Immigration

Behind the Failure on Immigration Reform

Is there any room for optimism on the immigration front?

|

Sheldon Adelson, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffett say they want Congress to pass an immigration reform bill. So does Michael Bloomberg.

On the substantive merits, the issue seems like a slam dunk. We are, after all, a nation of immigrants. Both political parties at least say they realize the need to do something about the millions of illegal immigrants here in America, and to prevent our country from losing out by turning away talent that wants to come here.

So why in the world hasn't it happened yet?

With Congress headed off to summer recess without acting on the issue, I rang up the president and CEO of Immigration Works USA, Tamar Jacoby, a smart and capable public-policy person who is right in the middle of the effort to pass an immigration law—and has been for years.

"It's been a frustrating ride," she says. "We didn't win."

Jacoby points out that it's not just immigration reform that hasn't happened. There's a reason that people call Washington, D.C. totally dysfunctional. All sorts of other issues where there is broad elite consensus and even ostensible bipartisan agreement about the need for action—corporate tax reform, individual tax simplification, patent reform, entitlement reform—have also not yet resulted in the passage of legislation.

I usually look at the bright side of this. The constitutional set up that makes it difficult for Congress to pass laws helps to protect Americans from being burdened with more bad ones. One person's "gridlock" is another person's "checks and balances."

And for all the talk about how wealthy interest groups or individuals purchase influence in American politics—to read the New Yorker and The New York Times, you'd think the entire right side of the American political spectrum takes its marching orders directly from the Koch brothers—the involvement of Messrs. Buffett and Bloomberg on this one hasn't translated into congressional votes in favor.

Why it so tough? Support for immigration reform is bipartisan, with declared supporters who have included George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, Senator McCain, and Speaker Boehner on the Republican side and President Obama and Sen. Schumer on the Democratic side. But opposition is also bipartisan. Jacoby speaks of an "unholy alliance" in which anti-immigrant Republicans have joined with Democrats allied with labor unions, many of which have a history of resisting immigration out of concern that a supply of immigrant workers competing for jobs will drive down wages.

Tactically, there might be a temptation to break off smaller pieces of the pro-immigrant agenda—more visas for highly educated high-tech workers, for example—to satisfy Silicon Valley lobbyists. But the Congressional Hispanic Congress and Sen. Menendez have opposed that approach, preferring to have pressure build for a "comprehensive" solution.

While many Republicans, including the leadership, want to act on the issue, in part because they realize the long-term political risks to the party of appearing obstructionist on it, they see it a bit like going to the dentist. They realize they have to do it, but they aren't looking forward to it, and they certainly aren't in any big rush. Democrats, for their part, like having the issue as a club with which to bash Republicans, and thus aren't in any particular rush themselves to pass a law which would defuse a campaign issue. Plenty of House members are in safe seats anyway. For them, the national politics of the issue are remote.

Jacoby says that all these explanatory factors shouldn't diminish my indignation at Congress's failure to act.

"We really are so close," she says. "This year I actually thought we were going to get it done."

The crisis of unaccompanied minors at the border has somewhat eroded support for immigration reform in recent polls, she says, but it could crystallize a push for legislation if a bill is seen as something that would help get control of the situation. An improving economy could also improve chances for the legislation, especially to the extent that anxiety among low-wage workers about their own job prospects feeds anti-immigrant sentiment. Some immigration laws could pass next year, perhaps if Republicans wind up with control of both the House and the Senate, and if the House begins to address the issue one piece at a time—assuming President Obama doesn't scramble things up by trying to act unilaterally and on a large scale without Congress, which he may well do.

There's room for optimism on the immigration issue, but beware the illusion of inevitability. Says Jacoby: "I've been predicting 'next year' for, like, a decade."

Advertisement

NEXT: Rep. Polis Pulls Anti-Fracking Initiatives in Favor of Compromise

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Turning away talent”? Silicon Valley lobbyists want more HB1s because they can pay them less, not because there’s a shortage of tech talent. Business lobbyists want cheap labor, not because there’s any sort of shortage of low-end labor. Democrats want more poor people, for votes and to justify the welfare state.

    The crisis of unaccompanied minors at the border has somewhat eroded support for immigration reform in recent polls

    Understatement of the Year.

    1. DERP DERP if labor costs are too high, there’s a supply problem.

      1. Labor costs are always “too high” to any employer. They always want cheap labor, regardless of whether it causes unemployment and welfare costs to increase. Concentrated (private) benefits, socialized costs.

        1. “Socialized costs”

          As in “non-existent costs”.

          1. Then why do we need billions of dollars in emergency spending to deal with the tens of thousands of “unaccompanied minors” crossing the border? Why does LA spend $650 million a year on welfare for illegal alien parents?


            1. Collect more than $7,000 per month for ‘fostering’ adult illegal aliens

              The federal government is in dire need of U.S. citizens willing to house the thousands of illegal immigrants who enter the country each week, and they are willing to pay them to do so.
              ?
              Braiser mentioned that foster families will be paid $40 per day for each migrant they take in from Catholic Charities? Foster parents have the ability to collect more than $7,400 per month, considering that they can house six immigrants at any given time.

    2. Silicon Valley lobbyists want more HB1s because they can pay them less, not because there’s a shortage of tech talent.

      This is probably the most uninformed thing I will read all week.

      1. I think it’s common knowledge that companies around here discriminate against older tech workers in favor of younger, foreign H1Bs. But feel free to elaborate.

        1. Some companies may prefer young tech workers to older tech workers because they demand less compensation for the same skill set. Nonetheless, there is no evidence that they prefer foreign H-1Bs or pay them less than similarly aged and educated natives. Indeed, the fact that higher quotas are lobbied for in software rather than in other fields is strong evidence that there is a shortage of software talent.

          I don’t know any unemployed software engineers. Do you?

          1. When major companies started filling office buildings in Bangalore with people working for 20-25% of what US workers were getting paid, most coders that I know went into pre-sales/sales engineering, product management, or implementation consulting gigs. So, they are not unemployed, but they were definitely priced out of their first career choice. So fine, that’s the way the globalized world works, but your argument is simplistic ad absurdum. And there are plenty of H-1B’s who are essentially indentured servants until the sponsoring company works its way through getting them a green card. That’s reality: I saw it first hand in four Silicon Valley SW startups.

            1. You must have worked for some sad companies. In my experience the H-1B’s are paid market rates, as evidenced by their salaries posted on the break room wall. The fact that they are essentially indentured is an artifact of the protectionist H-1B system. I would definitely support getting rid of H-1B’s and simply allowing willing people to take a job wherever they can find agreeable terms. No quotas. No durations.

              It is definitely true that, as time goes on, there are two significant motions out of software development. First, people get tired of it and want to do other things. But second, a coding competency that amounts to turning easily specified requirements into output may become outsourced or, even more common, simply automated away.

              As a result, the skills desired in high-value software development only get more elaborate, and the available pool of people with those skills only gets smaller. Hence the need to draw from a world population rather than solely a national population to fill those slots. Silicon Valley, and now San Francisco, cannot hire enough software developers. It is beyond folly to prevent them from hiring anyone they can come to terms with.

    3. Of course people want different things.

  2. Jacoby speaks of an “unholy alliance” in which anti-immigrant Republicans have joined with Democrats allied with labor unions, many of which have a history of resisting immigration out of concern that a supply of immigrant workers competing for jobs will drive down wages.

    Correct. The central problem with immigration law is that there is no legal path to immigration for unskilled labor. And the reason why that is is the idiotic labor certification process, which requires employers to prove that no American is qualified to do a job before they are allowed to hire an immigrant. That effectively means that it is impossible to get an employment sponsorship unless you have at least a Bachelor’s degree in a STEM field.

    Why is the law written like that? Because labor unions wanted it that way!!!

    Current immigration law, especially the current PROBLEMS with immigration law, are almost entirely creations of the labor movement.

    1. “The central problem with immigration law is that there is no legal path to immigration for unskilled labor. ”

      I’m fine with that. An immigrant should have something more to offer the country than a lifetime of government dependance, tuberculosis, and AIDS. We shouldn’t be treating immigration as if we were some sort of international charity at taxpayer expense.

      1. We shouldn’t let idiots like you vote.

        1. I’ll gladly give up my right to vote when you stop stealing my money to give to “unskilled laborers”. Until then, fuck off.

          1. Well then you can use your ballot as TP because none of your money is specifically being stolen for non-skilled labor.

            1. Every illegal alien child who is crossing the southern border is eligible to go to public school. And public school costs $10,500 per child on average (2012 figures).

              So yes, you as a taxpayer are paying for illegal aliens in just this respect alone.

              1. So does every baby born to a US resident. Maybe we should make it illegal to have children.

                1. Do you think every American taxpayer also wants to pay for the schooling of every kid in Mexico and the rest of Latin America?

                2. We should make it illegal to have children you can’t support.

            2. You cannot possibly be this stupid, and still be able to breath on your own. The lower 40% of US income earners get more back in cash from the federal government than they contribute, and they pay ZERO in income taxes. FORTY-FUCKING-PERCENT.

        2. Are you Canadian?

      2. I’ll gladly say there should be no welfare or any other social benefits for immigrants for at least 10 years after they come here.

        But the fact that nobody is proposing that tells me this isn’t about welfare, it’s about competition for jobs.

        1. MANY are against welfare for immigrants (as evidenced by a number of posts on this thread and others).

          Regarding “competition for jobs” – it is not “competition” if the same rules do not apply for immigrants (particularly illegals) versus citizens.

          1. Many SAY they are against welfare for immigrants.

            People who claim to believe in free competition aren’t going to want to admit that the want to use force to prevent people from competing with them.

            As a matter of fact, it’s *already* illegal for an illegal alien to get welfare, or even a legal immigrant for at least 5 years.

            The sponsor has to prove that they, or you, have sufficient resources to support you for at least 5 years after entry.

            Most people haven’t been through the immigration system, so they might be as familiar with these facts as someone who has been.

            1. Er, might NOT be.

            2. LA alone spends $650 million a year on welfare for kids of illegal aliens. Plus what they spend on them in the schools and the jails.

              1. They aren’t here to get free education for their kids. They’re here because they want to WORK. They aren’t asking for handouts.

                1. 90 million+ Americans are not working, the key 25-54 age cohort is at a historic low level of employment, black and Latino youth unemployment hovers around 50 percent, and tens of millions are working part-time or are otherwise under-employed. So, yes, clearly a massive new pool of uneducated, unskilled labor is precisely what is called for.

                  Hey! Why don’t we allow felons to determine U.S. criminal and correctional policy?

            3. Per Supreme Court ruling, every illegal alien child who is crossing the southern border is eligible to go to public school. And public school costs $10,500 per child on average (2012 figures).

              So yes, you as a taxpayer are paying for illegal aliens in just this respect alone.

              I am an immigrant and naturalized citizen, and am well aware of the intersection between immigration law and welfare programs. Trust me, they are nowhere as black and white as you think, particularly when you have government bureaucrats involved. CMS tried hard to get my mother, also a naturalized citizen to sign up for Medicaid when she was not eligible for it.

    2. The problems are created by labor unions and maintained by xenophobe conservative nut job idiots.

      What I don’t understand is the push to reform immigration law now, when the economy is in a place that both major parties want to blame illegal immigration for. This is the worst time. Get the economy going with deregulation and spending cuts, and then we can ram immigration freedom down America’s throat with only fleeting resistance.

      1. xenophobe conservative nut job idiots

        You mean the Canadian ones? Easier to get into Canada or the US?

        I honestly don’t know. I do know that it’s much more difficult for us to place US citizens in temporary positions in Windsor than it is to put Canadians in temp positions in Detroit.
        Much less “full time”…

        1. Much easier to get into Canada. Double the immigration rate, which is one of the reasons our economy is better.

          1. You’re not getting a lot of immigration from Mexico and Honduras, I’ll bet. And doesn’t Canada prefer it when foreigners pay to immigrate? Selling visas and citizenship to people from Hong Kong isn’t much of an argument for mass immigration from Third World shitholes.

          2. Obviously, you have never applied for a job in Canada – they are FAR MORE protectionist than the US. Regarding so-called “unskilled labor” – the current US climate DISALLOWS the traditional labor pool (e.g. teenagers) from even PARTICIPATING. Certainly NOT libertarian or free-market.

  3. Say, don’t we already have immigration laws? It’s not like this illegal immigrant problem is a recent development or anything.

    1. For some reason, not enforcing old laws has become an argument in favor of new laws.

  4. Dude that makes no sense at all to me man. None.

    http://www.WentAnon.tk

  5. Maybe it failed because nobody trusts the people in favor of this bill to actually enforce the new laws. They don’t enforce the present laws so why bother with new ones.

    “”””with declared supporters who have included George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, Senator McCain, and Speaker Boehner on the Republican side and President Obama and Sen. Schumer on the Democratic side”””

    This is a reason to be against this law.

  6. “Jacoby speaks of an “unholy alliance” in which anti-immigrant Republicans have joined with Democrats allied with labor unions, many of which have a history of resisting immigration out of concern that a supply of immigrant workers competing for jobs will drive down wages.”

    I work in immigration law in California, and most of my colleagues blame lack of reform entirely on the Tea Party. I politely point out the unions aren’t found of immigration reform, and I get blank empty stares in return. Tea Party has become a stand in for “anyone I don’t like.”

    1. Some day, just for shits and giggles, ask your co-workers why we don’t just adopt the same immigration laws as Mexico.

      1. I know you think this is insightful or clever on your part, but it really isn’t.

        1. Why not? Mexico doesn’t want more poor people from points south. They rather hypocritically whine about the USA not wanting more poor people from points south.

          1. But Cytotoxic doesn’t want to flood the country with Third World peasants because that’s what Mexico wants, he wants it because he’s a moron. Mexico’s own immigration policies are irrelevant.

        2. Just out of curiosity, how much do you pay in US federal income taxes? If the number is zero, why the fuck do you think you have any say in what US immigration policy should, or shouldn’t be?

        3. What exactly is the intellectual basis for denying the US the right to determine who can immigrate and under what circumstances? And please name another first world country that allows aliens to stream across their border to 1) find work 2) avail themselves of the educational system 3) use the health care system?

          I notice that your snark did not answer the reality that Anon E. Mouse’s comment addresses: Mexico’s immigration policies are draconian. They are very picky about who they allow in and encourage their poor to go to the US and send back $9B in annual cash flow from the US. Pretty obvious what’s going on here.

          1. In fact, I am unaware of any country that has ever renounced its right to control its borders, and determine who should enter, how many and under what terms and conditions.

            1. Well, the US didn’t renounce that right power because it never gave itself that power in the Constitution.

              Nonetheless, the US did not exercise that power for its first century of existence, and only over the next half century did it slowly shift from an open borders nation to one of restricted immigration.

              1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A…..ted_powers

                Congress has the power to establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization.

                This has widely been accepted as the power to decide who can enter the US, how many, and under what terms and conditions. Every nation in the world has this power, and the US is not magically different.

                1. Naturalization is not and has never been immigration.

                  And while it is now widely accepted that the US has power over immigration, that power was not at all recognized or exercised in the first century of US history.

                  1. So what are we arguing about then? Is there any court case that you can cite that supports your view that the US does not have the power to regulate immigration as opposed to naturalization?

                    1. You said that you were “unaware of any country that has ever renounced” its immigration powers. I cited one: the United States 140 years ago.

                      As for court cases of that first century, I can cite none. That’s not surprising considering immigration was not a power that the federal government tried to exercise, so there is no reason for anyone to have brought a case to court. However, I can cite Tucker’s Blackstone on the naturalization clause:

                      The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject…. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states….

                    2. So at the most, what you are claiming is the power to regulate immigration is reserved to the States and not to the federal government. This is a far cry from saying that the United States renounced its immigration powers.

          2. What exactly is the intellectual basis for denying the US the right to determine who can immigrate and under what circumstances?

            Governments don’t have rights: they have powers, either legitimate or not. What exactly is the intellectual basis for the US abrogating the right of someone in the US to transport, house, or hire someone not from the US and abrogating the right of someone not from the US to travel, reside, or work in the US?

            …go to the US and send back $9B in annual cash flow from the US.

            Scratch an anti-immigration zealot, find a mercantilist.

  7. Unions (especially the likes of SEIU) are not uniformly against immigration reform. They would probably like to unionize most of these undocumented aliens.

    Immigration reform is one of those cause celebre issues that doesn’t land high on anyone’s wish list. People have strong opinions about it, and a dedicated minority will make a lot of noise, but it just doesn’t affect that many people. Most people who favor immigration reform quietly understand that their lives won’t improve just because a few million illegal receive amnesty.

    And what is this “cheap labor”? You mean illegals who get paid in cash under the table, or agree to work for less than minimum wage? Sure, that’s cheap, and it’s less of an exploitation if both parties agree to it. But would that kind of practice thrive if those workers are legalized and even unionized?

    I worked for no less than 4 immigrant employers. There’s a real ugly side to illegal immigration that people like Cyto doesn’t see. Illegal labor is not some libertarian arrangement in which two parties agree to conditions that fly under government coercion.

    1. Cyto doesn’t want to see the ugly side(s). He’s got his idealistic principle, and he’s not going to let mere reality get in the way.

    2. Yes, just as most people didn’t think their lives would improve just because the slaves had their freedom.

      One of the most perverse ideas in politics in recent years is the idea that people ought to vote for their self-interest, rather than what is morally right.

      1. It’s not that simple, Hazel. The “moral right” of a Honduras teen gangster to move to the US doesn’t trump my moral right to not want to pay for his welfare, health care, and incarceration.

        You may be supporting “freedom” for those masses of immigrants (which is what Cytotoxic seems to think he’s doing), but that mass immigration is working against every other libertarian principle. It’s allowing the Democratic party to elect a new people (Latin Americans tend to be anti-libertarian: social conservatives and fiscal liberals), and it’s accelerating the bankruptcy of the welfare state.

        1. The Honduras teenager isn’t asking for a handout. He’s asking for the right to engage in voluntary exchange.

          Plus, I tohugh we all agreed that drugs should be legal. If he wants to sell cocaine, he should be free to do so.

          1. “The Honduras teenager isn’t asking for a handout. He’s asking for the right to engage in voluntary exchange.”

            What exactly does the “Honduras teenager” have to exchange that we need?

            1. His presence in a public school at $10,500 per year.

    3. Illegal labor is not some libertarian arrangement in which two parties agree to conditions that fly under government coercion.

      Um yeah, because it’s illegal. It’s a lot harder to exploit someone who can call the cops without fear of deportation.

  8. Support for immigration reform is bipartisan,

    There’s a red flag, right there.

    declared supporters who have included George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, Senator McCain, and Speaker Boehner on the Republican side and President Obama and Sen. Schumer on the Democratic side

    Whoa! There’s another batch of red flags, right there.

    prevent our country from losing out by turning away talent that wants to come here.

    Well, I can think of one group of high-profile illegals that its really hard to say that about.

    The problem with the current stampede of illegals is that it serves as a preview of what open(er) borders would be like. And people don’t like what they see. Unskilled, uneducated, and unemployable, whose stay in this country will be marked by vast expenditures of tax money on education, health care, support, and (let’s not forget) legal process – that’s a tough hill for the current immigration reform push to climb.

    1. You cannot have open borders and a welfare state at the same time:

      Pew Research Center: Hispanic Politics, Values, Religion

      Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services.

      1. Which goes to another point I make around here: by importing larges numbers of people who are anti-libertarian (most Hispanics are social conservatives and fiscal liberals), we are making the US less libertarian overall. That, of course, is precisely the Democratic Party plan. Don’t fall for it.

        1. Yep. The Democrats admit that the push to legalize illegal aliens is to gain electoral advantage and has nothing to do with how much and what kind of immigration is good for the US:


          Obama’s warning: ‘Right-size’ immigration expectations

          Quote:
          Adding to the elevated hopes about what Obama will do is the feeling among Democratic strategists that immigration reform is a clear political winner: … voters whom Obama might be able to activate, both among immigrant communities and progressives overall who see this issue as a touchstone, are exactly the ones that Democrats are hoping will be there to counter a midterm year in which the map and historical trends favor GOP turnout.

          In many competitive House districts and several of the Senate races that Democrats need to hold onto to have a chance of retaining the majority ? Colorado and Iowa, and to a lesser extent, North Carolina and Arkansas ? immigrant communities make up a significant bloc of votes. Done in a way that energizes Latinos and Asians, Obama’s taking the lead on immigration could prove a margin-making move for the midterms.

          Much of the discussions have focused on what can be sold to the American public and midterm voters, with the 2012 Dreamers model very much on the participants’ minds? Hispanic and Asian voters turned out in large numbers that fall.

        2. Hispanics aren’t even close to social conservatives. The only issue they’ve ever been on the Right with is abortion, and they’re not strongly (or possibly at all) more to the right than the national average anymore

      2. It’s very conveniehnt for you to support free exchange, right up until the point when it conflicts with your own interests.

        1. Well yes, I routinely refrain from engaging in contracts and business arrangements which might bring me short term benefit, and long term misery.

          Here, I can’t even see what the short term benefit is. In the long term: if amnesty is passed, 11 million illegals will be legalized, and will then sponsor and bring in another 20 million of their relatives, who will vote 70% – 80% in favor of the tax and spend party. This seems like a rapid highway to libertarianism, yes? As a small-l libertarian, I hope that other libertarians are not invested in a suicide pact in mindless pursuit of principles divorced from all reality.

          1. And to expand further on this: I am pro-gun and pro-legalization of all drugs. But in the current reality of the United States, I will not sell firearms to drug dealers.

            Libertarianism is not about ignoring the consequences of your actions in the real world.

    2. Most illegals aren’t even literate in Spanish.

  9. Also missing from this article: Any mention whatsoever of minor problems like:


    Texas state senator: 100,000 illegal immigrant gang members in state

    Texas state Senator Dan Patrick, who is also the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, said from 2008 to 2012, 143,000 illegal immigrant criminals were arrested and jailed in Texas. He said these were “hardened criminals, gang members, and other criminals that we identified as being in Texas illegally.”

    “We charged them with 447,000 crimes, a half-million crimes in four years, just in Texas, including over 5,000 rapes and 2,000 murders,” Patrick said. “We estimate we have 100,000 gang members here illegally.”

    I did some basic plausibility fact checking on Dan Patrick’s numbers using FBI UCR data for Texas:

    Patrick says: “2008 to 2012, ? in four years”, so I assume that these are the years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011.

    Total murders in Texas during that time period: 5,079, so illegal alien criminals would have committed 2,000 murders, or 39% of the murders. Plausible, especially if like most homicides, these murders are committed among gang members and the criminal class.

    Total rapes in Texas: 31,474, vs. 5,000 claimed by Dan Patrick. So illegal alien criminals would have committed 15% of the rapes. Plausible.

    1. (Contd.)

      Total crimes in Texas. The FBI breaks these down into:

      Violent Crime: 463,234
      Property Crime: 3,809,003
      Total Crimes: 4,272,237

      It’s not clear what Patrick is referring to when he says “We charged them with 447,000 crimes”. If he is referring to Total crime, then illegal alien criminals committed about 11% of them. Certainly plausible. If he is referring to violent crimes only, then illegal alien criminals would have had to commit nearly 97% of violent crime, which does not seem plausible.

      So overall, Patrick’s numbers seem eminently plausible, with the caveat about the total crime number.

  10. The goal here isn’t to impeach Obama, but to stop amnesty of 5 million illegals, plus 10 to 15 million family members, 500,000 of whom will have already made it over our borders by the end of the year.

    If Obama grants amnesty, it will be the black community paying the highest price in the loss of jobs, welfare and Medicaid funding diverted, and the loss of political power as another voting block moves in to claim their share of other federal family service funding. With the Chamber of Commerce pushing amnesty for cheap, Central American labor, and the political elites of the Democratic Party simply seeking votes, grassroot black and white voters share the same political objective in stopping any such mass amnesty.

    ex animo
    davidfarrar

    1. This is why I don’t actually care. This is democrats eating their own. Fck them.

      1. Don’t worry; you and all of us will be part of the meal too:


        Pew Research Center: Hispanic Politics, Values, Religion

        Support for a larger government is greatest among immigrant Latinos. More than eight-in-ten (81%) say they would rather have a bigger government with more services than a smaller government with fewer services.

  11. Because no one trusts Obama to implement the border security portion of any amnesty agreement.

    Why is that not obvious?

  12. “The crisis of unaccompanied minors at the border has somewhat eroded support for immigration reform in recent polls, she says, but it could crystallize a push for legislation if a bill is seen as something that would help get control of the situation.”

    The crisis seems to have been caused, at least in part, by the implementation of policies the reformers would at least settle for. Why does Jacoby think that will galvanize support for her position when it seems to have had the opposite effect?

  13. Just roll with the punches dude, its all cool!

    http://www.WentAnon.tk

  14. just as Leonard answered I am taken by surprise that a single mom can make $7907 in a few weeks on the internet . check my source W?W?W.J?u?m?p??62.C?o???m

  15. No one can solve this problem because “illegal” immigration is not the real problem. Nativists and other reactionaries started us down the road to our currently dysfunctional immigration system to keep out various undesirables such as Jews, Italians and Japanese. Since 1925, we have not fundamentally reviewed this issue leaving us with the currently problems. However, we do not face an immigration problem but an assimilation problem. If we change the immigration system to one that again welcomes the retched refuse from all teeming shores but focuses on making all comers good Americans, everyone can win. Three simple rules make it easy to administer:

    1. Everyone must learn English – wipe out the costly programs that enable people use their native language at great cost to Americans as the hosts for these new proto-citizens.
    2. Everyone must become a citizen within eight years.
    3. No welfare benefits if you are not working or have not worked since you arrived and cannot demonstrate progress to citizenship.

    Since everyone is legal except for criminals, border entry points become welcome centers. Anyone illegally crossing the border must be a criminal, terrorist or have an illness that bars them from entry.

    1. Since 1925, we have not fundamentally reviewed this issue leaving us with the currently problems.

      We haven’t fundamentally reviewed the 1920’s quotas on immigration except for the 1965 immigration act, and the 1986 immigration amnesty, and 40 years of de facto non-enforcement of immigration laws.

  16. Open borders + welfare state = national suicide.

    1. Now that’s a slam dunk.

  17. THE BIG LIE: “We are, after all, a nation of immigrants.”

    Most Americans are born here. For the entire history of the USA, most Americans were born in the USA.

    Before the USA, most Americans were English, overwhelmingly so. From 1770 onward immigration as been a fraction of population, never exceeding 15% in any decade and having been as low as 5.4%, with one notable decade of immigration between 1870 and 1890.

    LIBERTARIAN IMMIGRATION REFORM: 1) End all federal welfare programs; 2) Open the borders

    REPUBLICAN PARTY IMMIGRATION REFORM: 1) Amnesty for law-breaking illegals who entered the US illegally in effort to suppress wages of prime age workers

    DEMOCRATIC PARTY IMMIGRATION REFORM: 1) Amnesty for law-breaking illegals who entered the US illegally; 2) ply them with more unionized-bureaucrat managed welfare

    The facts of reality always remain. If you are for amnesty, you are either a Democrat or a Republican. You cannot be an authentic libertarian.

    REASONOIDS OF REASON.COM, AMERICA’S CRYPTO-REPUBLICANS

    1. ?

      The Libertarian Party Platform, among many, many other libertarian organizations and writings, disagrees with your opinion on libertarian immigration reform:

      Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.

      1. And the LP suffers a slew of flaws rendering it hardly representative of libertarianism.

        STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES AND THE STUPIDITY OF THE LIBERTARIAN PARTY

        Authentic libertarians have nothing to do with the quite flawed Libertarian Party.

        Enjoy!

        1. There can be no right without duty. That is the reality of more than 799 years of Anglo-Norman and American jurisprudence.

          Obligation means duty. One must fulfill duty by either doing X or not doing X so that another can exercise one’s right. That is jurisprudence.

          The right to life is a natural right. The right to life imposes the duty on everyone else to not violate that right of anyone. The natural right to one’s life imposes a duty upon all others to not murder.

          Doing one’s duty of not violating another’s right fulfills one’s duty. One can only enjoy the right of living, of not being murdered if everyone does his or her duty, fulfills his or her duty of not killing.

          What a wildly complex model of rights. It’s like calling negative negative numbers a totally distinct class of numbers and thinking something useful will result.

          Just out of curiosity, exactly how does one get from this “rights implies duties” theory to your apparent belief that the US government has the duty to abrogate peoples natural rights of association?

          1. You won’t get any argument from me regarding Congresses abrogating natural rights. They have done so for decades.

            Yet, you present a wildly lame attempt at ad hominem through innuendo.

            Also, you might want to get yourself checked out for your quite demonstrated hallucination. How you could possible misconstrue any apparent belief from your weak reading comprehension skills is the stuff of mind disorder.

            You must not like Anglo-Norman-American culture as the entire legal basis of life in Britain and the USA is a jurisprudence based on for every duty there is a corresponding right and for every right there is a corresponding duty.

            There isn’t any complexity about it. Likely most every sane-minded right thinker would see it opposite to you. They would see the simplicity in such actual jurisprudence.

            Alas, you are like most who are hyper-indoctrinated into the crypto-republican cult of the Reasonoids of Reason.com. You are clueless about jurisprudence so your beliefs about such matters are muddled and easily controlled.

            Enjoy!

            REASONOIDS OF REASON.COM, AMERICA’S CRYPTO-REPUBLICANS

  18. Reagan, when he gave amnesty, had both Houses approval which he stated was constitutionally necessary for such a momentous act. Would that this arrogant president, without the successes of Reagan in pulling our country from disaster, had the respect for the Constitution and the citizens that need no more poor.
    We won’t get that respect! The only thing he’s given is arrogance.And apparent fondness for Qatar the funders of ISIL.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.