Are my views welcome in the Democratic Party?

[IceSpear]

The idea that immigrants "take" jobs from Americans is noxious and implicitly xenophobic.

If the immigrants dont have skills that make them able to create new jobs they are bound to cut into the existing pool of jobs (or go unemployed).

The idea that immigrants "take" jobs from Americans is noxious and implicitly xenophobic.

And yet it is of course true (immigrants, generally speaking, work for less). Nevertheless, I would agree that it is more the fault of those who refuse to accept lower wages than of the immigrants themselves.

...yet most economists insist that immigrants (even low-skilled ones) do not reduce job opportunities or drive down wages for native citizens. (See here, here, here, and here, just to start.)

Even if I were incorrect, the idea that non-immigrants are entitled to these jobs would remain just as xenophobic.

I think people are referring more to illegal immigrants rather than those who came through the proper channels.

[Niemeyerite]

Why don't you run for Tom Coburn's seat? We need a democrat running there!! (only to have him lose, but it'd be cool the Atlas Forum members advising on real life campaigns).

[Famous Mortimer]

I am a Democrat. I am pro-labor, pro-choice, and pro-freedom. I support a well-regulated welfare state and oppose yanking the rug out from under our nation's poorest. I believe that one of our top legislative priorities should be to make the very rich pay their fair share and close the income gap. I applauded the Supreme Court's long-overdue ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act and believe the Bush Administration should face a military tribunal for their Middle East policy. No person has been a more outspoken critic of President Obama for failing to correct it than I.

Then there are those issues on which my party and I are divided. I agree that drug addicts are some of the most vulnerable members of society and that they need our help, not our scrutiny. However, drug liberalization is one of the most destructive policies we could adopt. We should not end the War on Drugs. We should change the battlefield from America's inner cities to the place where it all starts; the U.S.-Mexico border. I would sanction the use of drone warfare against cartels and the death penalty for drug trafficking. The most effective thing we could do to win this war is clamp down on the border, which brings me to my next topic, illegal "immigration."

I believe that the feasibility of deporting every illegal alien residing here is suspect and I certainly would not support such an enormous waste of resources. However, we should stand up to Congress and demand real immigration reform, not the watered-down version of what we already have that got hawked through the Senate. Illegal immigration should be stopped and legal immigration should be reduced to sustainable levels. In a nation where seven percent of its citizens are unemployed, it would be immoral to let people from neighboring countries come here illegally and take precious jobs. A "pathway to citizenship" should only be offered to aliens who are here right now so they can pay for the benefits they receive. Meanwhile, we should stem the tide of illegal aliens coming here by eliminating incentives to do so. Ending birthright citizenship, prosecuting sanctuary cities, and levying harsh fines against businesses that hire illegal aliens would be good starting points.

Finally, I share my friends' across the aisle distrust of the federal government to always do the right thing. The ATF's handling of the debacle in Waco was appropriate when you consider the circumstances (the Branch Davidians were dangerous insurrectionists, and the world is probably a safer place without them), but their actions at Ruby Ridge as well as their involvement in other snafus makes the label "jack-booted thugs" seem appropriate. Bottom line, the ATF needs serious oversight. I find it odd that the same people who decry Edward Snowden's treatment by our government support an agency that has openly engaged in some of the most flagrant sins against liberty.

TL;DR: Although I consider myself a Democrat, I support a more hawkish War on Drugs with only a marginal safety net for addicts, I oppose amnesty from a protectionist standpoint (not because I'm a xenophobic bigot who hates brown people like Tom Tancredo), and, while my distrust of big business eclipses my distrust of big government, I don't trust either.

So, if I were a congressperson, would I be welcome in the Democratic caucus?

Your views are not welcomed by any sane person. You're under 30. How are you so anti-drug? Were you a crack baby? Did your dad to heroin and beat your mom? Seriously, weed is harmless. Legalize it.

[Foucaulf]

The question was whether or not I would be the subject of scrutiny from my fellow Democrats because of some of my more conservative views.

Anyone in a position of power will be the subject of scrutiny. The question is whether you can suck it up.

[Mordecai]

I am a Democrat. I am pro-labor, pro-choice, and pro-freedom.

I stopped reading right here. Of course your views are accepted. Economic issues always trump social issues when it comes to party membership. Even the most liberal Republicans aren't pro-labor.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The idea that immigrants "take" jobs from Americans is noxious and implicitly xenophobic.

If the immigrants dont have skills that make them able to create new jobs they are bound to cut into the existing pool of jobs (or go unemployed).

The idea that immigrants "take" jobs from Americans is noxious and implicitly xenophobic.

And yet it is of course true (immigrants, generally speaking, work for less). Nevertheless, I would agree that it is more the fault of those who refuse to accept lower wages than of the immigrants themselves.

...yet most economists insist that immigrants (even low-skilled ones) do not reduce job opportunities or drive down wages for native citizens. (See here, here, here, and here, just to start.)

Even if I were incorrect, the idea that non-immigrants are entitled to these jobs would remain just as xenophobic.

It is not that the non-immigrants are entitled to the jobs, but that a certain degree of stability should be maintained in the labor force so as to ensure that the alleged wage depression and so forth doesn't reduce to destitution the poorest of the working class, which is by the way heavily minority and thus would include many of the immigrants themselves as well as a large number of non-immigrants.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

To solve the issue of "cheap labor", immigrants and natives should unionize and fight for equal pay for equal work.

[Oakvale]

Your views are horrible so I hope not.

[SWE]

If the party can fit in Joe machin, Mary Landrieu, and Mark pryor, than it can fit you

Why don't you run for Tom Coburn's seat? We need a democrat running there!! (only to have him lose, but it'd be cool the Atlas Forum members advising on real life campaigns).

Somehow I just can't see a 17-year-old getting elected to the Senate

[Famous Mortimer]

To solve the issue of "cheap labor", immigrants and natives should unionize and fight for equal pay for equal work.

and then employers will hire people who speak English.

The only benefit immigrant labor offers is that it's cheap, take that away, they wouldn't get any jobs here at all.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I believe that the feasibility of deporting every illegal alien residing here is suspect and I certainly would not support such an enormous waste of resources. However, we should stand up to Congress and demand real immigration reform, not the watered-down version of what we already have that got hawked through the Senate. Illegal immigration should be stopped and legal immigration should be reduced to sustainable levels. In a nation where seven percent of its citizens are unemployed, it would be immoral to let people from neighboring countries come here illegally and take precious jobs. A "pathway to citizenship" should only be offered to aliens who are here right now so they can pay for the benefits they receive. Meanwhile, we should stem the tide of illegal aliens coming here by eliminating incentives to do so. Ending birthright citizenship, prosecuting sanctuary cities, and levying harsh fines against businesses that hire illegal aliens would be good starting points.

The pathway to legalization (be it citizenship or not) is the greatest incentive for future illegal immigration (aside from the pull of jobs) precisely because it has been done so many times that nobody serious expects any mass group to not be legalized when they likewise illegally immigrate to the country. It is a perverse incentive as it is called. It seems foolish to deal with number one but perpetuate the second biggest incnetive and expect anything to change. You are on the right track thoguh considering it from the perspective of incentives.

I am leery of ending birthright citizenship because we needed a citizenship standard in the wake of Dred Scott and the 14th was the result. Ending it seems like very costly way to deal with a specific subset of the immigration issue, namely that of the so called, "anchor babies". If you create enough incentives through enforcement, such as cracking down on employers and halting the cyclical amnesty approach, the benefits of anchor baby citizenship would vanish in terms of being an incentive for illegal immigration, without having to repeal or alter it.

As for levying harsh fines, I agree but you have to have some uniform means of determination so that there is no excuse that could be used to escape such penalties. The best method is mandatory E-verify. As for presecuting sanctuary cities, I don't know how that would work exactly, but a more effective way to address it would be to tie various federal money's to entity's cooperation or hindering of federal law. You could thusly discourage sanctuary cities, in-state tuition rates and the giving of driver's licenses to illegals.

You have to decide how important this issue is for you for the Democrats will never, ever be a reliable advocate for your views on this matter.

Has your family been negatively impacted by influx of immigrants to North Carolina? Immigration seems to be an area of obsession for you and I am interested to know why this is. I hope this isn't an intrusive question or appears to be an attack.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I don't really understand the question here.

You're welcome to vote for Democratic candidates and register as a Democrat.  Go ahead and do that please.  But, I wouldn't vote for you or want you to be an elected official, precinct committee person, delegate to a caucus or convention.  A lot of your ideas will never be public policy because they're ridiculous, regardless of party or ideology. 

They're not that ridiculous in retrospect when you consider that other developed nations have adopted some of them.

The question was whether or not I would be the subject of scrutiny from my fellow Democrats because of some of my more conservative views.

Specifically, we're not going to start a war with Mexico over drug trafficking.  We're not going to put people to death for selling drugs.  We're not going to apply your impractical approach to immigration and drug trafficking. 

You also ignore several important facets of the policies you critique like drug trafficking through non-Mexico land border ports of entry and skilled labor immigration. 

That's unwelcome as bad policy generally, not based on ideology.

Drug trafficking actually can be a capital crime under federal law.  That was in Clinton's 1994 crime bill.  (tho I'm not sure if it's ever been implemented)