Can we agree on something? Immigration reform?
 

While the media reported that Eric Cantor's recent primary defeat was largely over immigration and orchestrated by the "anti immigration tea party", one polling result was particularly striking:

72% of voters in Cantor's district support the bipartisan immigration reform legislation on the table in Washington right now to only 23% who are opposed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert...b_5483916.html

After reading that, I wanted to confirm how the poll defined "immigration reform". So, here's the way the poll asked the question:

There is bipartisan immigration reform legislation being debated in Washington. The bill would secure our borders, block employers from hiring undocumented immigrants, and make sure that undocumented immigrants already in the U.S. with no criminal record register for legal status. If a long list of requirements is met over more than a decade, it provides eligibility for a path to citizenship. Would you support or oppose this proposal?

http://www.americansunitedforchange....sults61114.pdf

Now, the way that question is asked, if I were participating in that poll, I would have been in the 32% that "somewhat supported it". The only part that I don't support, and most conservatives that I speak to don't support, is the "path to citizenship" part.

I don't believe that individuals entering this country illegally should be entitled to the benefits if citizenship. I would be in favor of a pathway to "legal status" that would allow these individuals to remain in the US conditionally. I think most conservatives would agree on this.

Here's the Democrat plan for immigration reform: http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/...63R5HP20100430. I agree with it, for the most part, with the exception of the "pathway to citizenship" piece.

My other issue is trusting that the government will enforce any agreement on immigration reform. We already have laws that are meant to control immigration that are being actively "ignored" (according to ICE officers and a Federal Judge in Texas). I also, for example, agree with the National Association of Former Border Patrol Officers that the current flood of Central American refugees across our southern borders is no accident or coincidence, but it being orchestrated, possibly with the assistance of US authorities. (but that may be grist for another thread).

Anyway, two questions:

Is there agreement in this forum at all on what the components or basic principles of immigration reform should look like (I've articulated my thoughts above)?

Are there objective principles / measures of enforcement that we can agree on, and then in turn hold our elected officials and government entities accountable to?

As long as the Democrats want immigration reform for cheap votes and Republicans (more specifically, industry) want it for cheap and compliant labor, it's all talk anyway. Democrats benefit electorally from Republican intransigence, so much of their talk in favor of immigration reform is just that - talk.

As for a path to citizenship, the path has been made so arduous that it's more of an Outward Bound obstacle course. Those willing/able to go through these hoops are probably more deserving of citizenship than the xenophobic 'Baggers trying to stop it from occurring (while living in states that suck disproportionately from the Federal tit).

As for a "legal status" short of citizenship, it is a decidedly bad idea. The Germans did it with the Gastarbeiters (guest workers, mostly Turkish) and it brings with it a mechanism for continued exploitation. In short, it solves employers's desires for cheap and compliant labor (what the GOP wants), while treating the immigrants unfairly (not to mention not giving Democrats the votes they want). It's a non-starter.

Curious, what happens to the illegals with a criminal record? Deportation? Does anyone think they are going to simply register so they can be deported?

Check out this link: http://www.nafbpo.org/, and the section titled "There will be no background checks".

Honorable military or other worthy voluntary public services for eligibility for application to citizenship could be considered.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

Immigration reform means a lot of things to different people.

I for one belief that any reform is meaningless unless our borders are
tightly secure since every reform is an incentive for more people to jump
the borders. That cannot be good for especially disease control, terrorist scrutiny.

Right now our Southern borders is so "open" Central Americans are dumping their children there.

Democrats have gone soft with respect to immigration. Illegals just in the
countries are openly dictating their own terms to the government.

It was embarrassing to watch an illegal heckle the president.

Why is there no high level pressure put on Mexico and other Central
American Govts to stem the systematic, organised movement of juveniles towards the US border.

Since the U.S. is the Mexican drug lords biggest customer base they are rather busy with other problems.

As someone who jumped through all the hoops and came in the legal way I still favour the "pathway to citizenship" idea as anything else will lead to exploitation.

Secure borders what a laugh, there used to be a border crossing between Vermont and Quebec a the end of the road that ran up a string of islands in Lake Champlain. They closed it every Labor Day and did not reopen it until spring. There was a sign that said "Please report to the nearest Customs" which would have been Plattsburg NY.

Just my opinion, but I think folks in the current administration - ICE / DHC / HHS who knows - are complicit in this movement. The journey from Central America through Mexico is long, difficult and dangerous in a whole host of different ways. It is far too unlikely that children can traverse this distance without a whole heck of a lot of help from start to finish.

Then, on this end, the US Gov't has been remarkably quiet about this: the silence is deafening. If this were happening in other parts of the world, the media would be all over this story and calling it something like a "humanitarian crisis" or some such tripe.

The Mexican drug lords have nothing to do with this, unless they're somehow profiting from the movement of these kids through across their turf.

Drug Cartels ,CIA,DEA all Fall under National Security so the move with impunity.I don't know why bothering with much of the topics that go on here ,But most everything is all buttoned up and not open to discussion,henceforth,Media,journalism government majority of american citizens all Bought and paid for.Some of you are probably too.Hard to tell deniability runs high in America.

I'm taking this post as your tacit approval of the current gridlock on the issue, unless you have another perspective not evident in this post.

Well then You Are naive.

While the politicians were busy fighting over left and right issues America got sold from underneath them.

To be clearer the drug lords are keeping the Mexican govt so damn busy the don't have the resources to guard against the child smugglers.

The illegals by themselves have now become a powerful lobby. :D

They intimidate and frighten elected representatives.

The gridlock is on your side, Whell. Some sort of "path to citizenship" is the only viable method.

But the problem will be a constant if thousands still flood the border.

It has to be part of a comprehensive program.

More BS. But I'm sure it makes you feel better to believe that.

Besides, I thought Harry Reid fixed all the gridlock with the "nuclear option"? :rolleyes:

I think it probably goes more like this: the politicos encouraged us to fight over left and right issues while they sold America from underneath us.

Well then enlighten me, oh gifted one. What specifically do you think the Mexican drug cartels have to do with the movement of children from Central America to the US?

Agreed! However while we recognize the racist elements which inhabit
some of the Repub arguments we fail to speak to the weakness of Democrats
about their fear to address frankly the pro illegal crowd.

The Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution have a new report out taking the public’s temperature on immigration reform, and the findings are pretty dispiriting. To put it simply: (quite nearly) everyone wants immigration reform, but it’s not happening because of the disproportionately large influence of a small, determined minority.

According to the report, a full 62 percent of America favors allowing undocumented immigrants to become citizens if they meet certain requirements. Support for that policy outcome isn’t just broad, it’s also bipartisan: 70 percent of Democrats favor it, 51 percent of Republicans, and 61 percent of independents. The opposition comes from self-identified Tea Partyers, who are split evenly between citizenship and deportation, with 37 percent backing each policy outcome.

Here’s how the report describes this oppositional group:

Americans who support deportation represent a distinct minority in the U.S., and they have a unique political, social and demographic profile. Compared to Americans overall, they are roughly twice as likely to be members of the Tea Party movement (24% vs. 12%) and significantly more likely to identify as Republican (36% vs. 23%).

Americans who favor deportation are more likely to be white and tend to be older than Americans overall. Nearly 8-in-10 (79%) Americans who say immigrants in the U.S. illegally should be deported are white, while 10% are black and only 2% are Hispanic. Close to 6-in-10 (57%) Americans who support deportation are over the age of 50, compared to 46% of Americans overall.

Also worth noting is the report’s finding that trust in Fox News tends to be a fairly strong predictor not just of support for mass deportations, but also for enmity toward immigrants and misinformation about immigration policy in general. According to the report, “the most trusted news source for deportation supporters is Fox News, with more than 4-in-10 (41%) saying it is the television news source they trust the most to provide accurate information about politics and current events.” The report also found that people who trust Fox as their go-to news source are more likely to believe that immigrants are a burden on American society and a threat to American culture.

http://www.salon.com/2014/06/10/tea_..._all_but_dead/

One of those things,If you have to ask you'll never know,I am sure a lot here do though.If you think the Mexican government is fighting the cartel or even the American government think again,What do all 3 of these entities have in common? Money and what drives this earth? that's right boys and girls.

Obama will take on the Chinese before he will mess with the cartel on A realistic basis.

Hillary And the cartel are working on a Draft right now for immigration reform law,don't worry we are safe in the governments hands.Now that I have done my job and rattled some of you ,I got amps to solder,bye

"Groups" are now claiming abuse of illegal children at the border by US
officials.

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/g...order-24091219

Who was that masked man? :rolleyes: :D

Sure. Accusations like that will get the Federal purse strings loosened up toot sweet.

Salon and their friends get it wrong again. In the very first post in this thread, we read that 72% of the folks who voted for Tea Party candidate that trounced Eric Cantor would favor the type of immigration reform that you and Salon favor. The mainstream media was all over the airwaves after the Virginia primary bleating about how immigration reform was dead. But the very next day, there's none other than Rand Paul right there to pick up the baton and keep on charging.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/...ration-reform/

Lots of erroneous logic leaps in this post. Your very first sentence assumes that Brat votes were entirely 'Baggers. Cantor is widely disliked in Virginia for being the smarmy, smug @sshole that he is. The second fallacy is believing that Paul can actually accomplish anything. Shit, he can't even comb his hair.;)