RICHMOND, Va. — House Majority Leader Eric Cantor was defeated Tuesday by a little-known economics professor in Virginia’s Republican primary, a stunning upset and major victory for the tea party.
Cantor is the second-most powerful member of the U.S. House and was seen by some as a possible successor to the House speaker.
His loss to Dave Brat, a political novice with little money marks a huge victory for the tea party movement, which supported Cantor just a few years ago.
Brat had been a thorn in Cantor’s side on the campaign, casting the congressman as a Washington insider who isn’t conservative enough. Last month, a feisty crowd of Brat supporters booed Cantor in front of his family at a local party convention.
His message apparently scored well with voters in the 7th District.
“There needs to be a change,” said Joe Mullins, who voted in Chesterfield County Tuesday. The engineering company employee said he has friends who tried to arrange town hall meetings with Cantor, who declined their invitations.
Tiffs between the GOP’s establishment and tea party factions have flared in Virginia since tea party favorite Ken Cuccinelli lost last year’s gubernatorial race. Cantor supporters have met with stiff resistance in trying to wrest control of the state party away from tea party enthusiasts, including in the Cantor’s home district.
Brat teaches at Randolph-Macon College, a small liberal arts school north of Richmond. He raised just more than $200,000 for his campaign, according to the most recent campaign finance reports.
Beltway-based groups also spent heavily in the race. The American Chemistry Council, whose members include many blue chip companies, spent more than $300,000 on TV ads promoting Cantor. It’s the group’s only independent expenditure so far this election year. Political arms of the American College of Radiology, the National Rifle Association and the National Association of Realtors also spent money on ads to promote Cantor.
Brat offset the cash disadvantage with endorsements from conservative activists like radio host Laura Ingraham, and with help from local tea party activists angry at Cantor.
Much of the campaign centered on immigration, where critics on both sides have recently taken aim at Cantor.
Brat has accused the House majority leader of being a top cheerleader for “amnesty” for immigrants in the U.S. illegally. Cantor has responded forcefully by boasting in mailers of blocking Senate plans “to give illegal aliens amnesty.”
It was a change in tone for Cantor, who has repeatedly voiced support for giving citizenship to certain immigrants brought illegally to the country as children. Cantor and House GOP leaders have advocated a step-by-step approach rather than the comprehensive bill backed by the Senate. They’ve made no move to bring legislation to a vote and appear increasingly unlikely to act this year.
Cantor, a former state legislator, was elected to Congress in 2000. He became majority leader in 2011.
hate to co-opt the thread but I am curious, is there still a fear among conservatives in the US that the republican/tea party will completely break apart. Has the break already happened?
Bullockist wrote: hate to co-opt the thread but I am curious, is there still a fear among conservatives in the US that the republican/tea party will completely break apart. Has the break already happened?
There is no "tea party" so to speak. It's simply a segment of conservatives, who are generally more right wing then the mainstream.
Bullockist wrote: hate to co-opt the thread but I am curious, is there still a fear among conservatives in the US that the republican/tea party will completely break apart. Has the break already happened?
There is no "tea party" so to speak.
Ofcoursenot. It is true in the sense that they are a sub-group, but also not true in the sense that they actually do exist.
djones520 wrote: It's simply a segment of conservatives, who are generally more right wing then the mainstream.
In the same way the UKIP is slightly more right wing than the mainstream.
On topic though, wasn't this against the general trend of Tea Party candidates losing to established Reps in the primaries recently?
djones520 wrote: It's a House election. If a Tea Party candidate beat Cantor, then there is zero chance a Dem is going to take that District.
The impact isn't only on that district. While the most noted impact of the Tea Party in 2010 and 2012 was to put up losing candidates in what should have been easy Republican races, the other impact was to impact the Republican brand as a whole. Can't deny the drag on the overall impact on the party and the brand when candidates start spouting some stuff as crazy as what some of the Tea Party candidates did.
Bullockist wrote: hate to co-opt the thread but I am curious, is there still a fear among conservatives in the US that the republican/tea party will completely break apart. Has the break already happened?
Actually the impact of the Tea Party in this election has been pretty minimal. This defeat of Cantor is the one big scalp for the Tea Party in this set of primaries.
The movement appears to be running out of steam, as the panic over Obama turned out to be silly, and the impact of the GFC is slowly settling down.
I wonder if we could timeline these things to the price of gold. First you get the financial system shock, gold spikes and the political crazies come out of the woodwork. Then the gold price plummets when people realise the world isn't actually collapsing, and maybe a year or two after that the wheels fall off the new breed of political crazies.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: On topic though, wasn't this against the general trend of Tea Party candidates losing to established Reps in the primaries recently?
Yeah, this seems to be running against the overall trend.
I wonder if we could timeline these things to the price of gold. First you get the financial system shock, gold spikes and the political crazies come out of the woodwork. Then the gold price plummets when people realise the world isn't actually collapsing, and maybe a year or two after that the wheels fall off the new breed of political crazies.
What you say is completely unfounded , I will not even point out One Nation or PUP as evidence . It's good to know that the crazies eventually go away. I think however that the state of Queensland should be prevented from voting.
This primary was an open election. Democrats could have voted in it to cause mischief. Not sure how many did.
I have always wondered why the Feds don't give the Tea Party districts exactly what they are asking for. Identify the Tea Party districts and eliminate all their taxes they have to pay. Then eliminate all the Federal regulations that might affect them like the Clean Water Act. Then eliminate all Federal subsidies for education to that district including any federal backed college loans to students who live in that district. Of course you also eliminate all Social Security payments to people in that district and cut any federal highway funds for them and Medicaid and Medicare.
Eliminate all federal taxes for them and cut every penny that might make its way into that district or to the people of that district. Of course make sure no foreign country invades them, but home grown crime they've got to take care of themselves.
Just give them what they want and stay out of their lives. That's what they are asking for right.
d-usa wrote: The Tea Party is a weird mix that wants all the benefits of being a real political party without doing any of the work.
And there's also plenty of scammers. There's a few Tea Party fundraisers that brought in a lot more money than they ever gave out to candidate or spent on ads.
d-usa wrote: Don't tell me the conservatives are going to hand another election to the democrats?
It's a House election. If a Tea Party candidate beat Cantor, then there is zero chance a Dem is going to take that District.
This was only a primary, and we've seen multiple cases before where a hardline party member will win a primary, oust an incumbent, but lose the general election. It's how the Democrats held the senate in 2010.
Cantor won 59% of the vote in 2012, so it's a fairly solid Republican district. But that's not so Republican that you can chalk up this election yet. This might be a situation where the campaign actually matters.
This is a disaster for the GOP nationally and especially here in Henrico. This is the closest we've been to having a Democrat elected representative for many years -- and truth be told, I don't even know who the candidate will be!
d-usa wrote: Don't tell me the conservatives are going to hand another election to the democrats?
It's a House election. If a Tea Party candidate beat Cantor, then there is zero chance a Dem is going to take that District.
This was only a primary, and we've seen multiple cases before where a hardline party member will win a primary, oust an incumbent, but lose the general election. It's how the Democrats held the senate in 2010.
The senate held because incumbents are statistically more likely to hold on to their seats. It's also quite a bit harder to gerrymander half a state.
But house seats? Super easy to gerrymander and manipulate into being guaranteed a lock for either party.
There is a reason we have a higher reelection rate than the Soviet Union had!
Wasn't there primary this year where a long serving republican came out gay and was then defeated by a write-in candidate only to win as a write-in candidate on the democratic ticket , which didn't have any democrats running?
d-usa wrote: Wasn't there primary this year where a long serving republican came out gay and was then defeated by a write-in candidate only to win as a write-in candidate on the democratic ticket , which didn't have any democrats running?
d-usa wrote: Wasn't there primary this year where a long serving republican came out gay and was then defeated by a write-in candidate only to win as a write-in candidate on the democratic ticket , which didn't have any democrats running?
Congressman Mike Fleck, Pennsylvania.
The Republicans do seem to be eating each other in some instances.
d-usa wrote: Don't tell me the conservatives are going to hand another election to the democrats?
It's a House election. If a Tea Party candidate beat Cantor, then there is zero chance a Dem is going to take that District.
Yup... and Brat's biggest margins were Hanover and New Dent. (Republican Strongholds).
Can we also stop this "Teaparty is dead" meme?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
DarthDiggler wrote: This primary was an open election. Democrats could have voted in it to cause mischief. Not sure how many did.
That's what I thought...
However, in looking at this, I don't think that this was an "Operation Chaos" scenario. If the Dems were organized enough to Operation Chaos Cantor, they'd be organized enough to run an actual candidate. Knowwhatimean?
I have always wondered why the Feds don't give the Tea Party districts exactly what they are asking for. Identify the Tea Party districts and eliminate all their taxes they have to pay. Then eliminate all the Federal regulations that might affect them like the Clean Water Act. Then eliminate all Federal subsidies for education to that district including any federal backed college loans to students who live in that district. Of course you also eliminate all Social Security payments to people in that district and cut any federal highway funds for them and Medicaid and Medicare.
Eliminate all federal taxes for them and cut every penny that might make its way into that district or to the people of that district. Of course make sure no foreign country invades them, but home grown crime they've got to take care of themselves.
Just give them what they want and stay out of their lives. That's what they are asking for right.
Uh... got some mis-understanding go'ing on there brah.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also... the Amnesty Dream Act is dead on arrival now.
whembly wrote: Can we also stop this "Teaparty is dead" meme?
But that's so much easier to say than 'the Tea Party is showing much reduced ability to oust Republican incumbents, while still remaining entirely irrelevant to the legislative process and governance of the country"
To this end, I did see a rather humorous bumper sticker a week or so ago... It said basically "Politicians should be allowed 2 terms: 1 in office, 1 in jail"
The Tea Party exists because many conservatives feel that the Republican Party is corrupt and has lost its vision and soul. (which it has) Whether the Tea Party is right or wrong is a different matter. But it is a reaction to what they view of a party that no longer represents their ideas.
(Don't think for a second the Democrats are any better.They aint.)
The Tea Party movement has died down. And no, it wasn't a response to Obama. It started off as a protest against higher taxes. Then it became a protest against socialism in general and now...I'm not sure what it is. The Christian Coalition got in there and co-opted much of it and we got CC candidates in the last elections trying to redefine rape and other nonesense. The public saw the crazy fundamental religious aspect of the party and turned away from them. (rightly so. I'm pretty religious but I have no desire to live in a theocracy.)
This defeat over Cantor could be their swan song or the sign that they haven't gone away yet.
I don't have any answers.
Bullockist wrote: What you say is completely unfounded , I will not even point out One Nation or PUP as evidence . It's good to know that the crazies eventually go away. I think however that the state of Queensland should be prevented from voting.
It says something about Queensland that they've managed to produce crazy political parties without even needing a recession
Although I should say too much, considering the vote that PUP got in the WA senate do-over...
The Tea Party movement has died down. And no, it wasn't a response to Obama. It started off as a protest against higher taxes.
Hrm, they seemed to all spring out of nowhere right after Obama took office in Jan 2009, before he'd done a single thing, I never saw any of those people outside just a couple months before. Having had to wade through many of their demonstrations in 2009 and 2010 at the Oregon state capital to get to class while attending grad school, there was a not-inconsequential amount of purely anti-Obama rhetoric, with a good deal of it the type of stuff people are later embarrassed to see themselves pictured with. Dismissing the notion that it wasn't a response to Obama and was just about taxes (despite being historically low) seems very naive to me.
MWHistorian wrote: The Tea Party exists because many conservatives feel that the Republican Party is corrupt and has lost its vision and soul. (which it has) Whether the Tea Party is right or wrong is a different matter. But it is a reaction to what they view of a party that no longer represents their ideas.
(Don't think for a second the Democrats are any better.They aint.)
I agree that the Democrats are just as much under the control of moneyed interests as the Republicans.
But the Republicans 'no longer' representing their ideas is a false narrative. The two major parties have been under the sway of moneyed interests for generations, so as a prompt for sudden outrage it makes little sense. Instead, you have to look at the sharp increase in fringe politics on the right, often poorly informed and highly idealistic these people seemed to somehow conclude that the Republican Party 'no longer' represented their ideas... when the reality is that the GOP never did anything more than throw those people the odd bone.
And no, it wasn't a response to Obama. It started off as a protest against higher taxes.
Complaining about taxes was certainly something they did a lot. It didn't make much sense, considering the tax rates. Instead you have to understand it as a combination of things - the failure and unpopularity of the Bush administration, the election of a president the right had convinced themselves was a socialist, the GFC and the sudden increase in the government deficit, all acting in concert with the increasing trend of a number of media voices willing to play to the fringe of the right wing.
That gives you a moment that's ripe for some element within the Republican Party, in this case Freedomworks, to galvanize all those dissatisfied elements in to a single protest movement, in order to both rebrand the party in to something people might still vote for in 2008, and in order to usurp power within the Republican party for itself and its own causes. Of course, being a dissatisfied fringe, the Tea Party proved harder to organise than cats, and the result was what we saw in 2010 and 2012, and are maybe seeing just a little more of in 2014.
MWHistorian wrote: The Tea Party exists because many conservatives feel that the Republican Party is corrupt and has lost its vision and soul. (which it has) Whether the Tea Party is right or wrong is a different matter. But it is a reaction to what they view of a party that no longer represents their ideas.
(Don't think for a second the Democrats are any better.They aint.)
I agree that the Democrats are just as much under the control of moneyed interests as the Republicans.
But the Republicans 'no longer' representing their ideas is a false narrative. The two major parties have been under the sway of moneyed interests for generations, so as a prompt for sudden outrage it makes little sense. Instead, you have to look at the sharp increase in fringe politics on the right, often poorly informed and highly idealistic these people seemed to somehow conclude that the Republican Party 'no longer' represented their ideas... when the reality is that the GOP never did anything more than throw those people the odd bone.
And no, it wasn't a response to Obama. It started off as a protest against higher taxes.
Complaining about taxes was certainly something they did a lot. It didn't make much sense, considering the tax rates. Instead you have to understand it as a combination of things - the failure and unpopularity of the Bush administration, the election of a president the right had convinced themselves was a socialist, the GFC and the sudden increase in the government deficit, all acting in concert with the increasing trend of a number of media voices willing to play to the fringe of the right wing.
That gives you a moment that's ripe for some element within the Republican Party, in this case Freedomworks, to galvanize all those dissatisfied elements in to a single protest movement, in order to both rebrand the party in to something people might still vote for in 2008, and in order to usurp power within the Republican party for itself and its own causes. Of course, being a dissatisfied fringe, the Tea Party proved harder to organise than cats, and the result was what we saw in 2010 and 2012, and are maybe seeing just a little more of in 2014.
Seb... I think you're way over complicating this.
The Tea Party "responses" is really just a rebellious reaction towards the Establishment.
This primary in VA-7 is a perfect example of this.
Here, you have the fething #2 of the House Leadership (and apparent Speaker heir!) losing to a no-name dude where the Cantor Team outspent Brat's by a factor of 14 to 1.
Cantor lost because Cantor’s real constituency wasn’t the folks in his district... he answered to the Republican leadership and the Republican establishment.
And... as a general principle... any incumbent losing their seat is a good thing. Keeps the other crooks, ahem... politicians on their toes.
RINO? He's (according to wiki) anti-gay marriage, has a strong pro-gun stance, believes that a ridiculous number of kids born near the border are illegals, and need to remain as such, voted against the ACA, thinks that "the science is in question" with regards to global warming and claims that Clinton "got away with murder" with Benghazi.
He seems to be pretty much the opposite of what the Tea Party and their ilk refer to as RINOs. Unless you were using that term to refer to those who hold the above beliefs as RINOs, in which case I agree with you.
And yeah, Tea Party are purely grassroots and anti-establishment? Right. Pull the other one.
whembly wrote:Seb... I think you're way over complicating this.
The Tea Party "responses" is really just a rebellious reaction towards the Establishment.
Please tell me you dont actually believe this. You're smarter than that.
Wait... did I miss the memo that the "Tea Party" is actually a Political Party, ala Democrat/Republican/Green????
Dude... really?
whembly wrote:
RINO Lindsey Graham won his primary handily.
Oh wow... are we still actually trying to pretend that RINO is a thing?
Well... he's a Republican... but, he ain't very Conservative™.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
motyak wrote: RINO? He's (according to wiki) anti-gay marriage, has a strong pro-gun stance, believes that a ridiculous number of kids born near the border are illegals, and need to remain as such, voted against the ACA, thinks that "the science is in question" with regards to global warming and claims that Clinton "got away with murder" with Benghazi.
He seems to be pretty much the opposite of what the Tea Party and their ilk refer to as RINOs. Unless you were using that term to refer to those who hold the above beliefs as RINOs, in which case I agree with you.
Graham is the king of, "watch what I say, not what I do".
And yeah, Tea Party are purely grassroots and anti-establishment? Right. Pull the other one.
Well the gun rights thing is a matter of do not say, because those ratings come from your voting record I thought?
The climate change involves him pulling his support for bills, making them likely to collapse.
SSM, again, voting against it, and receiving a 0% from groups which rate people their support of LGBT rights in the US (so basically the opposite of those gun groups which gave him good ratings for his voting record)
Those all certainly seem to be doing, not saying. Unless he doesn't have a large enough collection of weapons at home, he uses energy efficient lightbulbs and is currently in the closet? Unless that's what you mean by 'saying, not doing', or I'm missing something critical in those points (which I well could, I've never looked up the bloke before), I think the 'saying not doing' is a bit of an inaccurate comment.
Just because he hasn't been lockstep in line with every single thing "conservatives" seem to demand throughout his history, or that he's been willing to (gasp) compromise on some issues, doesn't mean he's a "RINO", he's certainly on the right (if not far right) on just about every major political issue I can think of.
I'm no fan of Graham's, I find the guy to be far too ready to shoot his mouth of without really knowing what he's talking about, and ultimately has a bad case of Backpfeifengesicht, but the claim he's "not Conservative" is one thing that I don't think sticks well, unless one's definition is particularly extreme.
motyak wrote: Well the gun rights thing is a matter of do not say, because those ratings come from your voting record I thought?
The climate change involves him pulling his support for bills, making them likely to collapse.
SSM, again, voting against it, and receiving a 0% from groups which rate people their support of LGBT rights in the US (so basically the opposite of those gun groups which gave him good ratings for his voting record)
Those all certainly seem to be doing, not saying. Unless he doesn't have a large enough collection of weapons at home, he uses energy efficient lightbulbs and is currently in the closet? Unless that's what you mean by 'saying, not doing', or I'm missing something critical in those points (which I well could, I've never looked up the bloke before), I think the 'saying not doing' is a bit of an inaccurate comment.
Nah... he's a great Politician and I generally like the guy... he's a strong critic of the Benghazi ordeal
He's a Maverick much in the same vein as John McCain. He's a flip flopper.
whembly wrote:Seb... I think you're way over complicating this.
The Tea Party "responses" is really just a rebellious reaction towards the Establishment.
Please tell me you dont actually believe this. You're smarter than that.
Wait... did I miss the memo that the "Tea Party" is actually a Political Party, ala Democrat/Republican/Green????
Dude... really?
whembly wrote:
RINO Lindsey Graham won his primary handily.
Oh wow... are we still actually trying to pretend that RINO is a thing?
Well... he's a Republican... but, he ain't very Conservative™.
Their candidates are referred to as "Tea Party", not "Republican", yes? So while they may not be a de jour political party, they are certainly a de facto one.
Which is beside the fact that they arent really "anti-establishment" at all. Had McCain won in 2008, do you think the Tea Party would be a thing? Be honest now.
Please define what makes someone a "true conservative". I have heard McCain called a RINO, so at this point I am not even sure the Republican base knows what a republican is actually supposed to be.
I always find it funny when the Tea-Party is called anti-establishment. They're not. The Tea-Party just wants the establishment to do what they want it to do, which is what everyone wants.
The Tea Party is a reaction to the breaking down of the Republican coalition that formed back in the 1980's. I've heard the Tea Party called a body tearing the GOP apart, but really they're a symptom not a cause. The GOP has been falling apart for sometime. I'd bet you could trace it all the way back to the Clinton administration. The Tea Party is a typical reactionary movement to the growing realization that the GOP is quickly losing its political relevance.
Well... he's a Republican... but, he ain't very Conservative™.
Their candidates are referred to as "Tea Party", not "Republican", yes?
No. They're still Republicans.
So while they may not be a de jour political party, they are certainly a de facto one.
Disagree, vehemently.
Which is beside the fact that they arent really "anti-establishment" at all. Had McCain won in 2008, do you think the Tea Party would be a thing? Be honest now.
I'd have to think about it... but, probably. To me, the movement started during the Obama/McCain '08 campaign and crystalized during the drafting of the PPACA.
Please define what makes someone a "true conservative". I have heard McCain called a RINO, so at this point I am not even sure the Republican base knows what a republican is actually supposed to be.
Well Graham is a Senator who has supported cap and trade, higher taxes, comprehensive immigration reform, and has been very dismissive of the Tea Party movement. Ya know... things like that.
To be fair, he's a foreign policy hawk, vocal critic of the administration's handling over Benghazi and very Pro-Life, so there is that.
Taken all together, that makes him a Moderate.... ie, like McCain.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
LordofHats wrote: I always find it funny when the Tea-Party is called anti-establishment. They're not. The Tea-Party just wants the establishment to do what they want it to do, which is what everyone wants.
The Tea Party is a reaction to the breaking down of the Republican coalition that formed back in the 1980's. I've heard the Tea Party called a body tearing the GOP apart, but really they're a symptom not a cause. The GOP has been falling apart for sometime. I'd bet you could trace it all the way back to the Clinton administration. The Tea Party is a typical reactionary movement to the growing realization that the GOP is quickly losing its political relevance.
o.O
Aren't you describing "anti-establishment" anyway?
I admit, I was pretty surprised. I thought th emedia talk about the coming republican Civil War was just an attempt to make the primaries and off-year election interesting.
For the most part the Te aParty has had its head handed to it this year. Then they take a pretty big scalp in the form of Cantor and are also causing some disruptions in Mississippi.
There might be a bit more to this "Civil War" thing than I first suspected.
Aren't you describing "anti-establishment" anyway?
I consider anti-establishment as oxymoronic as non-conformist. They're not even trying to reinvent the system or anything. They just want it to do what they want. The sign of the Tea Party is that the GOP is slowly fracturing and unable to keep all of it's ends happy. This happens in politics. It happened back in the 1850's when the GOP was formed.
Now we have the conservative end of politics broken up into people identifying as multiple things. Republican, Libertarian, Tea Party, etc. The GOP is still going because it remains the banner under which all these groups fall nationally, but I think an astute observation of the current political scene suggests a real possibility that the Republican part will break up.
Easy E wrote: I admit, I was pretty surprised. I thought th emedia talk about the coming republican Civil War was just an attempt to make the primaries and off-year election interesting.
For the most part the Te aParty has had its head handed to it this year. Then they take a pretty big scalp in the form of Cantor and are also causing some disruptions in Mississippi.
There might be a bit more to this "Civil War" thing than I first suspected.
Aren't you describing "anti-establishment" anyway?
I consider anti-establishment as oxymoronic as non-conformist. They're not even trying to reinvent the system or anything. They just want it to do what they want. The sign of the Tea Party is that the GOP is slowly fracturing and unable to keep all of it's ends happy. This happens in politics. It happened back in the 1850's when the GOP was formed.
Now we have the conservative end of politics broken up into people identifying as multiple things. Republican, Libertarian, Tea Party, etc. The GOP is still going because it remains the banner under which all these groups fall nationally, but I think an astute observation of the current political scene suggests a real possibility that the Republican part will break up.
That is an interesting observation.
I'd actually would like to see this happen, but the cynic in me says that this will never happen. The barrier for a new Party™ is ridiculously high.
LordofHats wrote: I always find it funny when the Tea-Party is called anti-establishment. They're not. The Tea-Party just wants the establishment to do what they want it to do, which is what everyone wants.
I laugh people in the face when they try to tell me that the Tea Party is pro small government.
LordofHats wrote: I always find it funny when the Tea-Party is called anti-establishment. They're not. The Tea-Party just wants the establishment to do what they want it to do, which is what everyone wants.
I laugh people in the face when they try to tell me that the Tea Party is pro small government.
Smaller government... as in, not this BIG:
Just knock it down a notch or two...
Jeez... it ain't like they want to go back to the Stone Age.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: [
Are you referring to the 2010 Republican takeover of the House?
It's not dead yet, but it's dying.
And yea, I'm talking about the 2010 takeover of the house and the subsequent takeover of GOP politics even influencing the Senate.
Ah... okay.
I can see a "takeover" arguement if the Tea Party affliated Republicans win more seats this fall... especially if they take over the Senate.
However, I don't see it happening. The D's will retain control of the Senate and not much else will change that much at the House.
If you believe that lie then you are most gullible person on Dakka.
Ignoring everything else besides revenue: how many tax cuts have they passed without corresponding spending cuts while screaming that you cannot pass anything that doesn't balance the budget.
Then take a look at all the laws they pass that are pro big government and pro telling people what they can and cannot do and you realize that they either are lying to get people to vote for them or that they are dumb enough to actually believe what they are telling other people.
A Tea Party candidate soundly defeated House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., on Tuesday, sending shockwaves through the Republican establishment and the Democratic Party.
And Dave Brat, the 52-year-old chairman of the Randolph-Macon College Department of Economics and Business in Ashland, Va., staged the huge upset without any help from major Tea Party organizations.
But this troublesome fact hasn't stopped certain so-called Tea Party groups from capitalizing on Brat's victory, declaring enthusiastically that Cantor’s defeat equals a Tea Party insurgency.
FreedomWorks president Matt Kibbe wrote: “Congratulations to Dave Brat on his huge upset. The statement from the grassroots could not be any clearer. It doesn't matter what office you hold or how powerful you are. If you lose touch with activists on the ground, then your seat is in danger.”
“The grassroots are taking their seat back at the table and returning accountability to Washington. Votes on Capitol Hill will be heard back in the district,” he added. “We are proud to stand with Dave Brat in his election and look forward to working with him to reform Washington, D.C.”
FreedomWorks has so far backed two losing primary candidates in 2014 and switched its endorsement in the Nebraska primary to Ben Sasse two weeks before the primary election. FreedomWorks later took credit for Sasse's victory.
Neither Club for Growth nor Heritage Action, two groups that "aim to pick off Republicans who stray from strict party orthodoxy," as the Wall Street Journal puts it, got involved with Brat's campaign.
The Madison Project also weighed in on Brat's win, saying, “just a few short weeks ago, the Establishment was working the media over trying to shut the coffin on conservatives and the Tea Party.”
The group added: “But first Mississippi, and now Virginia's 7th show that the people, and not the political class will not accept a growing government dead-set on expanding their power, and passing policies that do nothing but line the pockets of special interests,” he added.
And although Brat’s shocking victory can certainly be attributed to the tireless work of grassroots activists in his district, it’s important to remember that the aforementioned outside Tea Party groups offered him zero support.
“Of the measly $4,805 in political expenditures against Cantor reported to the Federal Election Commission, none came from the big national tea party groups,” the Washington Post reported. “The bulk was spent by a newly formed super PAC called We Deserve Better PAC on an online ad that attacked Cantor as pro-amnesty.”
Meanwhile, outside groups spent nearly $366,000 on pro-Cantor ads.
Brat’s victory over the longtime Virginia congressman is even more impressive when you consider the fact that the self-identified Tea Party candidate spent a mere $100,000 on his campaign.
Cantor, on the other hand, burned through approximately $5 million trying to fend of his primary challenger, handing the House Majority Leader an obviously lopsided financial advantage. In fact, Cantor's office spent more money renting out steak houses for campaign events than Brat's office spent during the entire election cycle, according to FEC campaign finance data.
In short, conservative grassroots activists proved Tuesday that no entrenched politician is safe from a challenger with a strong, personalized ground game. That’s why Brat won. So-called Tea Party groups had nothing to do with Cantor’s defeat.
This reaffirms my assessment that the Cantor campaign simply got cocky.
Then take a look at all the laws they pass that are pro big government and pro telling people what they can and cannot do and you realize that they either are lying to get people to vote for them or that they are dumb enough to actually believe what they are telling other people.
Yep. It's why I laugh at Libertarians who have deluded themselves into thinking that libertarianism is about small business owners when really it's about the richest men and women in the world wanting everyone else to bend their knee and worship them like Ann Rand said they should.
And thus is the problem of the GOP. All political parties engage in double speak. The little game where they try and play all sides they can to their own advantage. Problem is that the GOP has become really bad at double speak, and speaking in general (legitimate rape... Seriously guys, how did that make it past the filter in your heads?). They are trying to maintain the support of a middle class that is realizing the GOP isn't supporting their interests at all, and the Christian right is being torn to pieces by changes in what Christians at large think about a lot of things. It's getting harder and harder for the GOP to get its disparate groups to come together as one.
Frazzled wrote: His opponent ran against him on the immigration nightmare. This is a warning.
Yup. Cantor's offer of "amnesty" to immigrant children was pretty much the sole issue this guy ran on. Even though Cantor didnt really support or offer amnesty, but hey, let's not let the truth get in the way of politics!
whembly wrote: Also... the Amnesty Dream Act is dead on arrival now.
Whoa...
Woohoo!!!!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: His opponent ran against him on the immigration nightmare. This is a warning.
A few months back Boeher set forward a proposal for the Republican base on immigration reform that included amnesty. He reconsidered his position on the issue very shortly thereafter.
The Tea Party movement is an American political movement known for advocating a reduction in the U.S. national debt and federal budget deficit by reducing U.S. government spending and taxes.[1][2] The movement has been called a mix of libertarian,[3] populist[4] and conservative,[5] persons. It has sponsored multiple protests and supported various political candidates since 2009,[6][7][8] and demonstrators at the U.S. Capitol celebrated the movement's five-year anniversary in February 2014. Various polls have found that slightly over 10% of Americans identify as a member.[9]
The name refers to the Boston Tea Party of 1773.[10][11][12][13] Anti-tax protesters in the United States have cited the original Boston Tea Party as their inspiration.[14][15][16] References to the Boston Tea Party were part of Tax Day protests held in the 1990s and before.[17][18][19][20]
Above is just a "General Purpose"
Below is what I remember what kicked it off
CNBC's Rick Santelli is widely credited with launching the grassroots movement. While standing on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange on February 19, 2009, he unleashed what can only be called a rant against the Obama Administration's proposal to help homeowners facing foreclosure refinance their mortgages.
Frazzled wrote: His opponent ran against him on the immigration nightmare. This is a warning.
Possibly... at least it'll make the other politicians (even Democrats) think twice.
Comprehensive Imigration Reform is never going to happen, not with the crazy that is currently going on and the whole "kick out anybody that even thinks about amnesty" thread from the Tea Party.
Pretending that we can round up and kick out every illegal immigrant currently here is just as stupid as pretending that we can just pass gun control and round up every illegal gun. But that doesn't stop people from being anti-amnesty and so nothing will happen.
Frazzled wrote: His opponent ran against him on the immigration nightmare. This is a warning.
Possibly... at least it'll make the other politicians (even Democrats) think twice.
Comprehensive Imigration Reform is never going to happen, not with the crazy that is currently going on and the whole "kick out anybody that even thinks about amnesty" thread from the Tea Party.
Pretending that we can round up and kick out every illegal immigrant currently here is just as stupid as pretending that we can just pass gun control and round up every illegal gun. But that doesn't stop people from being anti-amnesty and so nothing will happen.
It'll never happen when the crazies won't enforce the fething borders and enforce existing immigration laws.
Comprehensive Imigration Reform is never going to happen, not with the crazy that is currently going on and the whole "kick out anybody that even thinks about amnesty" thread from the Tea Party.
Pretending that we can round up and kick out every illegal immigrant currently here is just as stupid as pretending that we can just pass gun control and round up every illegal gun. But that doesn't stop people from being anti-amnesty and so nothing will happen.
It'll never happen when the crazies won't enforce the fething borders and enforce existing immigration laws.
Which doesn't have anything to do with any kind of amnesty package.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Laughing Man wrote: So it's a good thing deportations are at an all time high under Obama, right?
Laughing Man wrote: So it's a good thing deportations are at an all time high under Obama, right?
The same Obama who meets and sympathizes with people going on hunger strike to try and gain sympathy for amnesty? The same Obama who said that he wants amnesty? Who also said that he would make use of executive orders to make amnesty a reality?
Comprehensive Imigration Reform is never going to happen, not with the crazy that is currently going on and the whole "kick out anybody that even thinks about amnesty" thread from the Tea Party.
Pretending that we can round up and kick out every illegal immigrant currently here is just as stupid as pretending that we can just pass gun control and round up every illegal gun. But that doesn't stop people from being anti-amnesty and so nothing will happen.
It'll never happen when the crazies won't enforce the fething borders and enforce existing immigration laws.
Which doesn't have anything to do with any kind of amnesty package.
Que?
If the voters can be assured that the government is doing what they can on the border AND enforce existing immigrations laws.... I'm sure a reasonable discussion can be had about the existing immigrants in this country.
Frazzled wrote: His opponent ran against him on the immigration nightmare. This is a warning.
Possibly... at least it'll make the other politicians (even Democrats) think twice.
Comprehensive Imigration Reform is never going to happen, not with the crazy that is currently going on and the whole "kick out anybody that even thinks about amnesty" thread from the Tea Party.
Pretending that we can round up and kick out every illegal immigrant currently here is just as stupid as pretending that we can just pass gun control and round up every illegal gun. But that doesn't stop people from being anti-amnesty and so nothing will happen.
And having an open border where thousands of children from every country in the wold, along with narcoterrorists, MS13 and everyone who care's to just wanders across is not sustainable either.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Laughing Man wrote: So it's a good thing deportations are at an all time high under Obama, right?
(people) Imports are at en even higher all time high.
Comprehensive Imigration Reform is never going to happen, not with the crazy that is currently going on and the whole "kick out anybody that even thinks about amnesty" thread from the Tea Party.
Pretending that we can round up and kick out every illegal immigrant currently here is just as stupid as pretending that we can just pass gun control and round up every illegal gun. But that doesn't stop people from being anti-amnesty and so nothing will happen.
It'll never happen when the crazies won't enforce the fething borders and enforce existing immigration laws.
Which doesn't have anything to do with any kind of amnesty package.
Que?
If the voters can be assured that the government is doing what they can on the border AND enforce existing immigrations laws.... I'm sure a reasonable discussion can be had about the existing immigrants in this country.
Until then? Why bother?
Exactly. Reasonable can agree to a reasonable plan for assimilation, if there is control of the border.
Nice wish list, too bad that none of that matters. Any kind of immigration reform that addresses every single item that you guys are talking about is dead on arrival if it has any kind of amnesty attached to it.
Because people are stupid and pretend that we can kick out every single illegal already here.
Its not that we can kick them out or not. Its that we shouldn't just give them a free pass because we can't find them.
The concept is in opposition to everything the law stands for. We might as well not have any regulation of crossing the border and let everyone come on over to the party.
Just enforce the damn laws already on the books, secure the border, and just catch the illegals as we find them like we do now.
And we could kick most of the illegals out if we actually tried. Bring in the army to help and it could be done. It wouldn't be a popular decision, but it is physically possible. Realistically no, but physically yes.
And if you want to do Amnesty, have it work as follows.
1) turn yourself in and get sent back.
2) Instead of being given criminal charges, you are allowed to put yourself on the waiting list to get back in.
That is amnesty, having criminal charges dropped and allowed to come back through like everyone else. Not being given a free pass and allowed to stay ahead of everyone who is willing to respect our country's laws.
And having an open border where thousands of children from every country in the wold
Actually that mainly South American children coming up through the border. South American countries are a different category compare to Mexico. Its a version of "anchor baby"
Grey Templar wrote: Its not that we can kick them out or not. Its that we shouldn't just give them a free pass because we can't find them.
Good thing no reform that included amnesty proposed "giving anybody a free pass".
And we could kick most of the illegals out if we actually tried. Bring in the army to help and it could be done. It wouldn't be a popular decision, but it is physically possible. Realistically no, but physically yes.
(people) Imports are at en even higher all time high.
This is actually false (unless something very recent changed). Illegal immigration has been trending downward for years, and the total illegal immigrant population has actually *declined* since 2007, down by nearly a million. There's evidence that may have upticked at the end of 2013 (no reliable 2014 data yet AFAIK) but people imports are lower now than in the past.
It's a function of both Mexico getting wealthier and older, and the US economic recession making the US less desirable place to move to.
Grey Templar wrote: Its not that we can kick them out or not. Its that we shouldn't just give them a free pass because we can't find them.
Good thing no reform that included amnesty proposed "giving anybody a free pass".
And we could kick most of the illegals out if we actually tried. Bring in the army to help and it could be done. It wouldn't be a popular decision, but it is physically possible. Realistically no, but physically yes.
How's the weather in imagination land?
Tell me why we couldn't do it then?
What exactly makes it impossible to remove at least a large portion of illegals if we had all the manpower you could need?
I can only begin to imagine the gak fit that would be thrown if a president mobilized the army along the border to try to stop illegal immigrants. That anyone thinks it even begins to approach a viable solution is insanity of the highest order.
Grey Templar wrote: Its not that we can kick them out or not. Its that we shouldn't just give them a free pass because we can't find them.
Good thing no reform that included amnesty proposed "giving anybody a free pass".
And we could kick most of the illegals out if we actually tried. Bring in the army to help and it could be done. It wouldn't be a popular decision, but it is physically possible. Realistically no, but physically yes.
How's the weather in imagination land?
Tell me why we couldn't do it then?
Because it would involve a mobilization of every law enforcement and military asset that the US possesses and it would require that the entire country would become one giant police state so that every town/city/county could get searched at once while the entire country is on total lockdown for the entire population to prevent any movement of any kind.
What exactly makes it impossible to remove at least a large portion of illegals
Nice goal post moving.
if we had all the manpower you could need?
Because the minute any kind of law enforcement is knocking on your door demanding to let you in so that they can see if you are hiding any kind of illegals in your basement you would be on Dakka bitching about Obama being an evil socialist who is taking all your rights away.
You know who also wanted to remove an entire subgroup of people from their nation? The Nazis.
You know who also failed to remove an entire subgroup of people from their nation? The Nazis.
It can't be done. Pretending that it can be done is stupid.
streamdragon wrote: I can only begin to imagine the gak fit that would be thrown if a president mobilized the army along the border to try to stop illegal immigrants. That anyone thinks it even begins to approach a viable solution is insanity of the highest order.
You mean, like Mexico does on its southern border???
Grey Templar wrote: Its not that we can kick them out or not. Its that we shouldn't just give them a free pass because we can't find them.
Good thing no reform that included amnesty proposed "giving anybody a free pass".
And we could kick most of the illegals out if we actually tried. Bring in the army to help and it could be done. It wouldn't be a popular decision, but it is physically possible. Realistically no, but physically yes.
How's the weather in imagination land?
Tell me why we couldn't do it then?
What exactly makes it impossible to remove at least a large portion of illegals if we had all the manpower you could need?
The fact that you'd probably have what amounts to an actual war at that point? We're talking ~11 million people here, even if you wanted to forcibly remove say, half of them, you're talking about moving a population equal to that of Ireland. Not only is that just a massive logistical nightmare, that would be one of the largest forced migrations in history.
I'm just imagining a government sweep trying to eject 50,000 illegals out of say, Los Angeles. That'll go over well.
streamdragon wrote: I can only begin to imagine the gak fit that would be thrown if a president mobilized the army along the border to try to stop illegal immigrants. That anyone thinks it even begins to approach a viable solution is insanity of the highest order.
You mean, like Mexico does on its southern border???
Considering how many of the Mexican army are probably in Cartel pockets and HELPING the people traffic...
The last time the US military was used like law enforcement in the US, thousands of Japanese families were rounded up and placed in internment camps. It is rightly considered a stain on US military history.
Vaktathi wrote: The fact that you'd probably have what amounts to an actual war at that point? We're talking ~11 million people here, even if you wanted to forcibly remove say, half of them, you're talking about moving a population equal to that of Ireland. Not only is that just a massive logistical nightmare, that would be one of the largest forced migrations in history.
You'd also have to implement some insanely draconian domestic laws to be able to find them as well. I imagine the police would need more military style weapons on top of that...wait a minute...
You'll also note I said it wouldn't be popular and would be political suicide. But it could be done.
So are you saying that you are okay and willing to let government agents into your home without a warrant and search every room, closet, and potential hiding spot?
streamdragon wrote: I can only begin to imagine the gak fit that would be thrown if a president mobilized the army along the border to try to stop illegal immigrants. That anyone thinks it even begins to approach a viable solution is insanity of the highest order.
You mean, like Mexico does on its southern border???
Pretending that Mexico is having any kind of success there is pretty silly considering that a pretty good portion of our illegal immigrants come from south of Mexico's border.
Grey Templar wrote: Its not that we can kick them out or not. Its that we shouldn't just give them a free pass because we can't find them.
Good thing no reform that included amnesty proposed "giving anybody a free pass".
And we could kick most of the illegals out if we actually tried. Bring in the army to help and it could be done. It wouldn't be a popular decision, but it is physically possible. Realistically no, but physically yes.
How's the weather in imagination land?
Tell me why we couldn't do it then?
Because it would involve a mobilization of every law enforcement and military asset that the US possesses and it would require that the entire country would become one giant police state so that every town/city/county could get searched at once while the entire country is on total lockdown for the entire population to prevent any movement of any kind.
What exactly makes it impossible to remove at least a large portion of illegals
Nice goal post moving.
if we had all the manpower you could need?
Because the minute any kind of law enforcement is knocking on your door demanding to let you in so that they can see if you are hiding any kind of illegals in your basement you would be on Dakka bitching about Obama being an evil socialist who is taking all your rights away.
You know who also wanted to remove an entire subgroup of people from their nation? The Nazis.
You know who also failed to remove an entire subgroup of people from their nation? The Nazis.
It can't be done. Pretending that it can be done is stupid.
You'll also note I said it wouldn't be popular and would be political suicide. But it could be done.
So are you saying that you are okay and willing to let government agents into your home without a warrant and search every room, closet, and potential hiding spot?
We did at a time have Active Military on the border for LPOP and AZ activated some National Guard troops though they are legally authorized to handle illegal aliens
We did at a time have Active Military on the border for LPOP and AZ activated some National Guard troops though they are legally authorized to handle illegal aliens
I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
But the moment we activate the national guard and use active duty troops to march through the streets and kicking down doors to search all the houses for illegals there would be trouble.
Comprehensive Imigration Reform is never going to happen, not with the crazy that is currently going on and the whole "kick out anybody that even thinks about amnesty" thread from the Tea Party.
Pretending that we can round up and kick out every illegal immigrant currently here is just as stupid as pretending that we can just pass gun control and round up every illegal gun. But that doesn't stop people from being anti-amnesty and so nothing will happen.
It'll never happen when the crazies won't enforce the fething borders and enforce existing immigration laws.
Which doesn't have anything to do with any kind of amnesty package.
Que?
If the voters can be assured that the government is doing what they can on the border AND enforce existing immigrations laws.... I'm sure a reasonable discussion can be had about the existing immigrants in this country.
Until then? Why bother?
.... I'm sure a reasonable discussion can be had about the existing immigrants in this country.
We did at a time have Active Military on the border for LPOP and AZ activated some National Guard troops though they are legally authorized to handle illegal aliens
I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
But the moment we activate the national guard and use active duty troops to march through the streets and kicking down doors to search all the houses for illegals there would be trouble.
Whoa now D. I've only seen that when there are Insurgents involve.
Comprehensive Imigration Reform is never going to happen, not with the crazy that is currently going on and the whole "kick out anybody that even thinks about amnesty" thread from the Tea Party.
Pretending that we can round up and kick out every illegal immigrant currently here is just as stupid as pretending that we can just pass gun control and round up every illegal gun. But that doesn't stop people from being anti-amnesty and so nothing will happen.
It'll never happen when the crazies won't enforce the fething borders and enforce existing immigration laws.
Which doesn't have anything to do with any kind of amnesty package.
Que?
If the voters can be assured that the government is doing what they can on the border AND enforce existing immigrations laws.... I'm sure a reasonable discussion can be had about the existing immigrants in this country.
Until then? Why bother?
.... I'm sure a reasonable discussion can be had about the existing immigrants in this country.
reasonable discussion
Funniest thing I have seen all day.
Hey... exactly what have I been unreasonable about??
We did at a time have Active Military on the border for LPOP and AZ activated some National Guard troops though they are legally authorized to handle illegal aliens
I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
But the moment we activate the national guard and use active duty troops to march through the streets and kicking down doors to search all the houses for illegals there would be trouble.
Whoa now D. I've only seen that when there are Insurgents involve.
And that is what we would have to do all across the entire country if we wanted to pretend that we could get rid of illegal immigrants already in the country.
That's why "no amnesty, kick out all the illegals" is a stupid argument. But as long as people who want to pretend that we can do it keep on voting everybody that disagrees out of office we will never have any kind of immigration reform because you can't have comprehensive reform without a component of amnesty.
The ironic thing is that the same crowd that bitches and moans about how we have to kick out all the illegals is also the same crowd that would rise up into their favorite militias the moment the government does what it would have to do to actually kick the illegals out.
"Hey government, please kick out everybody that shouldn't be here, but please don't do it all police-state like. 'kthanxs."
We did at a time have Active Military on the border for LPOP and AZ activated some National Guard troops though they are legally authorized to handle illegal aliens
I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
But the moment we activate the national guard and use active duty troops to march through the streets and kicking down doors to search all the houses for illegals there would be trouble.
Whoa now D. I've only seen that when there are Insurgents involve.
And that is what we would have to do all across the entire country if we wanted to pretend that we could get rid of illegal immigrants already in the country.
That's why "no amnesty, kick out all the illegals" is a stupid argument. But as long as people who want to pretend that we can do it keep on voting everybody that disagrees out of office we will never have any kind of immigration reform because you can't have comprehensive reform without a component of amnesty.
The ironic thing is that the same crowd that bitches and moans about how we have to kick out all the illegals is also the same crowd that would rise up into their favorite militias the moment the government does what it would have to do to actually kick the illegals out.
"Hey government, please kick out everybody that shouldn't be here, but please don't do it all police-state like. 'kthanxs."
Dude.
That's some serious mental projection there.
Just enforce the fething laws that we have here.
That is NOT an unreasonable position to take.
EDIT: besides... this is a thread about Cantor losing... not immigration reforms. o.O
We have to declare the Illegal Immigrants as domestic enemy which is not going to happen
Then we fall into lawful to unlawful orders. US Military is not "Blind Obedience"
streamdragon wrote: I can only begin to imagine the gak fit that would be thrown if a president mobilized the army along the border to try to stop illegal immigrants. That anyone thinks it even begins to approach a viable solution is insanity of the highest order.
You mean, like Mexico does on its southern border???
Considering how many of the Mexican army are probably in Cartel pockets and HELPING the people traffic...
The last time the US military was used like law enforcement in the US, thousands of Japanese families were rounded up and placed in internment camps. It is rightly considered a stain on US military history.
And before that Black Jack Pershing. Border enforcement is not law enforcement.
We did at a time have Active Military on the border for LPOP and AZ activated some National Guard troops though they are legally authorized to handle illegal aliens
I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
But the moment we activate the national guard and use active duty troops to march through the streets and kicking down doors to search all the houses for illegals there would be trouble.
Whoa now D. I've only seen that when there are Insurgents involve.
And that is what we would have to do all across the entire country if we wanted to pretend that we could get rid of illegal immigrants already in the country.
That's why "no amnesty, kick out all the illegals" is a stupid argument. But as long as people who want to pretend that we can do it keep on voting everybody that disagrees out of office we will never have any kind of immigration reform because you can't have comprehensive reform without a component of amnesty.
The ironic thing is that the same crowd that bitches and moans about how we have to kick out all the illegals is also the same crowd that would rise up into their favorite militias the moment the government does what it would have to do to actually kick the illegals out.
"Hey government, please kick out everybody that shouldn't be here, but please don't do it all police-state like. 'kthanxs."
Dude.
That's some serious mental projection there.
Just enforce the fething laws that we have here.
That is NOT an unreasonable position to take.
EDIT: besides... this is a thread about Cantor losing... not immigration reforms. o.O
1) nobody is saying "don't enforce the laws we already have"
2) what issue was his opponent running on?
3) imigration reform has to address what we are going to do with the people already here "aka do we report everybody or give them amnesty"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: We have to declare the Illegal Immigrants as domestic enemy which is not going to happen
Then we fall into lawful to unlawful orders. US Military is not "Blind Obedience"
How do we get rid of every single illegal in this country?
streamdragon wrote: I can only begin to imagine the gak fit that would be thrown if a president mobilized the army along the border to try to stop illegal immigrants. That anyone thinks it even begins to approach a viable solution is insanity of the highest order.
You mean, like Mexico does on its southern border???
Considering how many of the Mexican army are probably in Cartel pockets and HELPING the people traffic...
The last time the US military was used like law enforcement in the US, thousands of Japanese families were rounded up and placed in internment camps. It is rightly considered a stain on US military history.
And before that Black Jack Pershing. Border enforcement is not law enforcement.
Ask the Romans. Or the Knight's Watch.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones," from which "any or all persons may be excluded." This power was used to declare that all people of Japanese ancestry were excluded from the entire Pacific coast, including all of California and much of Oregon, Washington and Arizona, except for those in internment camps.[7] In 1944, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion orders.[8] The Court limited its decision to the validity of the exclusion orders, adding, "The provisions of other orders requiring persons of Japanese ancestry to report to assembly centers and providing for the detention of such persons in assembly and relocation centers were separate, and their validity is not in issue in this proceeding."[9] The United States Census Bureau assisted the internment efforts by providing confidential neighborhood information on Japanese Americans. The Bureau denied its role for decades, but it was finally proven in 2007
Eight U.S. Department of Justice Camps (in Texas, Idaho, North Dakota, New Mexico, and Montana) held Japanese Americans, primarily non-citizens and their families.[56] The camps were run by the Immigration and Naturalization Service, under the umbrella of the DOJ, and guarded by Border Patrol agents rather than military police. The population of these camps included approximately 3,800 of the 5,500 Buddhist and Christian ministers, Japanese language school instructors, newspaper workers, fishermen, and community leaders who had been accused of fifth column activity and arrested by the FBI after Pearl Harbor. (The remaining 1,700 were released to WRA relocation centers.)[57] Immigrants and citizens of German and Italian ancestry were also held in these facilities, often in the same camps as Japanese Americans. Approximately 7,000 German Americans and 3,000 Italian Americans from Hawai'i and the U.S. mainland were interned in DOJ camps, along with 500 German seamen already in custody after being rescued from the SS Columbus in 1938.[17] In addition 2,264 ethnic Japanese,[18] 4,058 ethnic Germans, and 288 ethnic Italians[17] were deported from 19 Latin American countries for a later-abandoned hostage exchange program with Axis countries or confinement in DOJ camps.[58]
Friends say good-bye as family of Japanese ancestry await evacuation bus. Hayward, California, 8 May 1942
Several U.S. Army internment camps held Japanese, Italian and German American men considered "potentially dangerous." Camp Lordsburg, in New Mexico, was the only site built specifically to confine Japanese Americans. In May 1943, the Army was given responsibility for the detention of prisoners of war and all internees were transferred to DOJ camps.
In 1944, the U. S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the exclusion order (in re Korematsu vs United States, 1944). In two other earlier Supreme Court cases related to the exclusion order (in re Yashui vs United States and Hirabayashi vs United States, both 1943 and challenging the constitutionality of curfews imposed based on Japanese ancestry) the Court also upheld the Executive Order’s constitutionality.
We did at a time have Active Military on the border for LPOP and AZ activated some National Guard troops though they are legally authorized to handle illegal aliens
I don't think there is anything wrong with that.
But the moment we activate the national guard and use active duty troops to march through the streets and kicking down doors to search all the houses for illegals there would be trouble.
Whoa now D. I've only seen that when there are Insurgents involve.
And that is what we would have to do all across the entire country if we wanted to pretend that we could get rid of illegal immigrants already in the country.
That's why "no amnesty, kick out all the illegals" is a stupid argument. But as long as people who want to pretend that we can do it keep on voting everybody that disagrees out of office we will never have any kind of immigration reform because you can't have comprehensive reform without a component of amnesty.
The ironic thing is that the same crowd that bitches and moans about how we have to kick out all the illegals is also the same crowd that would rise up into their favorite militias the moment the government does what it would have to do to actually kick the illegals out.
"Hey government, please kick out everybody that shouldn't be here, but please don't do it all police-state like. 'kthanxs."
Dude.
That's some serious mental projection there.
Just enforce the fething laws that we have here.
That is NOT an unreasonable position to take.
EDIT: besides... this is a thread about Cantor losing... not immigration reforms. o.O
1) nobody is saying "don't enforce the laws we already have"
2) what issue was his opponent running on?
3) imigration reform has to address what we are going to do with the people already here "aka do we report everybody or give them amnesty"
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: We have to declare the Illegal Immigrants as domestic enemy which is not going to happen
Then we fall into lawful to unlawful orders. US Military is not "Blind Obedience"
How do we get rid of every single illegal in this country?
I'm not in politics to answer that.
First I seal the borders though which be a good start.
Sealing the border is not going to do anything to deport a single illegal that is already here. It is also completely irrelevant to the question of what to do with the illegals that are already in the country.
I'm not saying "we should utilize the military to kick them out". I'm saying that it's impossible to kick them all out because we would have to mobilize law enforcement and the military to even have a shot at doing that and that nobody would be okay with that, especially the "kick everyone out" crowd.
So keep the problem going to add more to the ones in the US eh
Edit
Its a money issue is it not? If we keep deporting and not seal the border off then its a waste of time and effort as being the flood is still happening
d-usa wrote: Sealing the border is not going to do anything to deport a single illegal that is already here. It is also completely irrelevant to the question of what to do with the illegals that are already in the country.
I'm not saying "we should utilize the military to kick them out". I'm saying that it's impossible to kick them all out because we would have to mobilize law enforcement and the military to even have a shot at doing that and that nobody would be okay with that, especially the "kick everyone out" crowd.
I just find it very ironic that you're very much aligned with groups like the US Chamber of Commerce (aka Establisment Republicans) in this ordeal.
First, seal the border.
Secondly, fething enforce existing laws. That is, go after businesses that knowingly hire illegals... turn off Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cites... etc...
Then, and ONLY then, we can discuss amnesty for the rest. That can be as simple as filling out a form in your desired state AND pay a fine.
Comprehensive Imigration Reform is never going to happen, not with the crazy that is currently going on and the whole "kick out anybody that even thinks about amnesty" thread from the Tea Party.
Pretending that we can round up and kick out every illegal immigrant currently here is just as stupid as pretending that we can just pass gun control and round up every illegal gun. But that doesn't stop people from being anti-amnesty and so nothing will happen.
It'll never happen when the crazies won't enforce the fething borders and enforce existing immigration laws.
Which doesn't have anything to do with any kind of amnesty package.
Que?
If the voters can be assured that the government is doing what they can on the border AND enforce existing immigrations laws.... I'm sure a reasonable discussion can be had about the existing immigrants in this country.
Until then? Why bother?
.... I'm sure a reasonable discussion can be had about the existing immigrants in this country.
reasonable discussion
Funniest thing I have seen all day.
Hey... exactly what have I been unreasonable about??
Not directed at you. The idea that we will have a reasonable national discussion about Immigration is hilarious to me.
Also, please tell me how we can "seal a border" so no Illegals get through? It is impossible.
Comprehensive Imigration Reform is never going to happen, not with the crazy that is currently going on and the whole "kick out anybody that even thinks about amnesty" thread from the Tea Party.
Pretending that we can round up and kick out every illegal immigrant currently here is just as stupid as pretending that we can just pass gun control and round up every illegal gun. But that doesn't stop people from being anti-amnesty and so nothing will happen.
It'll never happen when the crazies won't enforce the fething borders and enforce existing immigration laws.
Which doesn't have anything to do with any kind of amnesty package.
Que?
If the voters can be assured that the government is doing what they can on the border AND enforce existing immigrations laws.... I'm sure a reasonable discussion can be had about the existing immigrants in this country.
Until then? Why bother?
.... I'm sure a reasonable discussion can be had about the existing immigrants in this country.
reasonable discussion
Funniest thing I have seen all day.
Hey... exactly what have I been unreasonable about??
Not directed at you. The idea that we will have a reasonable national discussion about Immigration is hilarious to me.
Heh... good point.
Also, please tell me how we can "seal a border" so no Illegals get through? It is impossible.
d-usa wrote: Sealing the border is not going to do anything to deport a single illegal that is already here. It is also completely irrelevant to the question of what to do with the illegals that are already in the country.
I don't really agree with a "blanket amnesty" either... I mean, what percentage of illegal alien is a fugitive/criminal in their native land? how many of THOSE have gone on to commit major crimes in the US, and get incarcerated?
We really could solve a few birds with fewer stones with some form of amnesty program, but I think in order to make some happy, we'd necessarily have to ship foreign criminals out of here.
d-usa wrote: Sealing the border is not going to do anything to deport a single illegal that is already here. It is also completely irrelevant to the question of what to do with the illegals that are already in the country.
I'm not saying "we should utilize the military to kick them out". I'm saying that it's impossible to kick them all out because we would have to mobilize law enforcement and the military to even have a shot at doing that and that nobody would be okay with that, especially the "kick everyone out" crowd.
I just find it very ironic that you're very much aligned with groups like the US Chamber of Commerce (aka Establisment Republicans) in this ordeal.
A) First, seal the border.
B) Secondly, fething enforce existing laws. That is, go after businesses that knowingly hire illegals... turn off Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cites... etc...
C) Then, and ONLY then, we can discuss amnesty for the rest. That can be as simple as filling out a form in your desired state AND pay a fine.
And any reform that gives more power to do A and B (which it should) is going to fail because of C.
Jihadin wrote: So your for no attempts to lessen the flow into the US through its border eh. So when is enough?
Irrelevant if your starting position is that we can "seal the borders". That is simply irrational.
Instead, let's try to start the debate at what is possible.
[not serious mode] If you really want to stop illegal immigration you need to make it so people don't want to come here. I propose we reinvent ourselvs as the Neo-Soviet Union.[/not serious mode]
d-usa wrote: Sealing the border is not going to do anything to deport a single illegal that is already here. It is also completely irrelevant to the question of what to do with the illegals that are already in the country.
I'm not saying "we should utilize the military to kick them out". I'm saying that it's impossible to kick them all out because we would have to mobilize law enforcement and the military to even have a shot at doing that and that nobody would be okay with that, especially the "kick everyone out" crowd.
I just find it very ironic that you're very much aligned with groups like the US Chamber of Commerce (aka Establisment Republicans) in this ordeal.
A) First, seal the border.
B) Secondly, fething enforce existing laws. That is, go after businesses that knowingly hire illegals... turn off Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cites... etc...
C) Then, and ONLY then, we can discuss amnesty for the rest. That can be as simple as filling out a form in your desired state AND pay a fine.
And any reform that gives more power to do A and B (which it should) is going to fail because of C.
Why would the Democrats want to remove a power block for them
d-usa wrote: Sealing the border is not going to do anything to deport a single illegal that is already here. It is also completely irrelevant to the question of what to do with the illegals that are already in the country.
I don't really agree with a "blanket amnesty" either... I mean, what percentage of illegal alien is a fugitive/criminal in their native land? how many of THOSE have gone on to commit major crimes in the US, and get incarcerated?
We really could solve a few birds with fewer stones with some form of amnesty program, but I think in order to make some happy, we'd necessarily have to ship foreign criminals out of here.
Sure, and that is completely reasonable. Ideally you include an amnesty deal that lets non-criminals (well, other than the whole illegal immigrant thing) get on a pathway to citizenship and increase the resources to go after the kinds of people that would never have gotten a visa to begin with or who have committed additional crimes after they came into the country.
d-usa wrote: Sealing the border is not going to do anything to deport a single illegal that is already here. It is also completely irrelevant to the question of what to do with the illegals that are already in the country.
I'm not saying "we should utilize the military to kick them out". I'm saying that it's impossible to kick them all out because we would have to mobilize law enforcement and the military to even have a shot at doing that and that nobody would be okay with that, especially the "kick everyone out" crowd.
I just find it very ironic that you're very much aligned with groups like the US Chamber of Commerce (aka Establisment Republicans) in this ordeal.
A) First, seal the border.
B) Secondly, fething enforce existing laws. That is, go after businesses that knowingly hire illegals... turn off Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cites... etc...
C) Then, and ONLY then, we can discuss amnesty for the rest. That can be as simple as filling out a form in your desired state AND pay a fine.
And any reform that gives more power to do A and B (which it should) is going to fail because of C.
d-usa wrote: Sealing the border is not going to do anything to deport a single illegal that is already here. It is also completely irrelevant to the question of what to do with the illegals that are already in the country.
I'm not saying "we should utilize the military to kick them out". I'm saying that it's impossible to kick them all out because we would have to mobilize law enforcement and the military to even have a shot at doing that and that nobody would be okay with that, especially the "kick everyone out" crowd.
I just find it very ironic that you're very much aligned with groups like the US Chamber of Commerce (aka Establisment Republicans) in this ordeal.
A) First, seal the border.
B) Secondly, fething enforce existing laws. That is, go after businesses that knowingly hire illegals... turn off Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cites... etc...
C) Then, and ONLY then, we can discuss amnesty for the rest. That can be as simple as filling out a form in your desired state AND pay a fine.
And any reform that gives more power to do A and B (which it should) is going to fail because of C.
That doesn't make any sense.
The power to do both A & B is already THE LAW.
So we don't need any immigration reform then? That's weird, because you said we do.
d-usa wrote: Sealing the border is not going to do anything to deport a single illegal that is already here. It is also completely irrelevant to the question of what to do with the illegals that are already in the country.
I'm not saying "we should utilize the military to kick them out". I'm saying that it's impossible to kick them all out because we would have to mobilize law enforcement and the military to even have a shot at doing that and that nobody would be okay with that, especially the "kick everyone out" crowd.
I just find it very ironic that you're very much aligned with groups like the US Chamber of Commerce (aka Establisment Republicans) in this ordeal.
A) First, seal the border.
B) Secondly, fething enforce existing laws. That is, go after businesses that knowingly hire illegals... turn off Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cites... etc...
C) Then, and ONLY then, we can discuss amnesty for the rest. That can be as simple as filling out a form in your desired state AND pay a fine.
And any reform that gives more power to do A and B (which it should) is going to fail because of C.
That doesn't make any sense.
The power to do both A & B is already THE LAW.
So we don't need any immigration reform then? That's weird, because you said we do.
Sure... get on the White House & DoJ to do it's job.
Grey Templar wrote: And we could kick most of the illegals out if we actually tried. Bring in the army to help and it could be done. It wouldn't be a popular decision, but it is physically possible. Realistically no, but physically yes.
I'm not saying it would be ultimately successful or that it would get everyone(that would be impossible)
but saying we couldn't get rid of a bunch of the illegals if we tried is just false.
No, it wouldn't be a good idea.
Oh, you don't support this idea. You're just throwing out a really incendiary, provocative argument that you don't actually believe and admit won't work to see the reactions? I believe there's a word for that.
Grey Templar wrote: And we could kick most of the illegals out if we actually tried. Bring in the army to help and it could be done. It wouldn't be a popular decision, but it is physically possible. Realistically no, but physically yes.
I'm not saying it would be ultimately successful or that it would get everyone(that would be impossible)
but saying we couldn't get rid of a bunch of the illegals if we tried is just false.
No, it wouldn't be a good idea.
Oh, you don't support this idea. You're just throwing out a really incendiary, provocative argument that you don't actually believe and admit won't work to see the reactions? I believe there's a word for that.
I don't think it sets a good precedent to allow a British musician to control a US border.
Then again, Kiss from a Rose would likely remind any potential illegal of Batman Forever, and send them running to the hills; into the iron maiden that is Mexico.
Secondly, fething enforce existing laws. That is, go after businesses that knowingly hire illegals... turn off Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cites... etc...
Then, and ONLY then, we can discuss amnesty for the rest. That can be as simple as filling out a form in your desired state AND pay a fine.
I don't think it sets a good precedent to allow a British musician to control a US border.
Then again, Kiss from a Rose would likely remind any potential illegal of Batman Forever, and send them running to the hills; into the iron maiden that is Mexico.
Secondly, fething enforce existing laws. That is, go after businesses that knowingly hire illegals... turn off Federal Funds to Sanctuary Cites... etc...
Then, and ONLY then, we can discuss amnesty for the rest. That can be as simple as filling out a form in your desired state AND pay a fine.
Y'know it's kinda funny, all these people banging on about how we need to seal the border... the reason we have an illegal immigrant population in this country is *because* we closed the border in the 1970s.
Before that, the term for what we call "illegal immigrants" was "migrant worker". Migrant. As in migratory. They used to come north accross the border to do manual labor on farms during the harvest seasons, and then they would return to Mexico with their money during the off-season. Once the borders were closed, it made movement accross them much more difficult, making it less certain that a worker who came north to the US would be able to do so again if he left at the end of the work season.
So they stayed.
Then, when they got sick of working up here by themselves, they used the money they had made (which they used to take down to Mexico) to send for their families and bring them into the US (also via illegal channels).
Which is how we arrived at the current problem. Now, given the very real security situation we have here, with legitimate concerns about terrorists and cartels coming accross the border, we can't just re-open everything and expect the problem to resolve itself. That won't happen. But it is worth noting that the reason we have this problem is because we spent the 1970s doing what people today say we should do: close the border.
squidhills wrote: Y'know it's kinda funny, all these people banging on about how we need to seal the border... the reason we have an illegal immigrant population in this country is *because* we closed the border in the 1970s.
Before that, the term for what we call "illegal immigrants" was "migrant worker". Migrant. As in migratory. They used to come north accross the border to do manual labor on farms during the harvest seasons, and then they would return to Mexico with their money during the off-season. Once the borders were closed, it made movement accross them much more difficult, making it less certain that a worker who came north to the US would be able to do so again if he left at the end of the work season.
So they stayed.
Then, when they got sick of working up here by themselves, they used the money they had made (which they used to take down to Mexico) to send for their families and bring them into the US (also via illegal channels).
Which is how we arrived at the current problem. Now, given the very real security situation we have here, with legitimate concerns about terrorists and cartels coming accross the border, we can't just re-open everything and expect the problem to resolve itself. That won't happen. But it is worth noting that the reason we have this problem is because we spent the 1970s doing what people today say we should do: close the border.
squidhills wrote: Y'know it's kinda funny, all these people banging on about how we need to seal the border... the reason we have an illegal immigrant population in this country is *because* we closed the border in the 1970s.
Before that, the term for what we call "illegal immigrants" was "migrant worker". Migrant. As in migratory. They used to come north accross the border to do manual labor on farms during the harvest seasons, and then they would return to Mexico with their money during the off-season. Once the borders were closed, it made movement accross them much more difficult, making it less certain that a worker who came north to the US would be able to do so again if he left at the end of the work season.
So they stayed.
Then, when they got sick of working up here by themselves, they used the money they had made (which they used to take down to Mexico) to send for their families and bring them into the US (also via illegal channels).
Which is how we arrived at the current problem. Now, given the very real security situation we have here, with legitimate concerns about terrorists and cartels coming accross the border, we can't just re-open everything and expect the problem to resolve itself. That won't happen. But it is worth noting that the reason we have this problem is because we spent the 1970s doing what people today say we should do: close the border.
Horsepoop. There's no hindrance to leaving.
Yeah, I was wondering what exactly prevented people in leaving after border control was introduced to stop people entering
squidhills wrote: Y'know it's kinda funny, all these people banging on about how we need to seal the border... the reason we have an illegal immigrant population in this country is *because* we closed the border in the 1970s.
Before that, the term for what we call "illegal immigrants" was "migrant worker". Migrant. As in migratory. They used to come north accross the border to do manual labor on farms during the harvest seasons, and then they would return to Mexico with their money during the off-season. Once the borders were closed, it made movement accross them much more difficult, making it less certain that a worker who came north to the US would be able to do so again if he left at the end of the work season.
So they stayed.
Then, when they got sick of working up here by themselves, they used the money they had made (which they used to take down to Mexico) to send for their families and bring them into the US (also via illegal channels).
Which is how we arrived at the current problem. Now, given the very real security situation we have here, with legitimate concerns about terrorists and cartels coming accross the border, we can't just re-open everything and expect the problem to resolve itself. That won't happen. But it is worth noting that the reason we have this problem is because we spent the 1970s doing what people today say we should do: close the border.
Horsepoop. There's no hindrance to leaving.
The hindrance is in coming back. If you leave, you don't know if you can come back next year for work, so you might as well stay.
Jihadin wrote: Actually. Obama created the situation for in surge in illegal immigrants and a backdoor policy to the Dream Act.
Matter of Arrabelly Yerabelly
Advance Parole
As others have pointed out, the levels of illegal immigration have been going down over the last few years. It's hard to blame Obama for a problem that started decades before he took office, and which has been declining since he took office.
Jihadin wrote: Negative. He is counting the Illegal Aliens being turned back at the border to claim high numbers.
Forgot to add Advance Parole to the other two
OK, now explain how illegal immigration has only been a problem since Jan 20, 2009. You said Obama created the problem, that means he started it. A quick look at the facts will show that illegal immigration has been going on longer than five years.
Jihadin wrote: Actually. Obama created the situation for in surge in illegal immigrants and a backdoor policy to the Dream Act.
Matter of Arrabelly Yerabelly
Advance Parole
As others have pointed out, the levels of illegal immigration have been going down over the last few years. It's hard to blame Obama for a problem that started decades before he took office, and which has been declining since he took office.
Since Squid quoted me. Look those two up
Since I am attach to USCIS I cannot give out certain info. Those two topics will guide you a bit further into the situation. Unless no one looking them up eh
Forms to fill out. If one is apprehended in the US. On drunk driving charges or whatever criminal charges. His/her legal adviser will have them fill out documentation to prevent deportation. I cannot give the forms
If I provide the forms then you will see the connection. Its to prevent ICE from Deporting. Also in the works is the ICE review board/recent policies on who gets deported or not. Hence a few ICE lawsuits on the work.
If your outside looking in then you would have an "idea" but once your inside and see how jammed up it is its a freaking nightmare Do you know the 9th Circuit is constantly sued by USCIS on decisions to delay certain classes for deportation?
Jihadin wrote: Forms to fill out. If one is apprehended in the US. On drunk driving charges or whatever criminal charges. His/her legal adviser will have them fill out documentation to prevent deportation. I cannot give the forms
"There are forms" doesn't change the data that illegal immigration is on the decline. It also seems a tenuous connection to what you said earlier. We don't need to see copies of forms to be told what you think their impact is, but you still need to say what you think that impact is or it doesn't do much good to bring it up.
Jihadin wrote: Actually. Obama created the situation for in surge in illegal immigrants and a backdoor policy to the Dream Act.
Matter of Arrabelly Yerabelly
Advance Parole
As others have pointed out, the levels of illegal immigration have been going down over the last few years. It's hard to blame Obama for a problem that started decades before he took office, and which has been declining since he took office.
Since Squid quoted me. Look those two up
Since I am attach to USCIS I cannot give out certain info. Those two topics will guide you a bit further into the situation. Unless no one looking them up eh
Why should I bother to look them up? I know for a fact the Immigration Reform Debate has been going on since the Bush administration. Obama didn't create the problem. The debate may have gotten louder since he took office, but the reality is that the national debate grew out of smaller debates at the state level and has been going on since W Bush's second term. I know it's fashionable to blame Obama for everything from bad weather to poor service at Starbucks, but this si not a problem he created. He may be taking advantage of it for political reasons, but that is no different from any politician on either side of the aisle.
Yeah... no problems here. Everything is just peachy. So, let's stop bothering our leaders to do something about it.
Just wrap your head around this. A lobbying group called the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the big business of the Beltway, not the business of mainstream America.
This really isn't strictly a Republican issue vs Democrat issue...
It's the Big Business operatives (crony capitalism) wanting large influx of cheap labor to drive down wages for everyone AND many Democratic operatives playing the long game in the hopes that amnesty does pass in order to increase the Democratic voting bloc.
But, all of what I stated really shouldn't matter. Above all else, what matters should be the rule of law. Objectively look at this situation and tell me with a straight face that this isn't an issue that needs to be addressed.
For years, U.S.C.I.S. officials have taken the position that a departure under a grant of advance parole is a departure for purposes of Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) §§212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I), (II), two bars which do not allow a non-citizen to apply for re-admission into the United States for three or ten years, respectively. However, in Matter of Arrabally and Yerrabelly, 25 I & N Dec. 771 (BIA 2012), the Board of Immigration Appeals held that a non-citizen who departs the United States on a grant of advance parole does not trigger the three and ten year bars for purposes of INA §§ 212(a)(9)(B)(i)(I), (II). In its decision, the Board of Immigration Appeals notes that advance parole is a distinct discretionary benefit for which “the alien must demonstrate his eligibility and worthiness.” 25 I & N Dec. 771, 778 (BIA 2012).
The January 12, 2007 USCIS memo states th at USCIS can decide an adjustment
application of a parolee with
a final order under these inte
rim regulations. This is a
correct statement, for the following reasons:
•
Under the amended jurisdictional provisi
ons of the interim regulations, USCIS
has been given jurisdiction over th e adjustment applications of
all
arriving aliens
regardless of whether they are in rem
oval proceedings, with a limited exception
for certain advance paro
lees not relevant to this practice advisory.
6
•
Specifically, the amended regulations gran
t USCIS “jurisdiction to adjudicate an
application for adjustment of status f
iled by any alien, unless the immigration
judge has jurisdiction to adjudicate
the application under 8 C.F.R. §
1245.2(a)(1).” 8 C.F.R. § 245.2(a)(1). Th e regulations strip an immigration
judge of jurisdiction over the adjustment
application of an “arriving alien” in
proceedings. 8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1). Cons
equently, since the immigration judge
does not have jurisdiction over such applications, USCIS does, in accord with this
regulation.
See also
92 Fed. Reg. at 27587 (explaining
that one purpose of the
amendments to the regulations is to ma
ke clear that USCIS has jurisdiction over
the adjustment applications of “arriving aliens” in proceedings).
•
The interim regulations do not define
whether a noncitizen remains “in
proceedings” while under an unexecuted final order of removal.
7
Either way it is
6
An immigration judge has jurisdiction over
the adjustment applications of certain
advance parolees in removal proceedings who
are returning to complete previously filed
adjustment applications.
See
8 C.F.R. § 1245.2(a)(1)(ii)(A)-(D).
7
However,
see
8 C.F.R. § 245.1(c)(9)(ii) defining
when proceedings terminate for
purposes of an alien seeking adjustment based upon a marriage that occurred while the
individual was “in proceedings.” Under
this regulation, an
individual would be
considered to remain “in proceedings” while unde
are an unexecuted final order of removal.
a. An H-1 temporary worker, or H-4 spouse or child of an H-1
;
b. An L-1 intracompany transferee, or L-2 spouse or child of an L-1;
c. A K-3 spouse, or K-4 child of a U.S. citizen;
or
d. A V-1 spouse, or V-2/V-3 child of a lawful permanent resident
Illegal Immigrant can file a certain Visa. Hint: Children crossing the border
Edit
That's as far as I am willing to go on this. A lot of changes happen to policies under Obama Administration via Napelitino
.
So the internet is starting to fill up with stories about David Brat, the guy who beat Cantor. Turns out he's kind of an interesting guy, in that way that the economics profession somehow keeps producing 'interesting'. ie He's a nut, but he's a nut that puts up arguments that are well thought through, insightful, and only really nutty because they start from completely flying rodent gak opening positions.
In this case the flying rodent gak opening position is that he has a problem with the basic starting assumption of economics, and uses that to condemn the whole of the field. You see, economics starts with an assumption of maximising utility, that the best result is the one that produces the most overall material benefit to society as a whole. From there, to make a long story very, very short, the field overall concludes some form of mostly free market with some regulation to overcome specific market problems is the best way to achieve that goal.
Brat disputes that opening position. He says that the utilitarian assumption is a moral assumption, and produces only the result that utilitarian's would think is the best. He says he isn't a Randian, but it's his go to for suggesting other value models. But the thing is, even ignoring that almost all decision making that isn't self-motivated is utilitarian, it's also the only quantifiable form. That is, we can measure how many cans of beans are produced and consumed, we can't actually measure how much liberty was enjoyed by people in choosing their favourite kinds of bean.
What he's doing is basically like someone who argues that 40K really needs to start questioning whether it needs dice rolling.
What makes it all the more interesting is that he actually focuses a lot on talking about ethics, and the role of ethics in building prosperous economies. I think that's actually a viewpoint that economics needs. It's just that I strongly suspect his particular view on ethics is going to revolve a lot around saying 'freedom' a lot, which is actually not very useful at all.
sebster wrote: So the internet is starting to fill up with stories about David Brat, the guy who beat Cantor. Turns out he's kind of an interesting guy, in that way that the economics profession somehow keeps producing 'interesting'. ie He's a nut, but he's a nut that puts up arguments that are well thought through, insightful, and only really nutty because they start from completely flying rodent gak opening positions.
In this case the flying rodent gak opening position is that he has a problem with the basic starting assumption of economics, and uses that to condemn the whole of the field. You see, economics starts with an assumption of maximising utility, that the best result is the one that produces the most overall material benefit to society as a whole. From there, to make a long story very, very short, the field overall concludes some form of mostly free market with some regulation to overcome specific market problems is the best way to achieve that goal.
Brat disputes that opening position. He says that the utilitarian assumption is a moral assumption, and produces only the result that utilitarian's would think is the best. He says he isn't a Randian, but it's his go to for suggesting other value models. But the thing is, even ignoring that almost all decision making that isn't self-motivated is utilitarian, it's also the only quantifiable form. That is, we can measure how many cans of beans are produced and consumed, we can't actually measure how much liberty was enjoyed by people in choosing their favourite kinds of bean.
What he's doing is basically like someone who argues that 40K really needs to start questioning whether it needs dice rolling.
What makes it all the more interesting is that he actually focuses a lot on talking about ethics, and the role of ethics in building prosperous economies. I think that's actually a viewpoint that economics needs. It's just that I strongly suspect his particular view on ethics is going to revolve a lot around saying 'freedom' a lot, which is actually not very useful at all.
Actually have to hand it to him for anticipating a possible outcome in the future. What would he do if SCOTUS also agree with "Tenure" being unconstitutional
motyak wrote: "The world could be hit by an asteroid, and all life extinguished. If the Christian church powers up politically, we can stop it."
Elect me. I am anticipating a possible future
Are we not due for one? Besides if we're going to get hit.......
Knew Apocalypse thread since we have not had any knew Apoc. Zombies we're getting booring so if you all like my advise we have to have a knew one on de world endin withe asteriod hitting you all.
Why is that WSJ article making a big thing about quoting him that the government "holds a monopoly on violence". Its not like that is a fringe view that he is the first person to express, its literally the first thing you learn if you take a class in politics.
dæl wrote: Why is that WSJ article making a big thing about quoting him that the government "holds a monopoly on violence". Its not like that is a fringe view that he is the first person to express, its literally the first thing you learn if you take a class in politics.
I'm eagerly waiting for the media to vet him as vigorously as they did for Obama.
Did you see that disasterous WSJ article? It haz begun.
Heh, the WSJ is posting ciritical articles. Looks like Cantor still has some friends left.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote: Why is that WSJ article making a big thing about quoting him that the government "holds a monopoly on violence". Its not like that is a fringe view that he is the first person to express, its literally the first thing you learn if you take a class in politics.
It's like focusing on the assumption of utilitarianism in economics, it's just something you acknowledge and then move on to things that matter and can be sensibly debated. But when someone keeps going back to that point, and making out like it's something that needs to be challenged, or pretending there's some kind of unstated, unknown alternative, well then it's a pretty good indication that they might be something of a nut.
dæl wrote: Why is that WSJ article making a big thing about quoting him that the government "holds a monopoly on violence". Its not like that is a fringe view that he is the first person to express, its literally the first thing you learn if you take a class in politics.
It's like focusing on the assumption of utilitarianism in economics, it's just something you acknowledge and then move on to things that matter and can be sensibly debated. But when someone keeps going back to that point, and making out like it's something that needs to be challenged, or pretending there's some kind of unstated, unknown alternative, well then it's a pretty good indication that they might be something of a nut.
Ah, I see. It hadn't even occurred to me that he might be arguing against the state's monopoly on legitimate violence. Guess I lack the hearing range for libertarian dog whistle politics...
dæl wrote: Ah, I see. It hadn't even occurred to me that he might be arguing against the state's monopoly on legitimate violence. Guess I lack the hearing range for libertarian dog whistle politics...
Not that they're arguing against it, more that they're pointing it out as a criticism of... something. Who knows, libertarians don't really make a lot of sense.
This really isn't strictly a Republican issue vs Democrat issue...
It's the Big Business operatives (crony capitalism) wanting large influx of cheap labor to drive down wages for everyone AND many Democratic operatives playing the long game in the hopes that amnesty does pass in order to increase the Democratic voting bloc.
I'm impressed, you managed to contradict yourself in the sentence immediately following your initial assertion.
At any rate, you're waving your conspiracy flag here. "Big Business" is not an organization, and so cannot have operatives. Additionally the Democratic Party does not have operatives capable of playing the "long game"; it is not the The Tribunal. Moreover, there is no guarantee that illegals granted amnesty would vote Democrat, as they tend to be socially conservative and generally exist in conservative areas.
You would do well to remember that the Presidency isn't everything, just the most overt thing.
But, all of what I stated really shouldn't matter. Above all else, what matters should be the rule of law. Objectively look at this situation and tell me with a straight face that this isn't an issue that needs to be addressed.
I don't think anyone believes that illegal immigration is not an important issue, where conflict occurs is over how it should be addressed.
sebster wrote: It's just that I strongly suspect his particular view on ethics is going to revolve a lot around saying 'freedom' a lot, which is actually not very useful at all.
Like I said. We need to seal the border.
Notional thought here
Unseal we have like 150K crossing the southern border a yeat
Sealing the border we knock it down to 20K
We have funds for the admin, logistical, operational, and up keeping the facilities to handle the 100K
Over time as we plug the holes to knock the 20K to 10K we are removing the "bad apples"
The policies I stated before which document the illegal aliens are now on track and in process of naturalization. So additional fee's they pay and plus we can now tax them BECAUSE FACE ITWE ARE NOT DEPORTING THEM SO MIGHT AS WELL MAKE THEM AMERICANS being in their current status they are a drain on the funds
Curious if anyone can figure what I posted up minus the documents I cannot mention
Five years down the road we have a better handle on the Illegal Immigration issue
LOL Brat just won. He still in shock same as Cantor. I bet Cantor had all his queue cards in order for the press questions thinking his win was in the bag.
dogma wrote: I suspect "Jesus" would be more prevalent.
Yes, good pick up, that works much better. I actually posted that thinking it didn't quite work, and now wish I'd gone with "saying freedom and Jesus a lot".
Internal polling by Cantor had him up by 34 with a week to run. I think everyone is a bit surprised by this, let alone the margin. The polling numbers were out by 45 points.
Internal polling by Cantor had him up by 34 with a week to run. I think everyone is a bit surprised by this, let alone the margin. The polling numbers were out by 45 points.
The poll you're referencing had only 400 respondents when the standard is 1000; anything below that threshold is generally thrown out as unrepresentative. My suspicion is that many people refused to respond to polling due to an inherent bias against "the establishment".
Umm, WSJ. Not exactly a liberal bastion. This is the right wing machine looking to sink a threat from their own side.
Not that the article is actually all that unfair. He said those things, and they're given in proper context. It sounds bad likely because it is bad.
True... but the writer missed the point. Brat is upset by the fact that Christians these days are too "morally weak" to stand firm in the face of Hitlerian evil and urged them to be more resolute against a "New Hitler". This writer is trying to frame Brat as some sort of pro-Nazi Hitler rehabilitation.
Keep in mind that Reid Epstein came from Politico. Epstein is just trying to stir gak up... and doing a good job.
Jihadin wrote: Like I said. We need to seal the border.
Notional thought here
Unseal we have like 150K crossing the southern border a yeat
Sealing the border we knock it down to 20K
We have funds for the admin, logistical, operational, and up keeping the facilities to handle the 100K
Over time as we plug the holes to knock the 20K to 10K we are removing the "bad apples"
The policies I stated before which document the illegal aliens are now on track and in process of naturalization. So additional fee's they pay and plus we can now tax them BECAUSE FACE ITWE ARE NOT DEPORTING THEM SO MIGHT AS WELL MAKE THEM AMERICANS being in their current status they are a drain on the funds
Curious if anyone can figure what I posted up minus the documents I cannot mention
Five years down the road we have a better handle on the Illegal Immigration issue
Either way, it the problem of illegal immigration is to be solved border control needs tightened. Otherwise we're just spending money on a catch and release system. We know this, and people gaming the system know this - just look at MS13.
And if you want to get rid of the people already here illegally then it is quite simple;
- have ICE attend rallies of illegal immigrants demanding a change in the law and detain those who have no lawful right to be here
- no public assistance of any kind for illegal immigrants
- improve SS so that illegal immigrants cannot fraudulently use social security numbers
- harsher penalties for employers who use the services of illegal immigrants e.g. $10K fine for each illegal immigrant employed, and jail time for serial offenders
- specific focus on industries where illegal immigrants are likely to work under the table
- offer assistance to illegal immigrants who wish to return to their country of origin
Remove the financial incentives for people to come here and I would imagine that a great deal of the problems caused by illegal immigration will solve itself.
Either way, it the problem of illegal immigration is to be solved border control needs tightened. Otherwise we're just spending money on a catch and release system. We know this, and people gaming the system know this - just look at MS13.
And if you want to get rid of the people already here illegally then it is quite simple;
Just for the lulz:
- have ICE attend rallies of illegal immigrants demanding a change in the law and detain those who have no lawful right to be here
So you are pro-police state now? Are you also okay with the police detaining everybody at an open-carry rally until they made sure that nobody there is a convicted felon? The minute the government acts tough enough to do this stuff the same folks bitching about illegal immigrants are going to bitch about the police state.
- no public assistance of any kind for illegal immigrants
I'm mixed on that. Because a lot of them are paying into the system.
- improve SS so that illegal immigrants cannot fraudulently use social security numbers
Realistically, doing that would probably just end up hurting social security more than it would benefit it.
- harsher penalties for employers who use the services of illegal immigrants e.g. $10K fine for each illegal immigrant employed, and jail time for serial offenders
- specific focus on industries where illegal immigrants are likely to work under the table
- offer assistance to illegal immigrants who wish to return to their country of origin
Remove the financial incentives for people to come here and I would imagine that a great deal of the problems caused by illegal immigration will solve itself.
[copy+paste whatever arguments the conservatives make about raising minimum wage]
d-usa wrote: So you are pro-police state now? Are you also okay with the police detaining everybody at an open-carry rally until they made sure that nobody there is a convicted felon? The minute the government acts tough enough to do this stuff the same folks bitching about illegal immigrants are going to bitch about the police state.
That is a beautiful strawman that you have erected. Here is the difference - illegal immigrants demanding more rights pretty frequently carry signs/admit to being in the country unlawfully knowing that almost nothing gets done. If someone was at an open carry rally and boasted of being a felon in possession of a weapon I would have no problems with that person being arrested for breaking the law.
d-usa wrote: I'm mixed on that. Because a lot of them are paying into the system.
Paying into the system under SSN that they have no rights to use, and they take more than they pay in. No matter how you cut it they have no right to SSN. That is for US citizens.
d-usa wrote: Realistically, doing that would probably just end up hurting social security more than it would benefit it.
How?
d-usa wrote: [copy+paste whatever arguments the conservatives make about raising minimum wage]
Except for the fact that reducing the population of illegal immigrants will remove a market force that actually depresses wages in that industry.
What does you glib comment have to do with (a) punishing employers breaking the law, (b) offering assistance for the repatriation of illegal immigrants, (c) focusing efforts on clamping down on illegal aliens employed under the table?
d-usa wrote: So you are pro-police state now? Are you also okay with the police detaining everybody at an open-carry rally until they made sure that nobody there is a convicted felon? The minute the government acts tough enough to do this stuff the same folks bitching about illegal immigrants are going to bitch about the police state.
That is a beautiful strawman that you have erected. Here is the difference - illegal immigrants demanding more rights pretty frequently carry signs/admit to being in the country unlawfully knowing that almost nothing gets done. If someone was at an open carry rally and boasted of being a felon in possession of a weapon I would have no problems with that person being arrested for breaking the law.
Then your post should say "deport people at rallies that admit to being there illegally". The way it was written there was no way to determine who there was legal and who was not. So police would have had to investigate every single person there.
d-usa wrote: I'm mixed on that. Because a lot of them are paying into the system.
Paying into the system under SSN that they have no rights to use, and they take more than they pay in. No matter how you cut it they have no right to SSN. That is for US citizens.
d-usa wrote: Realistically, doing that would probably just end up hurting social security more than it would benefit it.
How?
Both those posts overlap a little bit, mainly because of the highlighted item.
How many illegal immigrants are retired on SS or receive SSD? The number is pretty small and insignificant as far as I know. It is pretty easy to pay into the Social Security fund with a fake SS#. It's pretty damn hard to take that money back out. So removing illegal immigrants from the group paying in actually hurts the pot because they contribute more than they take.
I have seen a couple studies that show that illegal immigrants pay more in taxes and Social Security fees than they take. Less so with illegals that get paid under the table without a SS#, but even they still pay local taxes.
d-usa wrote: [copy+paste whatever arguments the conservatives make about raising minimum wage]
Except for the fact that reducing the population of illegal immigrants will remove a market force that actually depresses wages in that industry.
What does you glib comment have to do with (a) punishing employers breaking the law, (b) offering assistance for the repatriation of illegal immigrants, (c) focusing efforts on clamping down on illegal aliens employed under the table?
(a) employers will simply pass the cost of the fine to the consumer, same with a raised minimum wage.
(b) that one shouldn't have been lumped into the mix, sorry about that. I actually agree with helping people that want to get back.
(c) Hiring legal people and paying them taxes will raise prices on everything as the employer will simply pass the cost down to the consumer.
One of the big arguments against minimum wage increases is "it will make anything more expensive". Removing illegal immigrants will make everything more expensive as well.
d-usa wrote: Then your post should say "deport people at rallies that admit to being there illegally". The way it was written there was no way to determine who there was legal and who was not. So police would have had to investigate every single person there.
I'll agree to a very minor point that my language could have been a little bit more precise. Many pro-amnesty rallies have people openly admitting their unlawful status, it was of those that I spoke. I apologize that I made assumptions over your familiarity with the presence of these individuals. I will not concede the point of you rushing to kneejerk strawman when it would have been more productive and less inflammatory to seek clarification.
d-usa wrote: Both those posts overlap a little bit, mainly because of the highlighted item.
How many illegal immigrants are retired on SS or receive SSD? The number is pretty small and insignificant as far as I know. It is pretty easy to pay into the Social Security fund with a fake SS#. It's pretty damn hard to take that money back out. So removing illegal immigrants from the group paying in actually hurts the pot because they contribute more than they take.
I have seen a couple studies that show that illegal immigrants pay more in taxes and Social Security fees than they take. Less so with illegals that get paid under the table without a SS#, but even they still pay local taxes.
A study released by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) estimates that illegal immigration now costs federal and local taxpayers $113 billion a year. The report, The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers, is the most comprehensive analysis of how much the estimated 13 million illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children cost the federal, state and local governments
The cost estimates are based on an extensive analysis of federal, state and local spending data. The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers examines dozens of government programs that are available to illegal aliens and their U.S.-born children, both legally and fraudulently. The report provides detailed analysis of the impact of illegal immigration on education, health care, law enforcement and justice, public assistance, and other government programs.
The report also accounts for taxes paid by illegal aliens about $13 billion a year, resulting in a net cost to taxpayers of about $100 billion. However, the study notes that government at all levels would likely have realized significantly greater revenues if jobs held by illegal aliens had been filled by legal U.S. residents instead.
Federal spending on illegal aliens amounts to $29 billion, finds Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers. The lion’s share of the costs of illegal immigration is borne by state and local taxpayers an estimated $84.2 billion. In 18 states, expenditures on illegal aliens exceeded the size of those states’ budget deficits in FY 2009.
Among the key findings of The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers:
The $113 billion in outlays for services and benefits to illegal aliens and their families represents an average cost to native-headed households of $1,117 a year. Because the burdens of illegal immigration are not evenly distributed, the costs are much higher in states with large illegal alien populations.
Education for the children of illegal aliens represents the single largest public expenditure at an annual cost of $52 billion. Nearly all of that cost is absorbed by state and local governments.
The federal government recoups about one-third of its share of the costs of illegal immigration in the form of taxes collected. States, which bear a much greater share of the costs, recoup a mere 5 percent of their expenditures from taxes paid by illegal aliens.
Granting amnesty to illegal aliens, as President Obama and others propose, would not significantly increase tax revenues generated by current illegal aliens. However, over time, amnesty would dramatically increase public costs as newly-legalized aliens become eligible for all means-tested government programs.
Arizona’s annual cost of illegal immigration is $2.5 billion.
“The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers provides a definitive response to the question of whether illegal aliens are a net benefit or a net drain on government coffers,” stated Dan Stein president of FAIR. “The report examines virtually every federal, state and local government program to determine the impact of illegal immigration on the bottom line. That bottom line $113 billion a year, and growing makes our nation’s failure to control illegal immigration one of the largest preventable burdens borne by American taxpayers.”
“If political leaders in Washington and state capitals want to understand why the American public is demanding enforcement of our immigration laws, The Fiscal Burden of Illegal Immigration on U.S. Taxpayers, provides 113 billion good reasons,” Stein concluded.
In hosting America's largest population of illegal immigrants, California bears a huge cost to provide basic human services for this fast growing, low-income segment of its population. A new study from the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) examines the costs of education, health care and incarceration of illegal aliens, and concludes that the costs to Californians is $10.5 billion per year.
Among the key finding of the report are that the state's already struggling K-12 education system spends approximately $7.7 billion a year to school the children of illegal aliens who now constitute 15 percent of the student body. Another $1.4 billion of the taxpayers' money goes toward providing health care to illegal aliens and their families, the same amount that is spent incarcerating illegal aliens criminals.
"California's addiction to 'cheap' illegal alien labor is bankrupting the state and posing enormous burdens on the state's shrinking middle class tax base," stated Dan Stein, President of FAIR. "Most Californians, who have seen their taxes increase while public services deteriorate, already know the impact that mass illegal immigration is having on their communities, but even they may be shocked when they learn just how much of a drain illegal immigration has become."
The Costs of Illegal Immigration to Californians focuses on three specific program areas because those were the costs examined by researchers from the Urban Institute in 1994. Looking at the costs of education, health care and incarceration for illegal aliens in 1994, the Urban Institute estimated that California was subsidizing illegal immigrants to the tune of about $1.1 billion. The enormous rise in the costs of illegal immigrants over the intervening ten years is due to the rapid growth in illegal residents. It is reasonable to expect those costs to continue to soar if action is not taken to turn the tide.
"Nineteen ninety-four was the same year that California voters rebelled and overwhelmingly passed Proposition 187, which sought to limit liability for mass illegal immigration. Since then, state and local governments have blatantly ignored the wishes of the voters and continued to shell out publicly financed benefits on illegal aliens," said Stein. "Predictably, the costs of illegal immigration have grown geometrically, while the state has spiraled into a fiscal crisis that has brought it near bankruptcy.
"Nothing could more starkly illustrate the very high costs of ‘cheap labor' than California's current situation," continued Stein. "A small number of powerful interests in the state reap the benefits, while the average native-born family in California gets handed a nearly $1,200 a year bill."
The Federation for American Immigration Reform is a nonprofit, public-interest, membership organization advocating immigration policy reforms that would tighten border security and prevent illegal immigration, while reducing legal immigration levels from about 1.1 million persons per year to 300,000 per year.
Illegal immigration costs the taxpayers of California — which has the highest number of illegal aliens nationwide — $10.5 billion a year for education, health care and incarceration, according to a study released yesterday.
A key finding of the report by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) said the state’s already struggling kindergarten-through-12th-grade education system spends $7.7 billion a year on children of illegal aliens, who constitute 15 percent of the student body.
The report also said the incarceration of convicted illegal aliens in state prisons and jails and uncompensated medical outlays for health care provided to illegal aliens each amounted to about $1.4 billion annually. The incarceration costs did not include judicial expenditures or the monetary costs of the crimes committed by illegal aliens that led to their incarceration.
“California’s addiction to ‘cheap’ illegal-alien labor is bankrupting the state and posing enormous burdens on the state’s shrinking middle-class tax base,” said FAIR President Dan Stein.
“Most Californians, who have seen their taxes increase while public services deteriorate, already know the impact that mass illegal immigration is having on their communities, but even they may be shocked when they learn just how much of a drain illegal immigration has become,” he said.
California is estimated to be home to nearly 3 million illegal aliens.
Mr. Stein noted that state and local taxes paid by the unauthorized immigrant population go toward offsetting these costs, but do not match expenses. The total of such payments was estimated in the report to be about $1.6 billion per year.
He also said the total cost of illegal immigration to the state’s taxpayers would be considerably higher if other cost areas, such as special English instruction, school meal programs or welfare benefits for American workers displaced by illegal-alien workers were added into the equation.
Gerardo Gonzalez, director of the National Latino Research Center at California State at San Marcos, which compiles data on Hispanics, was critical of FAIR’s report yesterday. He said FAIR’s estimates did not measure some of the contributions that illegal aliens make to the state’s economy.
“Beyond taxes, these workers’ production and spending contribute to California’s economy, especially the agricultural sector,” he said, adding that both legal and illegal aliens are the “backbone” of the state’s $28 billion-a-year agricultural industry.
In August, a similar study by the Center for Immigration Studies in Washington, said U.S. households headed by illegal aliens used $26.3 billion in government services during 2002, but paid $16 billion in taxes, an annual cost to taxpayers of $10 billion.
The FAIR report focused on three specific program areas because those were the costs examined by researchers from the Urban Institute in 1994, Mr. Stein said. Looking at the costs of education, health care and incarceration for illegal aliens in 1994, the Urban Institute estimated that California was subsidizing illegal immigrants at about $1.1 billion a year.
Mr. Stein said an enormous rise in the costs of illegal immigrants in 10 years is because of the rapid growth of the illegal population. He said it is reasonable to expect those costs to continue to soar if action is not taken to turn the tide.
“1994 was the same year that California voters rebelled and overwhelmingly passed Proposition 187, which sought to limit liability for mass illegal immigration,” he said. “Since then, state and local governments have blatantly ignored the wishes of the voters and continued to shell out publicly financed benefits on illegal aliens.
“Predictably, the costs of illegal immigration have grown geometrically, while the state has spiraled into a fiscal crisis that has brought it near bankruptcy,” he said.
Mr. Stein said that the state must adopt measures to systematically collect information on illegal-alien use of taxpayer-funded services and on where they are employed, and that policies need to be pursued to hold employers financially accountable.
Executive Summary
DHS This study is one of the first to estimate the total impact of illegal immigration on the federal budget. Most previous studies have focused on the state and local level and have examined only costs or tax payments, but not both. Based on Census Bureau data, this study finds that, when all taxes paid (direct and indirect) and all costs are considered, illegal households created a net fiscal deficit at the federal level of more than $10 billion in 2002. We also estimate that, if there was an amnesty for illegal aliens, the net fiscal deficit would grow to nearly $29 billion.
Among the findings:
Households headed by illegal aliens imposed more than $26.3 billion in costs on the federal government in 2002 and paid only $16 billion in taxes, creating a net fiscal deficit of almost $10.4 billion, or $2,700 per illegal household.
Among the largest costs are Medicaid ($2.5 billion); treatment for the uninsured ($2.2 billion); food assistance programs such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches ($1.9 billion); the federal prison and court systems ($1.6 billion); and federal aid to schools ($1.4 billion).
With nearly two-thirds of illegal aliens lacking a high school degree, the primary reason they create a fiscal deficit is their low education levels and resulting low incomes and tax payments, not their legal status or heavy use of most social services.
On average, the costs that illegal households impose on federal coffers are less than half that of other households, but their tax payments are only one-fourth that of other households.
Many of the costs associated with illegals are due to their American-born children, who are awarded U.S. citizenship at birth. Thus, greater efforts at barring illegals from federal programs will not reduce costs because their citizen children can continue to access them.
If illegal aliens were given amnesty and began to pay taxes and use services like households headed by legal immigrants with the same education levels, the estimated annual net fiscal deficit would increase from $2,700 per household to nearly $7,700, for a total net cost of $29 billion.
Costs increase dramatically because unskilled immigrants with legal status -- what most illegal aliens would become -- can access government programs, but still tend to make very modest tax payments.
Although legalization would increase average tax payments by 77 percent, average costs would rise by 118 percent.
The fact that legal immigrants with few years of schooling are a large fiscal drain does not mean that legal immigrants overall are a net drain -- many legal immigrants are highly skilled.
The vast majority of illegals hold jobs. Thus the fiscal deficit they create for the federal government is not the result of an unwillingness to work.
The results of this study are consistent with a 1997 study by the National Research Council, which also found that immigrants' education level is a key determinant of their fiscal impact.
(a) employers will simply pass the cost of the fine to the consumer, same with a raised minimum wage.
(b) that one shouldn't have been lumped into the mix, sorry about that. I actually agree with helping people that want to get back.
(c) Hiring legal people and paying them taxes will raise prices on everything as the employer will simply pass the cost down to the consumer.
One of the big arguments against minimum wage increases is "it will make anything more expensive". Removing illegal immigrants will make everything more expensive as well.
If your argument is that prices go up so that US workers get a fair wage for work done then I agree - workers should receive a fair wage in an industry where the wages have been artificially depressed.
If your argument is that prices go up so that US workers get a fair wage for work done then I agree - workers should receive a fair wage in an industry where the wages have been artificially depressed.
Now we enter the other thread where we argue for 20 pages about what a fair wage is before it gets locked
If your argument is that prices go up so that US workers get a fair wage for work done then I agree - workers should receive a fair wage in an industry where the wages have been artificially depressed.
Now we enter the other thread where we argue for 20 pages about what a fair wage is before it gets locked
As far as I am concerned that is a discussion for another time, although I do think it is fair to say that a wage that is not being artificially deflated is a significant step in the right direction.
The border needs to be secured better then it already is. The back doors in policies allowing Illegal Immigrants not to be deported needs to be rescinded. Word is out on how to avoid being deported from the US regardless of the time frame of one entering the Country. I gave inside info and no one getting it
I'll agree to a very minor point that my language could have been a little bit more precise. Many pro-amnesty rallies have people openly admitting their unlawful status, it was of those that I spoke. .
dogma wrote: The poll you're referencing had only 400 respondents when the standard is 1000; anything below that threshold is generally thrown out as unrepresentative.
Well, yeah, but we're talking about primary polling here - a handful of small population polls are often as good as you're going to get.
My suspicion is that many people refused to respond to polling due to an inherent bias against "the establishment".
The urge not to fit this in as part of some over-riding narrative is an important point. Anyhow, Silver says is quite nicely;
"The incidence of successful primary challenges to Republican incumbents is high by historical standards. But we knew that already, and it’s not all that high in an absolute sense. Cantor’s defeat doesn’t tell us that much about the risk — nor did McConnell’s victory. We can perform an autopsy on Cantor’s campaign — and he should probably fire his pollster."
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: True... but the writer missed the point. Brat is upset by the fact that Christians these days are too "morally weak" to stand firm in the face of Hitlerian evil and urged them to be more resolute against a "New Hitler". This writer is trying to frame Brat as some sort of pro-Nazi Hitler rehabilitation.
No he isn't. The writer of the article being comments at all, and his quotes of Brat are large and give full context to his comments. I read the article and thought much as I did after all these articles - that Brat is an intelligent thinker who make some interesting observations while at the same time being something of a lunatic... the kind of guy it'd be interesting to debate with on dakka, but as guy likely to be given legislative power it's a bit of a concern (though much less of a concern than a fair few people who are already in power). There's no hint at all in the article that the author is even trying to imply some kind of pro-Hitler element.
. It's good to know that the crazies eventually go away. I think however that the state of Queensland should be prevented from voting.
