« Personal Fears Semi-Open Post | Main | Your ObWi Hospital report »

January 12, 2018

Comments

What Russell said.

Every year. I hate:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/21/government-shutdowns-new-normal-and-compromise-now-means-traitor-stan-collender-column/1051960001/

Mulvaney is Gingrich is mp is Death.

Build the Wall. It will be fun blowing it the fuck up, from both sides.

mp will divorce Melania and marry Sophia.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/the-robot-who-wants-to-destroy-humanity-isn%E2%80%99t-so-good-at-sentences-yet/ar-AAuL1nj

Together, and with the help of sadistic republican bots, they will destroy humanity during mp's second term.

Neither need to be good at complete sentences for any of that.

one of the parties in question has a strength of representation that is not justified by the number of their constituents.

i actually ran the numbers on the Senate representation last night.

even with the current 49/51 split, the Dems in the Senate still represent 56.4% of Americans.

Dem : 177,911,730
GOP : 137,570,660

(counting split states 50/50)

When mp says "nuclear option", he's thinking mushroom clouds over blue America.

"the reason the government is shut down is because the national representation in Congress has two different views of what is best for the nation. and neither one has enough votes to prevail. so we are wedged for the moment."

I do not believe this is true. I believe we are here because our political gamesmanship has convinced Americans that there is a good and a bad side. No matter how many things we agree on the other side is reactionary or communist or Stalin or Hitler when the other 47% are none of the above.

In convincing the public this is true we have been convinced it is war for the soul of the nation, thus justifying winning at any cost.

This justification is why we are here, Congress has an 18% approval rating but no one pays a price for that as long as my rep stands on principle.

Our country is built on the premise that people of good will, even with significantly opposing views, can agree to compromise. As long as compromise remains a victim of winning at all costs we will not get back on track.

I can point to dozens of examples on the Republican side where we have failed my expectations to even adequately govern, but I am equally aware of the Democrats failures here.

It is not always the Dems fault, it's always the fear of the American people of the collective other, both sides, that is at fault.

i'd take the deal

As would I, on balance. (As, FWIW, it seems to offer the best hope for the Dreamers in the short term, and maintaining the Dems' chance of breaking through in November.)
Just wondering what other folks thought.

I believe we are here because our political gamesmanship has convinced Americans that there is a good and a bad side.

IMO there actually is a good and a bad side.

I'm fine with finding compromise positions, because I recognize that not everyone holds the same values I do. And, that people who don't hold those values live here, too.

But I hold the values I hold, and I hold them because IMO they are right. They're good.

And the people who disagree with me no doubt do the same.

That's not gamesmanship. It's a fundamental difference in values. Different people think different things are good. My values are not the same as yours. Or, whoever's.

IMO the folks in Congress should, at this point, utterly ignore the POTUS and the White House, make their own deal, because he's a vain old fool. They should make their own deal, and put it in front of the POTUS. If he won't sign it, then they should muster the votes to override him.

And then we should turn the lights back on and move on.

But that has nothing to do with my sense that there is a good and a bad side here.

"Our country is built on the premise that people of good will, even with significantly opposing views, can agree to compromise. As long as compromise remains a victim of winning at all costs we will not get back on track."

Hmm. So, it's kumbaya after all.

There are graveyards and statuary all over the country commemorating the spilled blood of the principled who believed nothing of the sort.

Not a one of them believed in game theory.

“I have often remarked in the United States that it is not easy to make a man understand that his presence may be dispensed with; hints will not always suffice to shake him off. I contradict an American at every word he says, to show him that his conversation bores me; he instantly labors with fresh pertinacity to convince me; I preserve a dogged silence, and he thinks I am meditating deeply on the truths which he is uttering; at last I rush from his company, and he supposes that some urgent business hurries me elsewhere. This man will never understand that he wearies me to extinction unless I tell him so: and the only way to get rid of him is to make him my enemy for life.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

But, OK, I'm in the giving vein today. Take the deal.

To secure a couple of weeks respite from budgetary chaos from those who have shown no good will .... and I'm not even counting the lout pig in the White House .... and nothing BUT ill will since Goldwater, to be generous .... toward this chimera called compromise, and just when the "Democrat" Party was starting to show some backbone.

And, we'll be interrupting Mulvaney's, the dominatrix, cumming in his shorts as he fucks restrained Americans over, just leaving him more ammo for his next joyous display of sadism.

But it's two more weeks time for the Dreamer and CHIPs hostages to have the Red Cross smuggle in automatic weaponry to greet the next display of malign conservatism, so there is that.

Let the Luntz conservative focus groups convene one more fucking time so his and Gingrich's asshole offspring can sound off during this brief interim by calling me all of the names Luntz himself trained them to call me in 1994.

I'm walking into ISIS-held Aleppo asking them to provide a wedding cake for my gay friends.

I wonder how that's going to go.

I didn't think THIS up:

https://niskanencenter.org/blog/on-the-saying-that-extremism-in-defense-of-liberty-is-no-vice/

I can see arguments both for and against this (accepting the good faith of the Republicans not being high amongst them...).

On one hand, there has been a recurring lack of good faith. On the other, with what amounts to just a 2 week extension, McConnell will know that if he reneges, he will be right back here real soon. And at that point, Democrats would be insisting on getting DACA (and CHIP) in the next funding bill -- whether it is temporary or permanent.

it will not stop people from crossing the border. people are very creative, and you're talking about a population who are willing to put themselves at risk of robbery, assault, rape, and death to get here. a stupid wall is not going to make them decide to stay home.

Especially since the vast majority of illegal immigrants already arrive without dealing with the southern border. The wall always been symbolic, not practical -- whether Trump's fans are smart enough to realize that or not. So it's just a question of telling him that he can say "I got a wall!". It doesn't matter what, if anything, actually gets built.

the folks in Congress should, at this point, utterly ignore the POTUS and the White House, make their own deal

It's been obvious for some time, to pretty much everybody involved (except Trump, and maybe even to him) that this would eventually have to be the case.

It's a matter of when/if the Republicans, specifically the Republican leadership in Congress, rediscovers a spine. So far, they seem more terrified of possibly irritating Trump's fan base and their own caucus's nut cases than they are distressed about not governing at all.

Eventually the polls will tell them that they are making a mistake. Until then, not too hopeful.

Compromise this:

https://www.balloon-juice.com/2018/01/22/deductibles-incentives-and-the-chronically-costly/

Here's the White House's message to Marty's good faith:

https://qz.com/1184936/listen-to-the-white-house-message-blaming-democrats-for-the-government-shutdown/

IMO there actually is a good and a bad side.

There is, in fact, a good and a bad side. This racist and his boss represent the bad side, and Republicans are supporting them. This is about racism. It's not about anything else.

On what stable ground can one compromise with lying, cheating vermin:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/team-trump-bypassed-dhs-analysts-to-produce-bogus-terror-report?ref=home

Although mocked as a turtle, Mitch McConnell is in fact a snake. He has no honor. He is a thief who stole a SCOTUS seat, and he brags about it. Even today he referred to DACA folks as "illegal immigrants". For months he has held CHIP hostage to bludgeon DACA with. Mitch McConnell, the epitome of institutional Republicanism, is a scumbag.

To trust him is to be a fool.

Is Schumer a fool? Maybe not. Maybe he knows he can hold McConnell to his word, as worthless as it is, this time around. Maybe. But I don't see how Schumer can do it without shutting He, Trumps government down again in February.

And Schumer, like McConnell, thinks that "the American people" is a thing. And not just a thing, but a gullible, easily-manipulated thing that can always be counted on to split the difference between decency and viciousness. So the vicious always have the political advantage, and must always be yielded to, in Schumer's thinking.

If Schumer is right about that, we have a much bigger problem than lousy politicians, here in America.

--TP

Is Schumer a fool? Maybe not. Maybe he knows he can hold McConnell to his word, as worthless as it is, this time around. Maybe. But I don't see how Schumer can do it without shutting He, Trumps government down again in February.

I think that's exactly how he does it. McConnell holds to his promise . . . no matter how foreign doing such a thing is to him. Because otherwise he knows, beyond a doubt, that there will be another shutdown. And this time, he won't have CHIP to beat the Democrats with.

Worse, another shutdown means another opportunity for the President to muck up any attempt to do a deal. This time, his aides managed to keep him quiet, mostly. But could they pull it off again? Not a good bet for McConnell to make.

I believe we are here because our political gamesmanship has convinced Americans that there is a good and a bad side.

You might consider that there might actually be a "good side" and a "bad side". Back in the period 1940's - 1960's the two major parties were actually coalitions of confounding interests. The GOP had liberals like Jacob Javits and Nelson (ugh) Rockefeller, and the Democrats had powerful folks (read scum) such as James O. Eastland, and John Stennis.

Compromises, most of the time, could be reached, or the inertia of our system of checks and balances would simply suffocate differences.

Now we have two major parties that are increasingly more ideologically uniform and coherent.

In such a setting, compromise is viewed by many as essentially a defeat.

It's only going to get hotter here until one side essentially prevails, a development that, in turn, could lead to another major political realignment.

I'm rooting for "my" side. I'm pretty sure you are too.

Alaska Rep Don Young of Alaska, no easy mark, was on NPR yesterday lamenting the fact that EVERYTHING, every jot and tittle, of business must go through Paul's (Ryan) and Nancy's (Pelosi) Offices before it sees any of the light of day and stays 100% in the leadership's control.

Who did this to us?

https://www.thenation.com/article/how-newt-gingrich-crippled-congress/

republican politicians come to Washington D.C. also determined, by agreement with the RNC and conservative fascist donors, since the Gingrich era and at Gingrich's original insistence, to NEVER socialize outside business hours with members of the other side of the aisle.

They leave their families in their districts so the latter won't be corrupted by the EVIL in Washington D.C.

republicans hate the very purpose of Congress: compromising in the carrying out of the Nation's business.

The public hates Congress and the media.

The very core of the republican mission accomplished.

I'd like to know who the 18% are who approved of Congress's performance when that last poll was taken during McConnell's reign.

I'll wager most of them were saying they liked its NON-performance under republican rule. I'll wager most of them approved most of all Congress NOT performing one of its very basic Constitutional functions, providing hearings for Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland.

I confess to feeling a bit smug. (Which I savor, because opportunities come so seldom.)

Back on Jan 17 (at just after 10 PM) I said:
So answer me this. Why not take the CHIP renewal? And catch DACA in the next couple of weeks? Yeah, it would be good to get both now. But sometimes it makes sense to take half a loaf now, and the other half tomorrow.

Which looks amazingly like exactly the deal that has been agreed to. (OK, they also got McConnell's word that he would bring a DACA bill to a vote. For whatever that proves to be worth.) If even I could see it....

I'll wager most of them were saying they liked its NON-performance under republican rule.

You know, maybe just once, these folks could take their shutdown bluster to finality and get the "small government"* they so fervently claim they desire.

*What they really want is overweening private power, just as much "bigness" as the Federal Register, but in their hands.

I am still trying to make sense of what just happened in the Senate, and tres shock, there is actually disagreement in the LGM comment section.

(Messed up the linkage to relevant part of the comments at LGM. I think it was off-topic deep in "Hated Glenn Greenwald is a paid Putin agent" thread, which I have no comment on)

Of course, the Dembot take is that Repubs just got totally ruled by Schumer, but CHIP was Repubs biggest leverage, and I can't understand them giving up 6 years of CHIP and getting nothing.

Quote from somebody:

"The one thing that worries me a bit is that every potential presidential contender in the Senate voted against this. That reads as bad to me; that reads as "they know DACA won't get done and they want to be on the right side of this issue; if they thought DACA was gonna get done they'd have agreed to this." I might just be pessimistic but that's a real concern."

McConnell's calculation might be that owning failure on DACA will kill Latino turnout for Dems in November.

(For the record, 6 years on CHIP is GREAT, depending on the cost.)

McConnell's calculation might be that owning failure on DACA will kill Latino turnout for Dems in November.

Trump killed DACA. he could have let it continue, but he didn't. i suspect that essentially no Latinos who care about the issue will not know that.

Dems and some Republicans, like Flake, have been working on a deal for many weeks. and McConnell was already on record promising a vote if they could get a deal. and they were close, before Trump blew it up.

and now McConnell's on record promising a vote on DACA. if he reneges or tries poisoning the process, it's not going to be the Dems' fault.

they've been trying.

What they really want is overweening private power

"The people who own the country ought to govern it".

John Jay, founding father, contributor to the Federalist Papers, SCOTUS justice.

It's not like it's a new idea.

I think the Senate Dems took a gamble that this would be the least worst chance for DACA, and who's to say they're wrong ?

If the Republicans are determined to have mass deportations, it will happen - but at least this way they can't do it pretending they had to do it to maintain the running if the government.
If McConnell reneges on the deal, or if Ryan refuses to bring the resulting bill to the House, then they will declare themselves to be evil shits. And 80% of voters will condemn them for it.

“Damn John Jay! Damn everyone who won’t damn John Jay!! Damn everyone that won’t put lights in his windows and sit up all night damning John Jay!!!”

And THAT, AND his likeness hanged in effigy across the young America, was in answer to one of few times Jay compromised by forging the John Jay treaty to forestall yet more war with England.

And because GFTNC gets a kick out of that quote.

I know the derp is that McConnell and Ryan are total idiots (even though they are the ones with the majorities) but McConnell must have some calculation that giving up CHIP was to his benefit.

Of course, they delayed the shutdown, maybe with the idea that Dems will cave the next time if only DACA is at stake.

As I said, my guess is that Repubs are studying midterm turnout in Nevada and Arizona, other places

Nigel, are your rose-colored glasses prescription?

1) How many times do Democrats like Schumer and about 30 others need to get rolled before "who's to say they're wrong?" gets to sound like a stupid question? Roll me once, shame on you; roll me 5 or 6 times, shame on me -- but I think my shame will get me some votes from "undecided" or "independent" or "moderate" voters. That seems to be the institutional Democrats' terminal delusion. Do you know what the Martingale "system" for playing roulette is? You know it doesn't work, right?

2) If mass deportations happen and do not result in massive civil disobedience that literally shuts down He, Trump's government, then the US is not worth saving.

3) McConnell and Ryan are known to be evil shits already. The only Americans who doubt it are the sort of people who, if He, Trump declared himself a god, would say "Oh, well, let's compromise on demi-god." That's not to mention the substantial fraction of Americans who would just go ahead and build shrines to him, and sacrifice virgins on the altars.

4) The 27% crazification factor in American politics is well known. No way would 80% "condemn" racist authoritarians, ever.

--TP


evil shits.

"Evil shits are running the country" is GG and my position. And, I suspect, the majority that isn't playing Blue Team vs Red Team touch football politics.

And 80% of voters will condemn them for it.

ROTFL. 70 Dem Senators and 40 Dem Governors right there on the horizon.

I usually agree with you, TP, but I think Schumer did the right thing here. CHIP is really important, and was an urgent thing to get done right away. And, no wj - they did it correctly by doing a mini-shutdown, with more to come.

The Republicans are Nazis and sadists, but they control the government, and we have to get rid of them. We aren't going to win much in the legislative arena until we have more votes. We have to be solidly together to win this war. No disloyalty. (I'm excluding people like bob mcmanus, who is working for the other side. His views don't count in this war, and I'm not going to do anything to prevail upon lefty nihilists.)

And because GFTNC gets a kick out of that quote.

Me too.

"The 27% crazification factor ..."

Now pushing 37%.

It's not like it's a new idea.

True 'dat, but even good libruls tend to forget that a good deal of the time....way too much of the time for my tastes.

Of course, they delayed the shutdown, maybe with the idea that Dems will cave the next time if only DACA is at stake.

There are still many 'issues' at stake. 'Defense' spending, offsets, etc. Drump gave Congress until March (?) to bring him a DACA deal to sign. Then what?

What poison pill will the House attach to the next CR?

bob mcmanus, who is working for the other side.

I don't work for any side that says there are only two sides, a good side and a bad side. The side that says that is a bad side.

OT:1st ticket in 25 years, failure to signal lane change, fucking pig. Tried out an experiment, got out of my car, shut the door, walked to my trunk, made sure my hands were visible. Pig freaked all the fuck out, we argued.

Fucking pigs want to look in the car ("I know how to do my job", pig said. Why do you need to look in the car on a lane change ticket, pig.

Cause they need to be able to say I reached under the blanket on the passenger side after they cap my ass.

...but I think Schumer did the right thing here.

Schumer is not Joe Cannon or Sam Rayburn, much less Majority Leader LBJ. He simply didn't have the votes.

He simply didn't have the votes.

Correct. The "Resistance" needs to focus on changing the numbers.

One funny: Lots of traffic on side road two houses from mine, many parents picking up kids from neighborhood elementary. Gawking, they all know me after 35 years walking dogs.

At one point I put my hands on the top of my head, and pig says "I didn't tell you to put your hands on your head."

What is this, Simon Says?

And because GFTNC gets a kick out of that quote

And the kick is in no way diminished: as soon as I saw it I smiled with pleasure.

Morally Reprehensible says TPM

Dems Are Losers and Cowards says Slate

Vox is all like balanced and moderate

"They didn’t get anything close to that. That has left some in their ranks disillusioned, particularly if the immigration debate becomes disconnected from the spending talks. Moving an immigration bill with a spending bill was supposed to be the minority’s plan to make sure House Republicans didn’t block it.

“It was a great disappointment to me,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), who opposed the procedural vote, said.

Asked if she trusts McConnell to follow through, she added: “Chuck Schumer trusts him. I haven’t been party to that discussion, so I really can’t comment. But the strategy was to keep it affixed to a must-pass vehicle because there was great worry that the House wouldn’t pass it. The leadership did it this way; they must know something I don’t.”

Yeah, they got CHIP. Now it is going to come down to caving on DACA, giving Trump an immigration bill he signs, or keeping the gov't doors closed forever.

Dems will cave, and the Dembots at LGM will says it was the right thing to do, and blame Greenwald, Jacobin and me when they lose in 2018 and 2020.

Nigel, are your rose-colored glasses prescription?

No.
The Democrats were losing the public opinion battle on the shutdown - that matters. Regroup, reframe the argument.

It's absolutely clear that public opinion supports the DACA; it's equally clear that it did not support the government shutdown on the issue.

This is a war, and you have to pick the right battle and the right time for the battle.

Maybe not 80%, as I've seen reported elsewhere, but certainly 70%:
http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/368959-poll-most-americans-support-daca

House Dems Extremely Disappointed ...picture of Nancy . She Sad. Picture of Ryan. He laughing and smiling.

But LGM thinks Dems pulled one over on McConnell. People really need to look at how sick and corrupt that faction is. The Clinton-Obama loyalists. They fon't care if they lose or people suffer as long as the money and righteousness keeps flowing. They worship their submissive wetting.

"House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) declared Monday afternoon that she would oppose the package and urge her caucus to do the same."

Time for LGM and Balloon Juice to cast away that devil Pelosi along with the rest of us leftwing purity maniacs.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2018/01/we-are-all-just-overclocked-chimpanzees/

"The people who own the country ought to govern it".

John Jay, founding father, contributor to the Federalist Papers, SCOTUS justice.

By which, unfortunately, he did not mean "Native Americans".

By which, unfortunately, he did not mean "Native Americans".

They couldn't produce clear title.

The side that says that is a bad side.

that's pretty much all of the sides.

OT:1st ticket in 25 years, failure to signal lane change, fucking pig. Tried out an experiment...

I'm sitting here shaking my head.

It's absolutely clear that public opinion supports the DACA; it's equally clear that it did not support the government shutdown on the issue.

fwiw, this analysis seems about right, to me.

Though the movement in public opinion on this is interesting:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/22/government-shutdown-blame-trump-republicans-democrats-357357

By accident or design, I think Schumer put off the contest at the right time. There very llikely will be a round two:
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/22/government-shutdown-next-round-congress-358240
and the dynamics will be different:

Eeyores gonna Eeyore.

The Clinton-Obama loyalists. They fon't care if they lose or people suffer as long as the money and righteousness keeps flowing. They worship their submissive wetting.

you've almost completely detached from reality.

Nigel: The Democrats were losing the public opinion battle on the shutdown

I am not sure there is such a thing as THE public. If there is, and if (as the media are wont to intimate) "public opinion" went against the Republicans for the 2013 shutdown, I'll be damned if I can see how that ended up hurting the GOP. But let that pass.

The public is composed of trumpeteers, of principled conservatives, of swing voters, of pragmatic Democrats, of bleeding-heart liberals -- not to mention a large contingent of the uninformed and the apathetic. Would somebody explain to me, please, which part of the public is MORE inclined to turn out and vote for Democrats who cave to Republicans in order to curry favor with it?

Will "the public" give Democrats credit for liberating the hostage known as CHIP? Not unless "the public" recognizes that the GOP was holding CHIP hostage. How is that message supposed to get through, and to which part of "the public"?

We live in an America where bob mcmanus getting out of his car at a trivial traffic stop is a breath-taking act of courage, because "the public" takes the high-handed authoritarianism of "law enforcement" as a given, not an outrage. We live in an America where "the public" is assumed to be OK with the GOP collecting ransom for doing the merely decent thing. We live in an America where "the public" accepts that He, Trump must be paid off to protect the Dreamers that He, Himself put in jeopardy. We live in an America where "the public" rewards hardball, no matter how much it piously praises "bipartisanship".

Schumer and the Democrats need to start, today, to show "the public" that they are not embarrassed to play hardball. In particular, they need to make it clear that even if the GOP does NOT weasel out of "a DACA deal", the very fact that a "deal" must be made is deplorable.

--TP

I am not sure there is such a thing as THE public.

Agreed, which is why I referred to the battle of public opinion. Without a significant majority, you're not going to stop Trump rerunning Operation Wetback for the 21stC... I don't have any illusions about either him or his enablers in Congress, but like it or not, for now they have majorities there.

Schumer and the Democrats need to start, today, to show "the public" that they are not embarrassed to play hardball.

Again agreed - but I think they first needed to demonstrate they were prepared to deal. Voters are fickle, and if the Democrats are going to go all in on a shutdown confrontation, they need to be absolutely sure who is going to get the blame for the negative consequences.
Whether Schumer has that determination, I really don't know.
We'll see ... perhaps the noise being made from those criticising his climbdown will stiffen his spine ?

I'm perfectly willing to admit I am wrong, but that's my 2c.

the very fact that a "deal" must be made is deplorable.

with losing elections comes great difficulties in advancing legislation.

you've almost completely detached from reality.

But that's been true of pretty much all devout Marxists for at least half a century. Marx had some good insights for his time. But those who have made his ideas into theology can only maintain their faith by being extremely careful what facts they let in to their reality. (Not unlike some other groups of "faithful" we all have experience with....)

"the very fact that a "deal" must be made is deplorable."

Not so much. The fact that it is being made is really phenomenal because, like everything else, it isn't a standalone action. It has consequences.

Interestingly, I caught a snippet on CNN yesterday where a Dreamer who is some leader in the DACA movement who said it would be a great start toward overall amnesty. To the Dreamers it isn't a standalone issue either, which the Congress seems to understand.

So "Just pass DACA" isn't even a rational position.

Nigel's link produces this:
Republican leaders are under increasing pressure from their own members to reach a long-term budget agreement by Feb. 8, when the government next runs out of money.

The question in my mind is, Have they even done the committee work that would be required to do anything more than a CR? I know that they managed to do the Veterans Administration. But I don't know if anything else has been done.

"Just pass DACA" isn't even a rational position.

That would be true if the only two possible positions were
- deport everybody who is here illegally,
- grant blanket amnesty to everybody who is here illegally. Eventually, and preferably sooner rather than later.

But it's entirely rational to argue that those who were brought here as children are in a different category from those who came (or overstayed their visas, which is more common) of their own volition as adults. And, being different categories, deserving of different treatment.

So "Just pass DACA" isn't even a rational position.

DACA exists. They can turn it into legislation so that the president can't simply rescind it of his own accord. And all legislation has consequences, otherwise it would be pointless. Virtually nothing is a "standalone issue," yet issues get dealt with all the time, none the less.

What I'm wondering, as public opinion (or "public opinion" if you prefer) is concerned, is how the outrage in some quarters over caving on DACA, even if temporarily, will affect public opinion (aka "public opinion") in general. Does this raise awareness and win more people over to support DACA (or whatever a new version might be called when made into a bill)? Does it turn more people off than it brings in as supporters? Does it just not matter at this point?

Marty: So "Just pass DACA" isn't even a rational position.

So tell us, Marty: what's a "rational position"?

What price do YOU want in exchange for outright citizenship for people who entered the US as involuntarily as you did?

I assume from what you said that demanding outright citizenship for Dreamers would be "rational", however deplorable you find it.

--TP

is how the outrage in some quarters over caving on DACA, even if temporarily, will affect public opinion

it's a certainty that "conservative" support for DACA will dry up over the next couple of weeks, since the Dems have declared it to be something they like.

I think citizenship is the goal, I think all of the next level immigration laws, chain migration if that's the term, shouldn't apply. I don't think illegal immigrants who are the parents of Dreamers get a pass.

I don't think the lottery numbers make it an issue I lose sleep over either way. I think we need more H1_Bs and less L1s.

I don't care about the wall either way, we have wasted more money on unimportant campaign promises. I suspect the Dems will take it off the table at the last minute because it is such a good issue for them.

Other immigration stuff I don't care so much about how we compromise on them, but it would be better to say we had an immigration bill that addressed all the issues so we don't have to keep revisiting it.

We did have an immigration bill. It passed the Senate. Ryan declined to even bring it up in the House.

We have all the appropriations completed and passed by the house, a full budget, so does that mean we have a budget?

and we had the start of another immigration bill, Trump killed it by being an easily-led lummox.

We have all the appropriations completed and passed by the house, a full budget

So what you are saying is that if McConnell will just bring those bills up for a vote in the Senate, we could be done? Surely at least some of them are non-controversial enough to get passed quickly.

There are about 325 million people in the US. We admit about 1 million legal residents per year.

One third of one percent of the population.

There are something like 5 million green card applications waiting to be processed. So, some number of the "undocumented aliens" are people who came here in good faith, are doing all the right things, and are just waiting for the big wheels of government bureaucracy to turn.

Personally, my solution to the no good very bad horrible immigration problem is issue more visas. If you want to come here, work, make a life, my personal feeling is welcome aboard. I don't see a problem.

Regarding the lottery, a good friend of mine and his cousin emigrated here from Ireland. No money, really, just a couple of young guys.

Their visas were running out when one of the lottery programs was introduced. Apparently, there was some geographic aspect of it. The feds were going to try to spread the goodness around to folks applying from different places in the country.

So, my buddy and cousin got in the car and drove up and down the eastern seaboard, posting lottery applications in every post office they passed. I guess there was a fee associated with each application. They paid thousands out of pocket to do it, and they really didn't have a lot of thousands at the time.

They both got in. They both are small business owners, my buddy's the busiest drummer I know and also has a dental prosthesis business. His cousin runs a home cleaning business, employs about a half dozen people.

My buddy's wife, also an immigrant from Spain, is an interesting artist who has given Ted talks on her work. My buddy's building a house for his wife and young daughter, on a nice piece of property he saved up to buy over about 25 years of working his ass off.

Any sane nation would bend over backwards to have people like that in their country. So lotteries are fine with me.

As far as the new improved ICE regime, there are people in my community who have lived here for years or decades, and are in the process of being separated from their spouses and kids and deported back to their country of origin. I have no idea what benefit this nation will derive from that.

Gee, why was my friend's kid upset at the prospect of President Trump, way back in November of 2016? His parents must have been filling his mind with hate. They suck!

Or, maybe he was just thinking about the kids he goes to school with who might get sent away, or whose parents might simply not be there when they get home from school.

It happens.

People who are rounded up by ICE can spend months in holding facilities waiting for their cases to be heard. Not after having been found guilty of anything, not after having been designated for deportation, just waiting.

It's freaking cruel.

Chain migration:

One of the best guys I ever worked with was an Agile process specialist. He was from Armenia, had built and sold a nice medical visualization technology company before coming here. We brought him in to spearhead some serious company-wide engineering culture changes, which is a really hard thing to do. He was getting it done.

He had permanent residency. His wife could not get that status.

He now lives in CA, and makes his considerable skill set available to a company based in Toronto.

Ironically, he works about half the month in Cambridge MA. As a Canadian resident.

I love the United States, but we can be a very very very stupid country. We are being one now.

If immigrants were guns, "conservatives" would be bringing up stories about how many crimes were prevented by them, rather than the ones committed by them. Instead, we, as a nation, make them afraid to talk to the police.

Everybody knows somebody, good people, good for them. Laws aren't designed for the eight people you happen to know, I gather some of whom still didn't follow the law.

What's cruel is people breaking the law and expecting, actually demanding, amnesty while telling their kids and others kids the consequences of their actions are someone else's fault.

Also too, people who did everything right and still are at risk due to bureaucratic error are not who we are talking about, they have the support of everyone I know.

What's cruel is people breaking the law and expecting, actually demanding, amnesty while telling their kids and others kids the consequences of their actions are someone else's fault.

I sure wish you'd face the consequences for all the weed you've smoked over the years. Sorry to be vindictive, but there you go.

a kid was raised here from a child, pledged to the fucking flag every day in an American school, went to college or joined the military, did everything the same as every other kid in America, is every bit of an American as some jackhole who, through no virtue of his own, was born here.

people who did everything right and still are at risk due to bureaucratic error are not who we are talking about

They're not who *you* are talking about.

You're not everyone.

Cruelty is as cruelty does.

Marty: I think citizenship is the goal, I think all of the next level immigration laws, chain migration if that's the term, shouldn't apply.

Marty,

My question was "What price do YOU want" in exchange for Dreamer citizenship? If the above was meant to answer that, it seems your price is to withhold from them some of the rights maternity-ward immigrants (aka native-born Americans) are entitled to.

To be fair to you, I will suppose that you would address "chain migration" by restricting the right of even native-born Americans to bring in their foreign-born relatives.

Also too, never mind "everyone you know"; it's everybody you vote for that's the problem.

--TP

What's cruel is people breaking the law and expecting, actually demanding, amnesty while telling their kids and others kids the consequences of their actions are someone else's fault.

I'm not even sure what this means. Who's doing this, in what context, and how is it cruel?

Laws aren't designed for the eight people you happen to know

Then who are they designed for?

How are any of the people they are "designed for" different than the people I happen to know?

This guy actually holds a green card. Been here since 1979, when was 5. He's a doctor, married, has kids.

They pulled him in for stuff he did in 1992, when he was a teenager. Destruction of property worth less than $100, receiving stolen goods worth less than $100.

Ever break anything worth less than $100 when you were a knucklehead kid?

The guy is now sitting in county lockup, waiting for his hearing.

What is the freaking point of it? What good thing is accomplished by arresting this guy, locking him up, and threatening to deport him?

This stuff is just pointless harmful stupidity. There is no value in it, it's just f***ing with people's lives for no good end.

the whole "chain migration" thing, like literally everything that comes out of the White House these days, is a flaming crock of nonsense.

it takes years to get people over here on F4 visas. the government is currently working through visa applications that were filed in 2004. 14 years! maybe even as long as 23 years! plus, there are hard caps (in the tens of thousands) on the total number of siblings and of married children that are allowed to migrate here. and your ability to get your relatives over here are tied to your income.

it's practically impossible to get your whole family over here - human lifetimes are too short for everyone in an extended family to get through the system.

Add all of these factors together, and it becomes clear that an immigrant won’t be able to bring that many relatives to the US over the course of his or her lifetime. Vaughan’s study found that as of 2015, immigrants who came to the US from 1981 to 2000 had sponsored an average of 1.77 relatives to come join them. The most recent immigrants in the study — those who came to the US in the late 1990s — had sponsored the most relatives: 3.46. But both of those numbers include the minor children they brought with them at the time: In other words, they were hardly starting 3.46 new “chains.”

but, no, we have to sit here and watch "conservatives" freak themselves out over yet another crock of nonsense that was invented just to keep them from maybe agreeing with a liberal about something.

What's cruel is people breaking the law and expecting, actually demanding, amnesty...

Not sure how that is "cruel", but OK. So don't give them amnesty. Then what?

If you believe we should devote the resources it will take to round them all up and throw them and their DACA kids over the border, then just say so.

It strikes me that conservatives like to whine about 'illegals' because it is great political theater, but they really have no solution to the "problem".

This is because at heart the problem is this: Business owners just love those low cost workers.

So what you are saying is that if McConnell will just bring those bills up for a vote in the Senate, we could be done? Surely at least some of them are non-controversial enough to get passed quickly.

Yes. McConnell controls the agenda, not the Dems. The problem is the House passed big increases for defense and no such parity increases for domestic programs, just to mention ONE example of fiscal assholery. There are many others.

The GOP had already used their reconciliation card to get tax cuts, so they have to get 60 votes to approve the House passed appropriations.

They put the filibuster club in Chucky S's hand, and now they are whining because he used it.

This mess is essentially one the GOP created.

Cruelty is as cruelty does.

The premise was cruelty. The ideology is cruelty. The big philosophical underpinning is cruelty. The policy is cruelty. The point is cruelty.

" it seems your price is to withhold from them some of the rights maternity-ward immigrants (aka native-born Americans) are entitled to."

Yes there are complexities. But I want chain migration limited for Dreamers. Otherwise you are granting amnesty to their parents also. That simple concept is a problem for a lot of people I know. You cant use DACA to grant backdoor amnesty to the people who caused the problem.

Who's doing this...

Rachael Maddow.

in what context...

Duh. On her show?

and how is it cruel?

Her smirk can open an oyster at 50 paces. Now that is cruel.

"This mess is essentially one the GOP created."

I love this, when the Republicans stop something from passing it is the Republicans fault, when the Democrats prevent something from passing it is the Republicans fault. And yes, of course it is, because they wont simply say yes to your policies.

But I want chain migration limited for Dreamers. Otherwise you are granting amnesty to their parents also.

"chain migration" and amnesty for Dreamers' parents are two separate issues. some Dems want to include parents if Dreamers are given amnesty, but that's not chain migration. that's letting people who are already here stay here.

But I want chain migration limited for Dreamers. Otherwise you are granting amnesty to their parents also. That simple concept is a problem for a lot of people I know. You cant use DACA to grant backdoor amnesty to the people who caused the problem.

Would it be hard to simply add a caveat to the chain migration option to bar those who have broken US immigration law? Not advocating that, necessarily, just asking if it would be all that difficult.

from the Vox article i linked above:

The use of “chain migration” in the current debate over DACA, to refer to DACA recipients allowing their parents to become legal immigrants, complicates the matter even further. Because the parents of DACA recipients have, by definition, lived in the US as unauthorized immigrants, this isn’t really about bringing new people into the US — it’s about legalizing people who are already here (or bringing people back who have been deported, something US policy already makes pretty hard).

The insistence among some Republicans that “Dreamers” not be allowed to sponsor their parents, even after they become US citizens, is really about not wanting to “reward” unauthorized immigrants for living in the US without papers. They’re worried about losing “control” in a slightly different sense — worried that any “reward” for illegal behavior will incentivize a new wave of unauthorized migration to take advantage of potential rewards. This is pretty far afield from the way that “chain migration” is commonly understood — but that’s the word being used in the DACA debate anyway, not least because the president has helped turn it into a buzzword.

Because these memes, and the fears that they provoke, are all so tightly connected, “chain migration” is both an ideological concern about America selecting immigrants based on their merit, and a racist smokescreen for fears of demographic change. It can be hard to separate the two. And it’s certainly not in the interests of the opponents of “chain migration” to try.

I love this, when the Republicans stop something from passing it is the Republicans fault, when the Democrats prevent something from passing it is the Republicans fault.

No. It is just pointing out legislative malpractice. The GOP chose tax cuts for the rich over passing their budget priorities.

I'm still interested in the explanation of why Marty is such a law and order man, except for the laws he finds personally inconvenient.

I'm in favor of legalizing marijuana too, but c'mon - Marty is violating federal law if and when he partakes, and I'm pretty sure he hasn't been averse to violating state law too. Which all seems like a victimless crime until you factor in the violent drug lords who facilitated that for so many years.

In contrast to most undocumented immigrants, who violate a civil, not criminal, statute, in order to escape violence, feed their families, find a better life here, in contravention of laws that were originally passed to exclude people of various ethnic groups that people were afraid of.

So, what's your philosophy on "law abidingness" Marty? And, for that matter, libertarianism, in the spirit of live and let live?

If I had ever done anything like that, and gotten caught, I could have served a suspended sentence, hypothetically, and never ones blamed the cop for arresting me.

But, people who come or stay here illegally are breaking the law every minute of every day. So if they get arrested and deported they shouldn't blame the cop that arrested them.

To paraphrase some people I know on other subjects, every oecd? first world country limits immigration, most more strictly than we do. All told Canada takes about 300k per year and none say if you happen to sneak in then you get to stay.

We happen to have an historically poor country with porous access to a long border and very lax temp visa enforcement. Both should be fixed.

But none of that is new or even partisan. Every administration in my lifetime has been for better border security and various other immigration enforcement improvements.

So this is mostly hyperpartisan rhetoric. The law isn't cruel, the enforcement isnt intentionally cruel, although getting arrested does suck, it is not meant to be cruel and if I were to protest it would be to improve the efficiency of the process. Then lots of people would just get deported faster, but those that didn't would go home sooner.

If I had ever done anything like that, and gotten caught, I could have served a suspended sentence, hypothetically

That's your theory. The United States Sentencing Commission says this:

"Simple drug possession is a misdemeanor under federal law which provides that an offender may be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than one year, fined a minimum of $1,000, or both. However, if an offender is convicted of simple possession after a prior drug related offense has become final, the offender can be charged with a felony simple possession offense."

So you're relying on the fact that you're a white guy to say that your sentence will be suspended? I say, Lock you up.

We happen to have an historically poor country with porous access to a long border and very lax temp visa enforcement. Both should be fixed.

If you look just at the numbers, the lax visa regime is FAR more of a problem. At least if the real problem is how many people are here illegally. Yet the attention is all on the "historically poor country" on our border. And all the talk is about stuff like the wall and "border security".

Which makes it hard to avoid the suspicion that the number of illegals, just as a number, isn't the real problem.

At least if the real problem is how many people are here illegally.

The problem is that there is no real problem with immigrants. The problem is with racism. Yes, and "standing in line". So make more checkout counters.

Or maybe the problem is we don't have enough young people.

Hmmm. How could DACA people, young folks from Central American fleeing violence, and "anchor babies" help with that?

Well we have a long border with Canada, same lines, same lax temp visa enforcement, not nearly so many people entering illegally. I suspect that the numbers, both visa and sneaking in, are driven by it being a historically poor country.

Which does nothing to explain what makes that particular mode of immigration such a problem.

All told Canada takes about 300k per year

which would be, relative to total population, like us admitting about three times as many as we do.

The law isn't cruel, the enforcement isnt intentionally cruel

we differ

Well we have a long border with Canada, same lines, same lax temp visa enforcement, not nearly so many people entering illegally.

why the hell would canadians come here?

I suspect that the numbers, both visa and sneaking in, are driven by it being a historically poor country.

yes, many people that want to come to the US come here because we are wealthier and offer more opportunity.

funny, i always thought that was the good part.

I suspect that the numbers, both visa and sneaking in, are driven by it being a historically poor country.

Historically, that has been the case. In fact, it was so desirable that we brought many immigrants to this country in chains from shithole places.

And in the long run, here we are, a rich place struggling fiercely to deny our heritage.

Gaius Publius (David Dayen) at Naked Capitalism

Democrats, and I don't mean only the corrupt leadership, but the Loyalist rank and file, have apparently no clue as to how much they screwed up and continue to alienate kids

Caitlin Johnstone:"I Promise To Sabotage The 2020 Campaign Of Any Establishment Democrat

If the Democratic party tries to run a pro-establishment presidential candidate in 2020, I, Caitlin Johnstone, promise unequivocally and unconditionally that I will do every single thing in my power to sabotage their candidacy and make them lose the election. … I don’t care if it’s a transgender Muslim eskimo with a Senate seat and their own talk show — I will do my very best to ruin them, and I will do my very best to recruit others like me to help….

[I]f the Democratic party doesn’t run a very solid anti-war, pro-environment, pro-economic justice candidate in the next presidential election, there is at least one very loud voice out here who will relentlessly dedicate all available resources to making sure that it hurts. I will find every scrap of dirt I can find to help ruin your campaign. I will throw my support behind a third party candidate. I will shamelessly collaborate with conservatives. Everything legal and truthful that I can do to bring you down, I will do. You cannot manipulate me onto any other path. I will not compromise, and I will not stop. You have my most solemn word on that."

But, people who come or stay here illegally are breaking the law every minute of every day.

there's a little container of something illegal hanging out in a particular cabinet in my house that puts me in that category, too. there it sits, a little felony.

know what i mean? wink wink.

plus, i (like everyone else) drive 10-15 miles over the limit on all the roads in the area.

pick & choose all day long.

When you can't explain how the problem manifests itself in its impact on people's lives, you fall back on "it's illegal."

Caitlin Johnstone:"I Promise To Sabotage The 2020 Campaign Of Any Establishment Democrat

grow the fuck up, Caitlin Johnstone.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad