Immigration Bill, Part 2

[kidpokeher]

[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't even close.

Senate blocks immigration bill

The bill's supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Politics at its finest.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't even close.

Senate blocks immigration bill

The bill's supporters fell 14 votes short of the 60 needed to limit debate and clear the way for final passage of the legislation, which critics assailed as offering amnesty to illegal immigrants.

[/ QUOTE ]

Politics at its finest.

[/ QUOTE ]

The pro-immigration forces in Congress did try mightily hard, on more than one occasion, to bypass or limit debate on this issue. I suspect that is one reason amongst many for the backlash.

[ctj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Immigration into the US is utterly racist. If you're white or educated or otherwise law-abiding you are subject to draconian regulation and huge legal expense as well as the overhanging threat of deportation. If you're poor and brown, well, no worries. This is part of what Americans object to.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true. First off, immigrants from Latvia who immigrate illegally face exactly the same risks of deportation as Mexicans. The reason why many get entangled in bureaucracy is because they try to follow the rules. Mexicans who immigrate legally face the same problems. I'm sure far more Mexicans are deported than Europeans.

Second, the US government operates a lottery which awards tens of thousands of green cards to immigrants from countries that don't send many people to America. On top of this, to immigrate to America on an H1-B visa, you need to have high value skills. How many Mexicans do you think have these skills? Our immigration policy is biased toward Westerners, the only reason more Latinos immigrate is because the demand is much greater.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it seems to me that our legal immigration process is indeed biased towards Westerners, but since more non-Westerners than Westerners choose the illegal route thereby short-cutting the intended process, the whole system is also partially biased towards those who are motivated and willing to immigrate illegally. I wouldn't actually call it racist in that sense, as HeavilyArmed did, but the system does encourage illegal immigration in some ways, which de facto encourages non-Western immigration.

I think that both the legal and illegal routes must be considered as part of the whole package when trying to assess such matters. It also makes me wonder whether the USA is gaining more legal or more illegal immigrants every year, anyone know which?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Most illegal immigrants are 'westerners' (Latin America is in the western hemisphere).

2. Many, if not most legal immigrants are 'non-western', certainly those coming in as 'highly-skilled' via H1B visas. At our company, over the last several years we have many who have come in on H1B Visas and gone on to get green cards (i.e permanent residency):
1 Brit, 1 South African, 1 Filipino, 1 Chinese, and 7 from India. I would venture that this is fairly typical in high-tech businesses.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Immigration into the US is utterly racist. If you're white or educated or otherwise law-abiding you are subject to draconian regulation and huge legal expense as well as the overhanging threat of deportation. If you're poor and brown, well, no worries. This is part of what Americans object to.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not true. First off, immigrants from Latvia who immigrate illegally face exactly the same risks of deportation as Mexicans. The reason why many get entangled in bureaucracy is because they try to follow the rules. Mexicans who immigrate legally face the same problems. I'm sure far more Mexicans are deported than Europeans.

Second, the US government operates a lottery which awards tens of thousands of green cards to immigrants from countries that don't send many people to America. On top of this, to immigrate to America on an H1-B visa, you need to have high value skills. How many Mexicans do you think have these skills? Our immigration policy is biased toward Westerners, the only reason more Latinos immigrate is because the demand is much greater.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it seems to me that our legal immigration process is indeed biased towards Westerners, but since more non-Westerners than Westerners choose the illegal route thereby short-cutting the intended process, the whole system is also partially biased towards those who are motivated and willing to immigrate illegally. I wouldn't actually call it racist in that sense, as HeavilyArmed did, but the system does encourage illegal immigration in some ways, which de facto encourages non-Western immigration.

I think that both the legal and illegal routes must be considered as part of the whole package when trying to assess such matters. It also makes me wonder whether the USA is gaining more legal or more illegal immigrants every year, anyone know which?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Most illegal immigrants are 'westerners' (Latin America is in the western hemisphere).

2. Many, if not most legal immigrants are 'non-western', certainly those coming in as 'highly-skilled' via H1B visas. At our company, over the last several years we have many who have come in on H1B Visas and gone on to get green cards (i.e permanent residency):
1 Brit, 1 South African, 1 Filipino, 1 Chinese, and 7 from India. I would venture that this is fairly typical in high-tech businesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

By "Westerner" I meant Euro-Anglo for the most part.

You make a good point about the legal hi-tech business immigrants.

[andyfox]

I don't understand Bush staying with this so doggedly. Nor do I understand his taking on the "loud people" on talk radio that were largely responsible for his being president in the first place. I suppose the fact that he's a lame duck plays into it, but still it baffles me. A Republican president steadfastly sticking with this, insulting fellow Republicans, for a bill where the support came, basically, only from Democrats.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand Bush staying with this so doggedly. Nor do I understand his taking on the "loud people" on talk radio that were largely responsible for his being president in the first place. I suppose the fact that he's a lame duck plays into it, but still it baffles me. A Republican president steadfastly sticking with this, insulting fellow Republicans, for a bill where the support came, basically, only from Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

First a caveat, I can be convinced that "securing the borders" is a lot of hype. You may have read this in another thread but I'll post it here because this is what's baffling me about Bush.


Something that's really bothering me about the "War on Terror" and Bush lately. Bush's support of the immigration bill before the Senate now seems to me to do basically nothing about "strengthening our border security" which means to me that this isn't a high priority item for Bush. In fact Bush isn't promoting the legislation on that basis at all. We can argue whether or not this bill does strengthen border security or not. We could also debate whether or not border security needs strengthening. No matter which side of these too questions your views fall on, I think it's clear that generally speaking people who support the "War on Terror" generally believe that strengthening border security is necessary and vital (I realize these folks are a subset of the people who have an agenda in opposing the immigration bill). I think it's equally clear that many who don't support the concept of a "War on Terror" believe that "stenghtening border security" at this point in time isn't a major issue. No matter what the politicians say about this immigration bill, it doesn't do very much more than is done now to make the borders more secure. Which brings me to my point (sorry it took so long) and if you're still with me, the leader of the administration that launches the "War on Terror" and indeed it's most ardent champion arguably doesn't put a high priority on border security. I find that to be a conflict that is unresolvable and puts more into question the motives of the president.

[bobman0330]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand Bush staying with this so doggedly. Nor do I understand his taking on the "loud people" on talk radio that were largely responsible for his being president in the first place. I suppose the fact that he's a lame duck plays into it, but still it baffles me. A Republican president steadfastly sticking with this, insulting fellow Republicans, for a bill where the support came, basically, only from Democrats.

[/ QUOTE ]

You find this surprising? He's an intensely idealistic president, and he ignores advice like it's his job. He basically ruined his party's electoral prospects in '06 (and possibly '08) by refusing to draw things down in Iraq. The rest of his agenda is a shambles. I'm not at all surprised at this.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand Bush staying with this so doggedly. Nor do I understand his taking on the "loud people" on talk radio that were largely responsible for his being president in the first place. I suppose the fact that he's a lame duck plays into it, but still it baffles me.

[/ QUOTE ]
You find this surprising? He's an intensely idealistic president, and he ignores advice like it's his job. He basically ruined his party's electoral prospects in '06 (and possibly '08) by refusing to draw things down in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush has to stay with this so doggedly because allowing the right to control this issue will ruin his party's electoral prospects far beyond '08.

The Tom Tancredos of the world are a cancer to the GOP. For the long term health of the party, President Bush essentially has to take on the rabid talk radio crowd because of the damage they're doing to the GOP's long term electoral prospects:

The WSJ chronicles the dilemma:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110010263

<font color="#666666">"The longer term danger is that the GOP is sending a message to Latinos that it doesn't want them in the party. And if that message sticks, Republicans could put themselves back in minority party status for a generation or more. Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority in the country, and their voting numbers continue to grow. Hispanics were estimated to be 8% of the electorate in 2006, compared with 6% in 2004 and 5.5% in 2000. Census data show that the number of Latino voters could rise to 10% or more by 2008. The demographic reality is that the GOP can't be a majority party with Anglo-Saxon votes alone.

Like most voters, Hispanics care about more issues than immigration. But also like most voters, they take pride in their cultural identity and will reject candidates who send a message of hostility to their very presence in America. They know that when Tom Tancredo calls for an immigration "time out," he's not talking about the Irish. He means no more Mexicans, Hondurans or other Hispanics. If the GOP wants to be deserted by Hispanics for the next few election cycles, that sort of talk should do the trick."</font>


In essence, Rove and the forward thinkers in the party know that letting the GOP base control the party's immigration policy (and talking points) are a recipe for long-term disaster. Hence why Bush has to go to war with them.

The demographic math is written on the wall. Wooing Hispanic voters are integral to the viability of both parties going forward, and the Tancredo/NRO/talk radio wing of the right could do irreparable harm to the party going forward if they're allowed to control the agenda on this issue.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't understand Bush staying with this so doggedly. Nor do I understand his taking on the "loud people" on talk radio that were largely responsible for his being president in the first place. I suppose the fact that he's a lame duck plays into it, but still it baffles me.

[/ QUOTE ]
You find this surprising? He's an intensely idealistic president, and he ignores advice like it's his job. He basically ruined his party's electoral prospects in '06 (and possibly '08) by refusing to draw things down in Iraq.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush has to stay with this so doggedly because allowing the right to control this issue will ruin his party's electoral prospects far beyond '08.

The Tom Tancredos of the world are a cancer to the GOP. For the long term health of the party, President Bush essentially has to take on the rabid talk radio crowd because of the damage they're doing to the GOP's long term electoral prospects:

The WSJ chronicles the dilemma:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editor...l?id=110010263

<font color="#666666">"The longer term danger is that the GOP is sending a message to Latinos that it doesn't want them in the party. And if that message sticks, Republicans could put themselves back in minority party status for a generation or more. Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority in the country, and their voting numbers continue to grow. Hispanics were estimated to be 8% of the electorate in 2006, compared with 6% in 2004 and 5.5% in 2000. Census data show that the number of Latino voters could rise to 10% or more by 2008. The demographic reality is that the GOP can't be a majority party with Anglo-Saxon votes alone.

Like most voters, Hispanics care about more issues than immigration. But also like most voters, they take pride in their cultural identity and will reject candidates who send a message of hostility to their very presence in America. They know that when Tom Tancredo calls for an immigration "time out," he's not talking about the Irish. He means no more Mexicans, Hondurans or other Hispanics. If the GOP wants to be deserted by Hispanics for the next few election cycles, that sort of talk should do the trick."</font>


In essence, Rove and the forward thinkers in the party know that letting the GOP base control the party's immigration policy (and talking points) are a recipe for long-term disaster. Hence why Bush has to go to war with them.

The demographic math is written on the wall. Wooing Hispanic voters are integral to the viability of both parties going forward, and the Tancredo/NRO/talk radio wing of the right could do irreparable harm to the party going forward if they're allowed to control the agenda on this issue.

[/ QUOTE ]

In percentages how many votes do you believe this will cost the Republicans in 2008 among Hispanic voters????

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
In percentages how many votes do you believe this will cost the Republicans in 2008 among Hispanic voters????

[/ QUOTE ]
Very little, because:

1. This wasn't reported on as a partisan issue. Supporters and opponents came from both sides of the aisle.

2. Pro-immigration groups weren't thrilled with the bill either. They thought it was too tough on immigrants.

The Tom Tancredos of the world, however...