The Atlantic: How Democrats Lost Their Way on Immigration

[hopper]

You must not remember but the filibuster was already a nuisance in the 2007-2008 Congress. The nuclear option was originally brought up by Republicans in 2005 over judges, so the idea was already out there.

No, I didn't. But again, I have to say, eliminating it after a brief period of severe abuse* is still drastic. You're talking about throwing out a procedural tool that has been in place in some form for many generations. That is exactly the kind of bs I hate - changing the rules immediately when you find yourself thwarted. It's what I see Republicans doing anywhere they have power and want just a little bit more (see: North Carolina). And again, it's easy for people to be fed up now, but that is the result of over a decade of abuse.

* what you consider to be sufficiently abusive to justify gutting the filibuster is probably different than mine. The escalation since the 80s is a lot less important to me than the surge shown since Democrats took over in 2007.

The Democrats purposefully kept in the legislative filibuster because deep down most of them didn't really want to pass the progressive legislation they promised their voters. They could always use Republican obstruction as an excuse why they failed, and then ask to be re-elected so they can try again, promising next time they'll surely come through. It's so glaringly obvious it's just a big scam.

Ugh. Ok. I'm sure a few appreciated that outcome, but that sounds mostly like conspiracy talk that is favored among the left as a way to vent their frustration of the party not being sufficiently liberal.

I won't indulge that.

Didn't NC Dems do rule changing when Republican Governor Jim Martin was elected Governor in the late 80's? The Dems nearly dominated NC Politics till 2011 on the state level.

[hopper]

Exactly.. the Republicans controlled Congress for 18 of the last 22 years. As the legislative branch they are in charge of laws and appropriations.

Well the US House yes Republicans have controlled for 18 out of the last 22 years with the exception of 2007-2010. At the US Senate Level its 15 out of the last 22 years since the Dems controlled the US Senate from 2007-2014.

[hopper]

Didn't NC Dems do rule changing when Republican Governor Jim Martin was elected Governor in the late 80's? The Dems nearly dominated NC Politics till 2011 on the state level.

Maybe, but not only do I prefer to keep things within the current generation in this respect (for a couple reasons), but two wrong's also do not make a right. I'd also argue to what extent they went. The NCGOP is making a lot of moves to consolidate power, to the point where it might be fare to say that they don't even really care about how the government is structured or whether they even have elections, so long as they call the shots.

I mean for gods sakes, now they even seem to be open to just impeaching the last Democratic statewide office holders to try and increase their chances of taking over those offices.

Oh I didn't say two wrongs make a right in the instances that NC Dems took power away from Republican Governor Jim Martin in the late 80's and how NC Republicans are taking power away from current Dem Governor Roy Cooper currently. Its just that I think in NC politics whatever party controls the state legislature seems to like taking power away from a governor of the opposing political party.

[hopper]

Well, I don't consider Greenwald to be a liberal, but otherwise I agree with the general sentiment of the article.

To really address wealth inequality, we need to make labor scarcer, and we can only do that by reducing immigration.

I also think that immigration probably hurts liberalism, at least in the medium-term. It's not a coincidence that the two largest expansions of government (New Deal and Great Society) happened during the period when the foreign-born population was relatively low (between the Immigration Act of 1924 and the period when the effects of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 began to be felt). It's a lot harder to add new government programs when conservatives can portray them as hand-outs to non-whites.

Yeah but how many government programs do you want to add currently? The US Government is 20 trillion dollars in the hole also.

[hopper]

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.

Well in his second presidential term he wasn't "deporter in chief" anymore. He created programs like DAPA and DACA and focused on deporting criminal illegal immigrants.

[hopper]

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.

Its not like the GOP is gonna change our current immigration system though even with rhetoric about immigrants. The "Taft-Hartley Act of 1965" which our current immigration system is based off of is likely to stay law of the land even with Trump in office.

[hopper]

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.

Well in his second presidential term he wasn't "deporter in chief" anymore. He created programs like DAPA and DACA and focused on deporting criminal illegal immigrants.

Yes he was. He deported the most immigrants of any President ever.

Ahh Trump will deport more illegal immigrants than Obama did through 2 terms if Trump gets re-elected in 2020.

[hopper]

Republicans can hardly claim the high ground on this. Republicans don't care about the "working class" either - they say they do, but only in the context of immigration and trade. In other words, when foreigners are involved - red meat for America's xenophobic 100% white small towns. But in other areas such as healthcare, benefits, and education, as far as they're concerned, the working class can go to hell.

Healthcare-I think Dems and Republicans are both ignorant on the issue.

Education-The Dems are the ones that control the Education System with the NEA. I should know I am from NJ and the teachers unions are very powerful in the state.

Benefits-Can you be more specific on the issue and break down what you mean on the issue of benefits?

[hopper]

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.

Well in his second presidential term he wasn't "deporter in chief" anymore. He created programs like DAPA and DACA and focused on deporting criminal illegal immigrants.

Also consider that he changed the statistics so that anyone caught trying to entering at the border became counted as "deported" Inorder to increase the number of the deported (almost unimaginable from anyone in the current Democratic Party doing that).

I look at Pew Research's data in terms of Illegal Immigration Data Break Down of Criminal Immigrants vs Non-Criminal Illegal Immigrants getting deported. I think Pew is credible with the data that they gather.