans realize that if they lose the Hispanic vote by 40 points again in 2016, they are hosed. Its pure PR and probably ineffective PR at that.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

My understanding was that this issue had become moot anyway as the US was experiencing net emmigration, not immigration, due to falling job rates, political persecution, etc. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/...d-perhaps-less/

I won't say this is "a solution in search of a problem" because there are millions of people in this country who need their status legalized but I'm not sure anyone in this debate has realized how much the immigration issue has fundamentally changed due to the recession.

That is almost certainly a temporary problem and is not typical of modern American history AFAIK.

the2ndgenesis posted:

Who is most likely to try to torpedo this deal from the Republican side? Would only Tea Partiers be against the naturalization plan or are there any specific interest groups who'd oppose the idea?

I would imagine anyone who enjoys having unprotected slave labor for their company, so a lot of people with big corporate pockets.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 18:00

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 21, 2013 08:29

Adar: Jul 27, 2001; William "J." Fillmaff in training

Antti posted:

The language and civics requirement is for permanent residency, though, not citizenship. How many countries require you to pass a test in the dominant language of the country to get a residence permit? The whole proposal's a minefield that people won't want to enter because if there's one wrong turn they're going to be deported.

Yeah, I was replying to a post that was about citizenship, where language/civics reqs are legitimate. This We Are Serious People And This Is A Serious Compromise bill is obviously garbage for these and other reasons.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

My understanding was that this issue had become moot anyway as the US was experiencing net emmigration, not immigration, due to falling job rates, political persecution, etc. http://www.pewhispanic.org/2012/04/...d-perhaps-less/

I won't say this is "a solution in search of a problem" because there are millions of people in this country who need their status legalized but I'm not sure anyone in this debate has realized how much the immigration issue has fundamentally changed due to the recession.

I disagree that this is a fundamental change. The 11 million number is a number that's largely built up over only ~30 years since the last amnesty. A temporary outflow of migrants during a downturn doesn't mean much in the long run. It would be nice if the next 11 million could actually have a hope of getting in legally this time before they ever start.

# ? Jan 28, 2013 18:04

«‹›4 »

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Immigration Reform 2013: Marco Rubio Dreams of the White House