The Atlantic: How Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 06:24:29 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  U.S. General Discussion (Moderators: The Dowager Mod, Chancellor Tanterterg)
  The Atlantic: How Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
Author Topic: The Atlantic: How Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration  (Read 6640 times)
TheSaint250
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,067


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: 5.22

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: June 21, 2017, 09:50:37 AM »

I'm all for giving amnesty eventually (after securing border) as well as preserving legal immigration (latter of which pretty much all GOPers agree with) but Dems' strategy of accusing GOP of being xenophobic and resisting any form of border control is horrible and not a winning strategy
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: June 21, 2017, 02:07:23 PM »

Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: June 21, 2017, 06:03:58 PM »

Was Obama racist when he ran on cracking down on employers who hire illegals in 2008, and espousing at least lip service to the lie that is comprehensive immigration reform's inherent promise of enforcing immigration laws on all future illegals, not just criminals?
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: June 21, 2017, 06:26:04 PM »


If you don't support the right of the entire population of Nigeria being able to move to the United States and collect welfare, you are racist.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: June 21, 2017, 06:31:45 PM »

Immigrants are people too, throwing them under the bus because muh americans is disgusting and unforgivable.

Oh please, spare me the "throwing them under the bus" garbage. Their own countries can take care of them, it's not our responsibility. We have to take care of our own citizens first, then if there is anything left over we can give aid to foreign countries. Why is it that you guys always seem to care more about the welfare of foreigners than your own countrymen? It's that perception of your priorities that cost you an easily winnable election, and gives greater credence to the idea that you only care about importing future voters.

I will believe someone talking about "taking care of our own citizens first" when they're willing to stop the predatory financial sector, the destructive corporations, the abusive billionaires and the captive government. If you ignore these while complaining about immigration, you're focusing on hangnails while you bleed to death internally. (And I truly don't know where you stand on any of this.)

I am left leaning on the economy. I wanted Obama to break up the banks when we had the chance back in 2009. I wanted tougher regulations on CDS and other financial instruments that brought us to the brink of ruin back then. I want higher taxes on the wealthy and universal healthcare by expanding Medicare and Medicaid, not the piece of crap Obamacare that was a giveaway to private insurers. I want the debt ceiling to be eliminated so it can't be used as a hostage to cut spending programs that were already authorized by previous Congresses. I want tougher rules on campaign donations, and a constitutional amendment to limit wealthy people and corporations from flooding the airwaves with campaign commercials for their crony candidates.

But before you do any of that you need to gain control over your borders to determine what goods and people get to cross. Democrats had complete control over the government, and they could have nuked the filibuster to pass more progressive legislation, but they didn't do it. They are corporate whores that want to import the 3rd world so their masters get cheap labor, and they can use identity politics to get those new arrivals to become reliable Democratic voters, all while continuing a neoliberal agenda. It's the same playbook the Republicans ran for decades, only theirs was to use religious wedge issues to dupe their base. Trump was just the only chance I saw to shake up that system. Now he's looking more and more like another establishment Republican, so my only hope is the Democrats come around to my side on the issues of immigration and trade, otherwise I'll have no party.

The Democrats will never come around on that issue because their base is now high end and technocratic.

Trump is not going to be the Calvin Coolidge of Republican Populism, he is morel ike the McKinley. McKinley was known for protectionism primarily, but his nomination pushed the party in a direction of being for business and against gov't leading to Presidencies like Coolidge. The first nomination pushing in that direction is going to look at lot more like the traditional nominee then the nominee to come a decade or two later as the that transformation continues.

Hahaha.

Source?
Logged
🦀🎂🦀🎂
CrabCake
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,192
Kiribati


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: June 21, 2017, 06:34:53 PM »

Immigrants are people too, throwing them under the bus because muh americans is disgusting and unforgivable.

Oh please, spare me the "throwing them under the bus" garbage. Their own countries can take care of them, it's not our responsibility. We have to take care of our own citizens first, then if there is anything left over we can give aid to foreign countries. Why is it that you guys always seem to care more about the welfare of foreigners than your own countrymen? It's that perception of your priorities that cost you an easily winnable election, and gives greater credence to the idea that you only care about importing future voters.

I will believe someone talking about "taking care of our own citizens first" when they're willing to stop the predatory financial sector, the destructive corporations, the abusive billionaires and the captive government. If you ignore these while complaining about immigration, you're focusing on hangnails while you bleed to death internally. (And I truly don't know where you stand on any of this.)

I am left leaning on the economy. I wanted Obama to break up the banks when we had the chance back in 2009. I wanted tougher regulations on CDS and other financial instruments that brought us to the brink of ruin back then. I want higher taxes on the wealthy and universal healthcare by expanding Medicare and Medicaid, not the piece of crap Obamacare that was a giveaway to private insurers. I want the debt ceiling to be eliminated so it can't be used as a hostage to cut spending programs that were already authorized by previous Congresses. I want tougher rules on campaign donations, and a constitutional amendment to limit wealthy people and corporations from flooding the airwaves with campaign commercials for their crony candidates.

But before you do any of that you need to gain control over your borders to determine what goods and people get to cross. Democrats had complete control over the government, and they could have nuked the filibuster to pass more progressive legislation, but they didn't do it. They are corporate whores that want to import the 3rd world so their masters get cheap labor, and they can use identity politics to get those new arrivals to become reliable Democratic voters, all while continuing a neoliberal agenda. It's the same playbook the Republicans ran for decades, only theirs was to use religious wedge issues to dupe their base. Trump was just the only chance I saw to shake up that system. Now he's looking more and more like another establishment Republican, so my only hope is the Democrats come around to my side on the issues of immigration and trade, otherwise I'll have no party.

The Democrats will never come around on that issue because their base is now high end and technocratic.

Trump is not going to be the Calvin Coolidge of Republican Populism, he is morel ike the McKinley. McKinley was known for protectionism primarily, but his nomination pushed the party in a direction of being for business and against gov't leading to Presidencies like Coolidge. The first nomination pushing in that direction is going to look at lot more like the traditional nominee then the nominee to come a decade or two later as the that transformation continues.

Hahaha.

Source?

Perhaps he might mean the base of the donor class or cadre class.
Logged
publicunofficial
angryGreatness
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: June 21, 2017, 06:53:49 PM »


If you don't support the right of the entire population of Nigeria being able to move to the United States and collect welfare, you are racist.

Mortimer you're racist for many reasons besides that.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: June 21, 2017, 06:55:57 PM »

Immigrants are people too, throwing them under the bus because muh americans is disgusting and unforgivable.

Oh please, spare me the "throwing them under the bus" garbage. Their own countries can take care of them, it's not our responsibility. We have to take care of our own citizens first, then if there is anything left over we can give aid to foreign countries. Why is it that you guys always seem to care more about the welfare of foreigners than your own countrymen? It's that perception of your priorities that cost you an easily winnable election, and gives greater credence to the idea that you only care about importing future voters.

I will believe someone talking about "taking care of our own citizens first" when they're willing to stop the predatory financial sector, the destructive corporations, the abusive billionaires and the captive government. If you ignore these while complaining about immigration, you're focusing on hangnails while you bleed to death internally. (And I truly don't know where you stand on any of this.)

I am left leaning on the economy. I wanted Obama to break up the banks when we had the chance back in 2009. I wanted tougher regulations on CDS and other financial instruments that brought us to the brink of ruin back then. I want higher taxes on the wealthy and universal healthcare by expanding Medicare and Medicaid, not the piece of crap Obamacare that was a giveaway to private insurers. I want the debt ceiling to be eliminated so it can't be used as a hostage to cut spending programs that were already authorized by previous Congresses. I want tougher rules on campaign donations, and a constitutional amendment to limit wealthy people and corporations from flooding the airwaves with campaign commercials for their crony candidates.

But before you do any of that you need to gain control over your borders to determine what goods and people get to cross. Democrats had complete control over the government, and they could have nuked the filibuster to pass more progressive legislation, but they didn't do it. They are corporate whores that want to import the 3rd world so their masters get cheap labor, and they can use identity politics to get those new arrivals to become reliable Democratic voters, all while continuing a neoliberal agenda. It's the same playbook the Republicans ran for decades, only theirs was to use religious wedge issues to dupe their base. Trump was just the only chance I saw to shake up that system. Now he's looking more and more like another establishment Republican, so my only hope is the Democrats come around to my side on the issues of immigration and trade, otherwise I'll have no party.

The Democrats will never come around on that issue because their base is now high end and technocratic.

Trump is not going to be the Calvin Coolidge of Republican Populism, he is morel ike the McKinley. McKinley was known for protectionism primarily, but his nomination pushed the party in a direction of being for business and against gov't leading to Presidencies like Coolidge. The first nomination pushing in that direction is going to look at lot more like the traditional nominee then the nominee to come a decade or two later as the that transformation continues.

Hahaha.

Source?

Perhaps he might mean the base of the donor class or cadre class.

Yes of course.

Money talks after all.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: June 21, 2017, 07:04:29 PM »

Immigrants are people too, throwing them under the bus because muh americans is disgusting and unforgivable.

Oh please, spare me the "throwing them under the bus" garbage. Their own countries can take care of them, it's not our responsibility. We have to take care of our own citizens first, then if there is anything left over we can give aid to foreign countries. Why is it that you guys always seem to care more about the welfare of foreigners than your own countrymen? It's that perception of your priorities that cost you an easily winnable election, and gives greater credence to the idea that you only care about importing future voters.

I will believe someone talking about "taking care of our own citizens first" when they're willing to stop the predatory financial sector, the destructive corporations, the abusive billionaires and the captive government. If you ignore these while complaining about immigration, you're focusing on hangnails while you bleed to death internally. (And I truly don't know where you stand on any of this.)

I am left leaning on the economy. I wanted Obama to break up the banks when we had the chance back in 2009. I wanted tougher regulations on CDS and other financial instruments that brought us to the brink of ruin back then. I want higher taxes on the wealthy and universal healthcare by expanding Medicare and Medicaid, not the piece of crap Obamacare that was a giveaway to private insurers. I want the debt ceiling to be eliminated so it can't be used as a hostage to cut spending programs that were already authorized by previous Congresses. I want tougher rules on campaign donations, and a constitutional amendment to limit wealthy people and corporations from flooding the airwaves with campaign commercials for their crony candidates.

But before you do any of that you need to gain control over your borders to determine what goods and people get to cross. Democrats had complete control over the government, and they could have nuked the filibuster to pass more progressive legislation, but they didn't do it. They are corporate whores that want to import the 3rd world so their masters get cheap labor, and they can use identity politics to get those new arrivals to become reliable Democratic voters, all while continuing a neoliberal agenda. It's the same playbook the Republicans ran for decades, only theirs was to use religious wedge issues to dupe their base. Trump was just the only chance I saw to shake up that system. Now he's looking more and more like another establishment Republican, so my only hope is the Democrats come around to my side on the issues of immigration and trade, otherwise I'll have no party.

The Democrats will never come around on that issue because their base is now high end and technocratic.

Trump is not going to be the Calvin Coolidge of Republican Populism, he is morel ike the McKinley. McKinley was known for protectionism primarily, but his nomination pushed the party in a direction of being for business and against gov't leading to Presidencies like Coolidge. The first nomination pushing in that direction is going to look at lot more like the traditional nominee then the nominee to come a decade or two later as the that transformation continues.

Hahaha.

Source?

Perhaps he might mean the base of the donor class or cadre class.

Yes of course.

Money talks after all.

Then the "Republican base" is just as unlikely to do what that guy desires.
Logged
Hydera
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: June 21, 2017, 07:48:20 PM »

I really wished Bernie was the candidate, somebody who can support controlling immigration but not lose much liberal votes because of his leftwing economic views.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderators
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: June 21, 2017, 09:51:14 PM »

Immigrants are people too, throwing them under the bus because muh americans is disgusting and unforgivable.

Oh please, spare me the "throwing them under the bus" garbage. Their own countries can take care of them, it's not our responsibility. We have to take care of our own citizens first, then if there is anything left over we can give aid to foreign countries. Why is it that you guys always seem to care more about the welfare of foreigners than your own countrymen? It's that perception of your priorities that cost you an easily winnable election, and gives greater credence to the idea that you only care about importing future voters.

I will believe someone talking about "taking care of our own citizens first" when they're willing to stop the predatory financial sector, the destructive corporations, the abusive billionaires and the captive government. If you ignore these while complaining about immigration, you're focusing on hangnails while you bleed to death internally. (And I truly don't know where you stand on any of this.)

I am left leaning on the economy. I wanted Obama to break up the banks when we had the chance back in 2009. I wanted tougher regulations on CDS and other financial instruments that brought us to the brink of ruin back then. I want higher taxes on the wealthy and universal healthcare by expanding Medicare and Medicaid, not the piece of crap Obamacare that was a giveaway to private insurers. I want the debt ceiling to be eliminated so it can't be used as a hostage to cut spending programs that were already authorized by previous Congresses. I want tougher rules on campaign donations, and a constitutional amendment to limit wealthy people and corporations from flooding the airwaves with campaign commercials for their crony candidates.

But before you do any of that you need to gain control over your borders to determine what goods and people get to cross. Democrats had complete control over the government, and they could have nuked the filibuster to pass more progressive legislation, but they didn't do it. They are corporate whores that want to import the 3rd world so their masters get cheap labor, and they can use identity politics to get those new arrivals to become reliable Democratic voters, all while continuing a neoliberal agenda. It's the same playbook the Republicans ran for decades, only theirs was to use religious wedge issues to dupe their base. Trump was just the only chance I saw to shake up that system. Now he's looking more and more like another establishment Republican, so my only hope is the Democrats come around to my side on the issues of immigration and trade, otherwise I'll have no party.

The Democrats will never come around on that issue because their base is now high end and technocratic.

Trump is not going to be the Calvin Coolidge of Republican Populism, he is morel ike the McKinley. McKinley was known for protectionism primarily, but his nomination pushed the party in a direction of being for business and against gov't leading to Presidencies like Coolidge. The first nomination pushing in that direction is going to look at lot more like the traditional nominee then the nominee to come a decade or two later as the that transformation continues.

Hahaha.

Source?

Perhaps he might mean the base of the donor class or cadre class.

Yes of course.

Money talks after all.

Then the "Republican base" is just as unlikely to do what that guy desires.

If Money still talked on the GOP side, Jeb Bush would be the nominee. The GOP base is so angry at their own party, that money doesn't over power that anger.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: June 21, 2017, 10:37:48 PM »

Mortimer's got a point though. You know how many DEMOCRATS I'm friends with who have voiced frustrations in casual conversations about Democrats being ridiculously open border and anti-deportation?

Between the corporate lobbying, the portion of the base that wants basically no deportations aside from felons (??) and the party's perceived need to pander to Hispanic voters, it is really a perfect storm for them. I think Democrats could suffer little to no electoral impact by being somewhat less "generous" towards immigrants, but they won't do that for the reasons^ stated above.

Politically, it's a tough line to walk. You don't want to be seen as a party who seems to care more about foreigners than Americans. Having your presidential candidates basically promise not to deport anyone but violent criminals doesn't help that.
Logged
Hydera
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,545


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: June 21, 2017, 11:30:04 PM »

Mortimer's got a point though. You know how many DEMOCRATS I'm friends with who have voiced frustrations in casual conversations about Democrats being ridiculously open border and anti-deportation?

Between the corporate lobbying, the portion of the base that wants basically no deportations aside from felons (??) and the party's perceived need to pander to Hispanic voters, it is really a perfect storm for them. I think Democrats could suffer little to no electoral impact by being somewhat less "generous" towards immigrants, but they won't do that for the reasons^ stated above.

Politically, it's a tough line to walk. You don't want to be seen as a party who seems to care more about foreigners than Americans. Having your presidential candidates basically promise not to deport anyone but violent criminals doesn't help that.

Oh I agree. Yet half the Democratic Party disagrees with their own messaging, but the party peaders are afraid of offebdibg people who probably won't vote for them anyway. If they were to take the sane stance on immigration, they'd probably get all those Obama voters back, but whatever. I guess you're automatically a racist if you support any form of deportations


Also consider that the ones who say they won't vote because for a candidate because of not being leftwing enough on immigration are the same ones who will look for any reason not to vote for a democrat in the first place for not being left wing enough on many other issues. meanwhile the benefits outweigh the costs as you can get those Obama-Trump voters back.
Logged
Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself
omegascarlet
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,969


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: June 22, 2017, 09:54:02 AM »

Mortimer's got a point though. You know how many DEMOCRATS I'm friends with who have voiced frustrations in casual conversations about Democrats being ridiculously open border and anti-deportation?

Between the corporate lobbying, the portion of the base that wants basically no deportations aside from felons (??) and the party's perceived need to pander to Hispanic voters, it is really a perfect storm for them. I think Democrats could suffer little to no electoral impact by being somewhat less "generous" towards immigrants, but they won't do that for the reasons^ stated above.

Politically, it's a tough line to walk. You don't want to be seen as a party who seems to care more about foreigners than Americans. Having your presidential candidates basically promise not to deport anyone but violent criminals doesn't help that.

Oh I agree. Yet half the Democratic Party disagrees with their own messaging, but the party peaders are afraid of offending people who probably won't vote for them anyway. If they were to take the sane stance on immigration, they'd probably get all those Obama voters back, but whatever. I guess you're automatically a racist if you support any form of deportations

It's less that immigration reform helps politically and more that it's morally wrong to leave people to struggle in hopeless poverty, especially when the economic growth means that immigrants makes feeding everyone easisr. What justification is there for deporting innocent people?
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: June 22, 2017, 12:52:31 PM »

Mortimer's got a point though. You know how many DEMOCRATS I'm friends with who have voiced frustrations in casual conversations about Democrats being ridiculously open border and anti-deportation?

Between the corporate lobbying, the portion of the base that wants basically no deportations aside from felons (??) and the party's perceived need to pander to Hispanic voters, it is really a perfect storm for them. I think Democrats could suffer little to no electoral impact by being somewhat less "generous" towards immigrants, but they won't do that for the reasons^ stated above.

Politically, it's a tough line to walk. You don't want to be seen as a party who seems to care more about foreigners than Americans. Having your presidential candidates basically promise not to deport anyone but violent criminals doesn't help that.

Oh I agree. Yet half the Democratic Party disagrees with their own messaging, but the party peaders are afraid of offending people who probably won't vote for them anyway. If they were to take the sane stance on immigration, they'd probably get all those Obama voters back, but whatever. I guess you're automatically a racist if you support any form of deportations

It's less that immigration reform helps politically and more that it's morally wrong to leave people to struggle in hopeless poverty, especially when the economic growth means that immigrants makes feeding everyone easisr. What justification is there for deporting innocent people?

You say it's morally wrong to let Mexicans live in poverty in their own country, so there's a moral imperative to let them come to our country so they can live in slightly less poverty.

Okay.

Why doesn't that apply to the whole world? Do you think anyone should be able to immigrate to the United States as long as they're poor?

Where do you draw the line?
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,596
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: June 22, 2017, 01:17:21 PM »

The tragic thing about the Democrats on immigration is that they somehow ran a campaign in 2016 which inspired both anti-immigration swing voters and pro-immigration portions of their base to believe that the party supports open borders and believes that deportations are always immoral.

This is odd enough in itself, but it becomes downright surreal when poised against their outgoing president’s record, which involved millions of deportations and demonstrated a much stronger interest in creating refugees than in hosting them. (How is that for Obama’s inspiring moral leadership?)

This. Obama was nicknamed the "Deporter in Chief" by immigration activists. The perception on all sides that the Democrats are in favour of open borders is bizarre.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: June 22, 2017, 01:17:48 PM »

I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of people wish poverty didn't exist, but the real issue is how to address it and how much of our resources to devote to fixing it. Given the way the world is, there has to be limits. Further, it's not even like the entire country wants to fix everyone else's problems. Sure, you can disagree with them, but you must strike a balance. You can't just ignore their wishes entirely. It is their country too, and those that wish for America to play a limited role are no small bunch.

It's one thing to deport those here already and another to further lock down the borders and prevent a situation in the future where we have another 10 - 12 million undocumented immigrants. The idea that that we can have some sort of border security, but then say, "well, if they manage to sneak in, they can stay" seems kind of ridiculous. Give the people already here at this current point in time citizenship, and work to prevent a similar situation in the future.
Logged
Famous Mortimer
WillipsBrighton
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,010
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: June 22, 2017, 01:23:58 PM »

I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of people wish poverty didn't exist, but the real issue is how to address it and how much of our resources to devote to fixing it. Given the way the world is, there has to be limits. Further, it's not even like the entire country wants to fix everyone else's problems. Sure, you can disagree with them, but you must strike a balance. You can't just ignore their wishes entirely. It is their country too, and those that wish for America to play a limited role are no small bunch.

It's one thing to deport those here already and another to further lock down the borders and prevent a situation in the future where we have another 10 - 12 million undocumented immigrants. The idea that that we can have some sort of border security, but then say, "well, if they manage to sneak in, they can stay" seems kind of ridiculous. Give the people already here at this current point in time citizenship, and work to prevent a similar situation in the future.

Very well put.

I should say that I myself actually do think the government should contribute to fighting global poverty. We just shouldn't do it to the point that we hurt our own standard of living, especially since our standard of living has been in decline for quite some time.
Logged
Sbane
sbane
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,303


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: June 22, 2017, 02:02:11 PM »
« Edited: June 22, 2017, 04:43:25 PM by Sbane »

Democrats could easily support less immigration using an economic argument and still win Hispanic voters. It is a misconception that Hispanics vote based on immigration policy. Especially if Democrats focus on shutting down future immigration while at the same time being lenient towards immigrants already here, that could be a winning strategy with both marginal downscale Whites and keeping their current share of the Hispanic vote. Especially if the GOP continues to denigrate immigrants in personal terms.
Logged
Statilius the Epicurean
Thersites
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,596
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: June 22, 2017, 02:04:42 PM »

Democrats could easily support less immigration using an economic argument and still win Hispanic and voters.
Funnily enough those hurt the most by low-skilled immigration are other low-skilled immigrants.
Logged
RINO Tom
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,002
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.45, S: -0.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: June 22, 2017, 02:12:14 PM »

I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of people wish poverty didn't exist, but the real issue is how to address it and how much of our resources to devote to fixing it. Given the way the world is, there has to be limits. Further, it's not even like the entire country wants to fix everyone else's problems. Sure, you can disagree with them, but you must strike a balance. You can't just ignore their wishes entirely. It is their country too, and those that wish for America to play a limited role are no small bunch.

It's one thing to deport those here already and another to further lock down the borders and prevent a situation in the future where we have another 10 - 12 million undocumented immigrants. The idea that that we can have some sort of border security, but then say, "well, if they manage to sneak in, they can stay" seems kind of ridiculous. Give the people already here at this current point in time citizenship, and work to prevent a similar situation in the future.

It honestly perplexes me how this isn't the viewpoint of 90% of people.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: June 22, 2017, 07:52:04 PM »

The tragic thing about the Democrats on immigration is that they somehow ran a campaign in 2016 which inspired both anti-immigration swing voters and pro-immigration portions of their base to believe that the party supports open borders and believes that deportations are always immoral.

This is odd enough in itself, but it becomes downright surreal when poised against their outgoing president’s record, which involved millions of deportations and demonstrated a much stronger interest in creating refugees than in hosting them. (How is that for Obama’s inspiring moral leadership?)

Hispanics don't believe that the party supports open borders nor do they believe that the party thinks that deportations are always immoral. White liberals might think this but they don't matter because they'd vote for Democrats even if they droned every Mexican in the US. Immigrants and their children, particularly those who are younger and in their 20s, moved sharply towards Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein for a reason.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: June 22, 2017, 08:05:14 PM »

If Democrats moved sharply to the right on immigration, as requested by Beinart, and maintained their current stance on economic issues, I'd probably stop voting. Why would I vote for a hawkish, neo-liberal party that also panders to the racist right on immigration? I could not bring myself to vote for CEOs who talked about "controlling our borders", I'd rather die than do something so undignified.

Beinart supported the War in Iraq. I'd suggest that his ability to prognosticate is very limited and that his intellectual capabilities aren't very impressive either or, worse, he's very intellectual dishonest. I'm far from an expert on the economics of immigration - I'm barely a dilettante - but many of his statements are opinion posing as fact or conventional wisdom. Many labor economists would dispute his claims about the affects of immigration on the wages of the low-skilled/native-born - the conventional wisdom that Beinart portrays simply isn't present and quoting Krugman - a trade specialist - and Borjas - a very controversial figure to say the least - does not lend much credence to his claims.

It's fine for Beinart to inveigh against the accepted wisdom within the professional class in the US that immigration is good, beautiful and so on but he'd be better off making the case that we simply aren't honest enough about the difficulties associated with diversity and tolerance rather than arguing that immigrants strain the welfare state - they don't, that's nonsense - or that low-skill immigrants saddle the economy - has he looked at the manner in which housing prices are skyrocketing and the problems facing farmers in California? Immigration generates tremendous economic benefits. This is inarguable, it is settled science, it is a fact comprehensible by 7 year olds etc. The question is how we use these benefits; we have failed miserably to put them to good use but this is not an argument against immigration, it is an argument against the failed centrist dickheads who control the Democratic Party and the reactionary troglodytes on the right.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,080
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: June 22, 2017, 08:26:12 PM »

I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of people wish poverty didn't exist, but the real issue is how to address it and how much of our resources to devote to fixing it. Given the way the world is, there has to be limits. Further, it's not even like the entire country wants to fix everyone else's problems. Sure, you can disagree with them, but you must strike a balance. You can't just ignore their wishes entirely. It is their country too, and those that wish for America to play a limited role are no small bunch.

It's one thing to deport those here already and another to further lock down the borders and prevent a situation in the future where we have another 10 - 12 million undocumented immigrants. The idea that that we can have some sort of border security, but then say, "well, if they manage to sneak in, they can stay" seems kind of ridiculous. Give the people already here at this current point in time citizenship, and work to prevent a similar situation in the future.

It honestly perplexes me how this isn't the viewpoint of 90% of people.
Indeed.
Logged
TheDeadFlagBlues
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,990
Canada
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: June 22, 2017, 08:35:26 PM »

I'd venture a guess that the vast majority of people wish poverty didn't exist, but the real issue is how to address it and how much of our resources to devote to fixing it. Given the way the world is, there has to be limits. Further, it's not even like the entire country wants to fix everyone else's problems. Sure, you can disagree with them, but you must strike a balance. You can't just ignore their wishes entirely. It is their country too, and those that wish for America to play a limited role are no small bunch.

It's one thing to deport those here already and another to further lock down the borders and prevent a situation in the future where we have another 10 - 12 million undocumented immigrants. The idea that that we can have some sort of border security, but then say, "well, if they manage to sneak in, they can stay" seems kind of ridiculous. Give the people already here at this current point in time citizenship, and work to prevent a similar situation in the future.

It honestly perplexes me how this isn't the viewpoint of 90% of people.

It is the viewpoint of 90% of people...
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.072 seconds with 12 queries.