Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Immigration and a Need for Rational Compromise...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny


America must indeed do something to overcome the HUGE immigration problem created over the past thirty three plus years. A problem that everyone (in both parties) one knew was developing and yet no one in either party had any real interest in addressing. So... here we are. Faced with HUGE problem that won;'t go away by itself and will requires some level of rational thinking on the part of both the democrats as well as republicans.

Speaker John Boehner may not get it right often, however, when he stated... “we’d be in a much weaker position if we didn’t act" with respect to immigration reform he was EXACTLY right.

THE HILL - Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) urged their House Republican colleagues to pass immigration reform legislation in a closed-door meeting Wednesday, with the Speaker arguing his conference would be “in a much weaker position” if it failed to act.

A divided House Republican conference met for more than two hours in the basement of the Capitol to begin hashing out a response to the sweeping immigration bill the Senate passed last month.

Boehner spoke at the outset of the meeting and reiterated his pledge that no immigration bill, including a final House-Senate conference report, would come to the floor without the support of a majority of the House GOP. But both he and Ryan, the House budget chief and the GOP’s vice presidential nominee in 2012, made the case that the House GOP should take action on immigration in a way that reflected the party’s principles, Republicans in the room said.

Boehner “said we’d be in a much weaker position if we didn’t act,” according to Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.). “He clearly wants to act, thinks something needs to get done. Frankly, our principles are probably closer to where the American people are, but it’s incumbent upon us to act.”

The party leadership did not lay out a timetable for floor votes in the meeting, though members indicated leaders could develop a timeline in the coming weeks.

Members said it was likely that the House would wait until after the August congressional recess to act, although votes on individual border security and interior enforcement bills that have passed out of committee were possible before then.

Following the meeting, Ryan said he was optimistic the House would act.

“I think our members are ready to tackle this issue. It needs to be fixed,” he told reporters. “There is an emerging consensus that our immigration system is broken, that we need to fix it, and we need to do it in a very thorough way.

“I feel very good. I feel we are in very good position to do it the right way. We don't want to rush anything,” he said before diving into a crowded elevator.

But opponents of any legislation providing a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants said there was no consensus on immigration's most controversial issue.

“There is little consensus in there for doing anything other than border security," said Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.). {Read More}

At this point I refer you to the preceding post...

Via: Memeorandum

39 comments:

  1. The House GOP has six bills they'd like to pass, piecemeal. None of those bills include any sort of pathway to citizenship for any one of the millions of undocumented people whatsoever. They only increase foreign skilled labor. They want to vastly enlarge the police state, and they continue to insist there must be more border enforcement even though current illegal immigration is net zero.

    The House GOP is offering nothing of any value but for security and defence contractors and employers who profit from employing the undocumented. Politically, this is nothing but pandering to their dopey racist base.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "... pandering to their dopey racist base."

      Broad sweeping and unsubstantiated statement. You jmj are part of the problem rather than part of the solution. Just like your counter dopey extremists on the other side of the aisle.

      Perhaps jmj you can explain how it is progressives throw the racist charge around as often as they change their underwear.

      Delete
    2. You have no example on the other side of the aisle to compare, Les. I call it like it obviously is. Why else would the GOP be saying and doing the stupid, sleazy things they're doing? This sort of sleazy, scummy behavior has to be called out. There's no moral equivalence or excuse here. Why else would they be insisting on what they're insisting? There is no rational reason besides political pandering to their base. And if you think they're all rosey happy multiculturalists, you've lost your mind. Get real.

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. "....employing the undocumented.."

      And Jersey, you can at least use more accurate, correct terms. Call illegal aliens illegal aliens. What's the problem with that? If anything is "sleazy", it is using weasel-word euphemisms like this one.

      Delete
    4. I don't like referring to people as "illegal." It is dehumanizing. Anything of substance to offer, dmarks?

      JMJ

      Delete
    5. I did offer something of substance. Illegal alien is accurate. Using terms like "undocumented worker" shows you are a deceptive semantic gamesman. So, you don't "like" accurate terms. Which means you dislike clear communications, obviously.

      There is absolutely nothing dehumanizing about the word illegal. After all, only humans break laws.

      I won't ask if you have anything of substance on this one, pops. On tbe subject of weasel words, all you can do is weasel some more....

      Delete
    6. Bla, bla, bla. It has nothing to do with this post.

      JMJ

      Delete
    7. It has everything to do with a post about illegal aliens that Jersey can't even bring himself to mention this main subject, and instead he skirts around i t with mushy poorly chosen weasel terms. Drives home the point that he doesn't know what we talk of.

      Delete
  2. Correct, Les. The number of racists in this base is so miniscule that it isn't a base at all.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Also, Jersey is actually arguing against border security. Not only is this a great example of 9/10 thinking... it shows that he thinks that a significant problem of human trafficking and smuggling is no problem at all.

    Sealing the border isn't rocket science. Nor is it a "police state" or a Patriot Act like infringement.

    From http://www.mensjournal.com/magazine/the-u-s-mexico-borders-150-miles-of-hell-20130103

    " Drug smugglers and human traffickers have seized control of a narrow corridor of untamed Arizona desert along the U.S.–Mexico border, turning ranches – and even backyards – into killing fields. A visit to the most lawless place in America."

    Gotta keep it happenning, right Jersey? Come on, man. You can do better than your reactionary defense of a "status quo" of serious crime and common murder resulting from the open border. Illegal immigration is not at the top of the list of problems here.

    The coyotes thank you....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not arguing against border security, dmarks. I am saying that the "border security first" argument is a sleazy way of delaying reform, especially considering we are already at net zero illegal immigration.

      As for smuggling and such, it would seem to me that we make it all the harder to control that when we have a system in place that encourages the illegal immigration of workers that make a perfect crowd for the smugglers and such to blend into. I would think the coyotes thank you. I'm the one who wants to make it easier and legal for the workers, and leave the smugglers and such alone out there to make the crossing. I, and others making my argument, have been saying this for decades. You obviously never paid attention.

      JMJ

      Delete
    2. Jersey: you are the one who has not been listening. And again you oppose securing the borders...knowing the open borders are the main factor encouraging the coyotes and smugglers.

      Your "sleazy" is unfounded. Just secure the borders immediately, and stop playing political games. You aren't fooling anyone.

      Delete
    3. Stop lying, dmarks. It is a sign of a poor character. I have never argued against border security. We have plenty as it is. We wouldn't need to concentrate so much on migrating workers if we fixed the entire system instead of incessantly and solely focusing on border security. Then we could focus more narrowly on criminal elements and such. What you advocate is idiotic.

      JMJ

      Delete
    4. And there we have a third comment from Jersey in which he "argues against border security"... for the entire comment, really.

      Delete
    5. Bzzzzz. Well, at least this time you made the first comment in a while that wasn't opposed to border security.

      Delete
  4. Yes. The democrats will pillory the repubs, and press coverage will make them look like stupid racists if they don't go along with this pork-stuffed bill!

    Wait... We're there already...

    Anyone who thinks the GOP gets anything out of legalizing 20,000,000 undocumented Democrat voters is smoking crack. And yes, it will be 20 million.

    The the GOP has been unable to explain how this drives down wages of working class people of all races is a testament to their unending supply of stupidity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Silver: sorry, I don't accept draconian methods to manipulate average wage levels. If someone can do a better job at something, it is not for the government to stand in their way and block opportunity in order to protect those who overcharge for their labor.

      Delete
    2. dmarks: This is not about manipulating anything. My point is that we have over 15% unemployment for low-skill workers, and we are talking about bringing millions more into the marketplace.

      Delete
    3. These workers are already here and working. You are also resting on the assumption... a false one... that more working people means more unemployment. These workers consume... see movies... need housing... need cars. They create at least as many jobs as they supposedly steal by being good at what they do.

      Delete
    4. More workers in a stagnant economy = lower wages. It's basic supply and demand.

      I am not against legalization (but I am against citizenship for all). We have created a human rights crisis and we are exploiting human beings for cheap labor.

      I am tired of the misinformation and outright lies coming from DC.

      I consider you one of the good guys. You are blessedly free of ideological pedantry and I like how you think, even when we have our disagreements over some minor point.

      -- Silverfiddle

      Delete
    5. "More workers in a stagnant economy = lower wages. It's basic supply and demand."

      Workers actively participating in the ecomony increase demand.

      "I am not against legalization (but I am against citizenship for all). We have created a human rights crisis and we are exploiting human beings for cheap labor."

      Nothing wrong with paying fair wages. You are sounding a bit Marxist now, leaning toward the Marxist tendency to label the arrangements people freely choose to enter into each other as "exploitation". Sorry, those involved in these arrangements disagree. I side with them: they know the best. It's their lives, after all.

      You are also forgetting that these 20 million are HERE and WORKING already. However, they are part of a shadow economy. By bringing them out of the shadows and making them full participants and taxpayers, the cost of their labor actually goes up.

      I agree with Jersey on the workers themselves. I suspect he might agree with my above paragraph (but not the part about Marxism) However, he is caught up with blind partisanship and irrationality when he repeatedly blocks the idea of border security.

      Delete
    6. A one-sided arrangement is not a free market.

      I stand by my supply and demand comment, since it is an axiom of basic economics.

      And I am not a Marxist, I am a libertarian who has a pretty good grasp of Mises, so I understand where you are coming from.

      "By bringing them out of the shadows and making them full participants and taxpayers, the cost of their labor actually goes up."

      We agree there, to a point.

      Do you think this will end guest workers undercutting domestic laborers? It's a free-market question.

      A guest worker can come here, live like a pauper, and clean up, relative to wages in his country. Someone who lives here permanently will not settle for those wages.

      A true free market of labor involving two nations can only exist when there is a relative economic parity between them, and freedom of movement and employment both ways. That's Milton Friedman's observation, not mine. (Friedman is Chicago School, not Austrian, btw)

      The question is, how many additional workers will this bill import? You cannot convince me it is zero without some hard data.

      Delete
    7. Silver (?)
      "A one-sided arrangement is not a free market."

      An arrangement where even the basic freedoms and rights of one side is held up is FAR preferential to an arrangement where neither side has freedom. Just because one side does the bad thing does not mean the other has to also.

      "I stand by my supply and demand comment, since it is an axiom of basic economics."

      I do too, as my comment takes account of the fact of the rest of the economy you ignore in your narrow focus.

      ":Do you think this will end guest workers undercutting domestic laborers? It's a free-market question."

      Them "undercutting" other laborers by doing a better job than these others is a good thing, not a bad thing.

      "A guest worker can come here, live like a pauper, and clean up,"

      A thrifty, hard working person. What is wrong with that?

      "Someone who lives here permanently will not settle for those wages."

      Why? Because, damnit, he must have a 65 inch TV and a $400 a month car payment?

      Sorry, I don't see this as any reason to impose any draconian policy. To micro-manage the economy because some people manage their lives well and others can't seem to get buy without conspicuous consumption.

      Realize that those folks who read Mother Earth News and go off the grid somewhat also undercut the lavishly-living ones you mention. How do you deal with this problem? Deport them?

      "A true free market of labor involving two nations can only exist when there is a relative economic parity between them"

      Yes. But a halfway step is much better than none at all.

      " and freedom of movement and employment both ways."

      I totally agree. But if any of these are missing, it is not a reason to deny the freedoms of individuals.

      "The question is, how many additional workers will this bill import? You cannot convince me it is zero without some hard data."

      If they come here and work (as opposed to adding to welfare rolls), then I am all for it.

      Delete
    8. "Yes. But a halfway step is much better than none at all."

      In the case of the US and Mexico, no.

      If we were one large enterprise zone, on parity with one another, yes.

      When there is a disparity in the standard of living and state-sponsored benefits, you cannot have a free market.

      And we are not denying anyone any freedoms. The rights and privileges of citizens and nations is a time-honored concept embedded in ancient law.

      Delete
    9. "In the case of the US and Mexico, no."

      I strongly disagree, Silver (?). Just because Mexico doesn't play fair is no reason to interfere with the rights of individuals.

      "When there is a disparity in the standard of living and state-sponsored benefits, you cannot have a free market."

      Yes, you can, you most certainly can. You can have a free market in any situation where you remove trade restrictions.

      There will always be "disparity in the standard of living" even inside large enterprise zones. Compare life in Massachusetts to life in Mississippi (an example Shaw will point out). These geographic differences are no reason at all to clamp down on people's freedoms to work hard and productively and earn a living and provide for their families.

      "And we are not denying anyone any freedoms"

      The human right of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is a basic, and very important freedom. It is a human right, and you would deny it to Mexican-born Americans. Your draconian solution also clobbers those who work alongside these people, for them, and under them. I simply see no need to hinder these freedoms due to the bigotry of others, sticking to a concept of "nationalism" that tends toward fascist (power for the state, not people), and the unfortunate idea that people doing a better job at something is bad.

      Also, I don't support the right of a "nation" to to keep people away, for invalid/bad reasons, from jobs that they are the best at. It is not the "right" of a citizen to deny people opportunity. Not is it the legitimate "right" of a nation.



      Delete
  5. Jersey:

    You're a buffoon. The majority of people here from Latin America don't want citizenship. They want to be able to travel freely and work here without living in the shadows. Less than half of the Reagan amnesty people became citizens. The majority was happy with permanent residency. Many of the ones who did become citizens continued to think of themselves as Mexicans.

    This is about building a lasting progressive majority, and you are a goose-stepping patsy in the long march.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I never said most of them want citizenship. But a comprehensive reform must acknowledge those that do and address their concerns.

    This is not about a progressive majority, though it is possible that may be an ironic result. Blow-back on sleazy Republican business interests and racist conservatives.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
  7. If you want rational, leave out the Republicans.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No one ever said Rational Nation was a Republicsn blog, Anon. Oh wait... some have. But they have been wrong.

      Delete
    2. You are also a sleazy debater who changes the subject, or narrowly focuses on childish semantics, whenever you have nothing of substance to offer. You have no shame, I think, because you are incapable of even seeing the shameful.

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. I've stuck to the subject, and you were the one who played semantics. RN is right. "Sleazy" is just a hollow insult. I stuck to the facts, and then you repeatedly insisted we didn't need border security and then said we did at the same time. Shrug.

      I had plenty of substance to offer. But you took the low road and veered away from reason and into blind partisan politics.

      Enough of the diversion. I believe, and I have given good support for this, that border security is a must as part of reason-based immigration reform.

      Hopefully, we will keep the high road this time, and not go into the dead end of bashing people for their political party instead oftheir ideas.

      I have nothing to be ashamed of.to offer. You have no shame, I think, because you are incapable of even seeing the shameful.

      Delete
  8. Ok, lets get back on topic, substance, and ditch the personal attacks and name calling.

    Thanks...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Expanding legal migration, beyond just skilled workers, raises all boats, here and abroad. It flattens the trade table by allowing the flow of capital, goods, and labor, instead of just the first two. And if we tie capital/goods/labor to fair trade agreements, we can encourage peace and stability as well as rising standards of living around the world.

    There's a lot more to this than meets the eye. Yes, it means some more government in some places, and less in others - like the ones with guns and badges. It means identification systems that work so people can work. If you want to be off the grid, you can still do that, but in the legitimate workplace we were always supposed to have working papers anyway! Some business sectors like having workers with no papers. It means they can mistreat them, and work them for less. But they are acting against the national interests, including national security. All the vitriol should be directed at them, and them alone.

    btw - dmarks always employees misdirections when he debates with me. Just not with me. So I've had enough with him. Of course we need a strong national border security system. But all other things should not be contingent on our subjective observation of how secure that system is. That's the sleazy, sleazy, sleazy GOP argument I have the biggest problem with.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never employ misdirection with you, Jersey. The problem is you says some wild far-out things and I don't ignore them. Liike the stupid euphemism for illegal alien that you used and failed to defend. I focus directly on them. No misdirection.

      Yes we need a strong national border system. But by saying this now you are contradicting your repeated claims earlier that we dont,. I'd like to think that you have moved to a more thoughtful position, jsersey. But I suspect you are just flip flopping again. I never engage in anything "sleazy": I merely address what you say.

      Objectively, we have very poor security on the Southern border. A subjective opinion that we have strong security there is still grossly uninformed. Ignorant subjectivity is not a strength.

      Your paragraph on expanding legal immigration is great. Now if we can get you to realize that we must secure the border immediately, you would join the ranks of the thoughtful on the issue.

      Delete
    2. And btw, Jersey, your reference to sleazy GOP arguments is strong evidence of your refusal to look at issues.

      Repeated playground insults like you use here, entirely devoid of content, are not what "rational compromise" is made of. That is why I am sticking to ideas, not lowbrow purely-partisan CNN Crossfire style obsession with politcial parties.

      Delete
  10. I like what economist Ben Powell says about immigration. He considers it a form of foreign aid that actually works (works in the sense that the money ultimately goes to the people first).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will said: "....money ultimately goes to the people first)."

      Exactly. Free trade is a form of foreign aid that is small "d" democratic.

      Delete
    2. Here's some more evidence that the border is NOT secure at all:

      McClatchy news service -

      "An average of 253,000 weapons purchased in the United States head south of the border each year, according to the study by four scholars at the University of San Diego’s Trans-Border Institute and the Igarape Institute, a research center in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil."

      CSIS.org -

      "An estimated 18,000 people are trafficked into the United States each year....

      ...Victims are often physically and emotionally abused into
      submission through horrific beatings, gang rapes, starvation,
      violent threats, forced
      drug use, and/or confinement. Their
      abusers are men and women of all nationalities, and in the
      most difficult cases, victims are socialized to become active
      participants and traffickers themselves. Reports and studies
      of cases of human trafficking identif
      ied below illustrate the
      diversity of this phenomenon in the U.S."

      These are just two aspects of a serious and outrageous situation, and it is grossly irresponsible and myopic to look at this situation and say "We have plenty [of border security] as it is."

      It is also a bad idea to hold the idea hostage to some time table of getting other parts of immigration reform passed first. The real lives lost by the lack of security mean that this is an immediate priority, and must not take a back seat.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.