Immigration fight: all about future voters

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8705
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby Huckleby » Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:51 pm

Romney gave a speech today to a hispanic organization, said he wants a permanent policy where green cards are issued to illegals who get advanced degrees, or serve in the military. This is similar to the aborted proposal that Marco Rubio was cooking up in the Sentate.

So what's wrong with this picture? The Romney-Rubio proposals are somewhat similar Obama executive order. ARe we all getting along?

Well, the difference is that REpublicans want to make permanent the status of young illegals as non-citizens. They created a space for young Hispanics in America where they can work and contribute, but they just can't vote. This the new Dream Act - the Republican dream solution that is.

So we see now what what Republicans really care about when it comes to immigration - more brown voters. I suppose you could accuse Dems of just caring about expanding their own voter roles, but they have decency on their side - they aren't looking to create a permanently disenfranchised class of people.
Last edited by Huckleby on Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7981
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison
Contact:

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby fisticuffs » Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:56 pm

The Dream Act passed the Democratic controlled House and then lost 55-41 in the Senate. Yes, in the US Senate 41 votes beats 55.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8705
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby Huckleby » Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:58 pm

The right wing politicians and pundits keep repeating, "Obama had control of Congress {a dubious claim} for two years, and didn't even try to do anything for hispanics." The boobs on TV rarely contradict this claim and mention that the Dems tried to pass the Dream ACt.

Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby Detritus » Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:23 pm

Huckleby wrote:Romney gave a speech today to a hispanic organization, said he wants a permanent policy where green cards are issued to illegals who get advanced degrees, or serve in the military.

This is not exactly how I see it represented in the press. This is from MSNBC, but all the services have basically the same text:
Romney also pledged to find a path to legal citizenship for any immigrant who serves in the U.S. military, and argued that visas ought to be automatic for science and technology students who come here to be educated – and under current rules then often go home to create jobs in other countries because they're not allowed to stay.

That is, legal citizenship for military service (but not education), and automatic green cards for STEM graduates (but not, presumably, business, humanities, arts, etc graduates). I don't see anything about "permanent green card status." Where did you get that?

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 21625
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Jun 21, 2012 5:41 pm

Romney gave his typical response when confronted with a major policy issue that Obama has addressed. He just says he'd do it better if elected. But he is extremely vague on how he would do so. Details will come later... much later.

BTW, when is he ever going to release his tax returns?

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8705
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby Huckleby » Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:04 pm

Detritus wrote:That is, legal citizenship for military service (but not education), and automatic green cards for STEM graduates (but not, presumably, business, humanities, arts, etc graduates). I don't see anything about "permanent green card status." Where did you get that?

Who knows what slippery words "legal status" means? He never said "citizenship", probably because it pisses off wingers.

Even if he means citizenship for soldiers, that is a tiny, symbolic number of new immigrants with voting rights.

Green cards for advanced STEM degrees? Jesus, how generous, bold, how far-thinking. While this is a no-brainer, it hardly has much effect on legal immigration. Stinking green cards. How about path to full citizenship for ANY non-citizen that completes a college or technical degree in the United States? This can do nothing but help our economy in long run, plus give huge boost to our eductional system.

The military and STEM are diversions from the issue at hand: Give kids raised in United STates a fucking path to citizenship. PERIOD! It's just basic decency. What do we want? Citizenship! When do we want it? Eventually!

The Republicans are fond of saying they are pro-immigration, just anti-illegal immigration. What a pant load. They are fond of legal immigration just as long as it is kept at very low levels. What we have is an anal, white tribe reacting against changing demographics.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 12958
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby snoqueen » Thu Jun 21, 2012 7:31 pm

I think whoever manages to give new citizenship to the most Latino people in this country has the election in his hands. People who do not want citizenship for workers already in this country pretty much aren't voting for Obama anyway, so Obama has little to lose if he tries. He should move as quickly as possible to enfranchise as many as possible in time for November.

Giving citizenship to as many young people as possible is a step but if someone can bring their parents on board too, that's a big chunk of voters who would be likely to thank him by voting for a second term. It shouldn't just be holders of advanced degrees -- this country needs roofers and landscapers as bad as it needs, say, architects. Probably more, in fact.

Of course, it's not just about getting the votes, it's about basic fairness. But in politics getting votes matters.

I think Romney may have just gotten the news. He should have sat down before this and talked with his own groundskeepers or janitors.

johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1782
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby johnfajardohenry » Thu Jun 21, 2012 8:58 pm

I find the word "Hispanic" in this context annoying. Not a criticism of anyone here, it is a common practice. It is still annoying. Latino, ditto.

We have 3 major classes of Spanish speakers in the US:

Puerto Ricans. Puerto Ricans born in PR are natural born, 14th Amendment, citizens just as if they had been born in NY or California. So none of this discussion applies to them.

Cubans. Cubans have their own special laws about legality. Once they get "feet dry", they can stay in the US legally. Their kids, mostly born in the US, are citizens. So it doesn't apply to them, either.

Mexicans and central Americans. These are the ones who are here illegally. These are the ones who the dream act mainly benefits.

Then we have Philipinos, Dominicans, South Americans. Spaniards are not considered "Hispanic". There are a number in this group but all tolled, nowhere near as many as in any of the other groups.

None of these groups have much in common ethnically, economically, culturally or any other way. It is like lumping Pakistanis, Indonesians, Mongolians and Japanese together because they all come from "Asia".

Makes no sense at all to me.

Just a pet peeve of mine. Carry on.

johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1782
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby johnfajardohenry » Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:03 pm

Huckleby wrote:The right wing politicians and pundits keep repeating, "Obama had control of Congress {a dubious claim} for two years, and didn't even try to do anything for hispanics." The boobs on TV rarely contradict this claim and mention that the Dems tried to pass the Dream ACt.



Why is that a dubious claim?

Obama, or at least the Demmies, had control of the House and Senate for 2 years from 2009-2011. Or am I missing something.

Pelosi was not Speaker?

Reid was not Senate Majority leader?

Explain please.

John Henry

fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7981
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison
Contact:

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby fisticuffs » Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:29 pm

Why did the 55 votes for the Dream Act lost to the 41 votes against? That is what you are missing. Unprecedented procedural obstruction. I'd go as far as calling it treason. Republicans have prevented any and all recovery from the financial meltdown their policies directly caused for political gain.

Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby Detritus » Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:36 pm

Huckleby wrote:Who knows what slippery words "legal status" means? He never said "citizenship", probably because it pisses off wingers.

Let me be clear that I have even less use for Romney than I do for Obama, particularly when it comes to immigration policy which, along with the "war on drugs" and GWOT, and concomitant militarization of our borders is wreaking havoc with our country and perpetrating enormous injustice to citizens and non-citizens alike. Hard as it may be to believe, I think Romney would make the handling of the border and immigrants even more punitive than Obama has.

Nevertheless, I repeat: Where did you get that phrasing? Everything I have found regarding his speech uses the word "citizenship" that you say he never said, and I only find the phrase "legal status" in your posting.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8705
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby Huckleby » Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:10 am

johnfajardohenry wrote:
Huckleby wrote:The right wing politicians and pundits keep repeating, "Obama had control of Congress {a dubious claim} for two years, and didn't even try to do anything for hispanics." The boobs on TV rarely contradict this claim and mention that the Dems tried to pass the Dream ACt.


Why is that a dubious claim?

Obama, or at least the Demmies, had control of the House and Senate for 2 years from 2009-2011. Or am I missing something.

Pelosi was not Speaker?

Reid was not Senate Majority leader?
It depends on how you define "control" - in nominal or practical sense.
There were 58 Dems in the Senate, 2 Independents who voted with Dems for leadership, but one of who, Joe Lieberman, often sided with Republicans. Since the Republicans are a united, obstructionist party, they are able to filibuster legisation by simply picking- off one conservative Democrat. For instance, Ben Nelson of Nebraska is a Democrat in name only.

The Democrats are not a party, they are a broad and loose coalition. There are zero issues they can stick together on. With 40 Republicans in the Senate, and zero Republicans willing to cooperate with Dems, the Republicans effectively had veto power.

BTW, Scott Brown (R - MA) took a seat in January 2010, so the Dems only had nominal control of Senate for 1 stinking year.

"Obama and the Democrats" did not control the Senate for that first year. The most conservative Democrat on any issue controlled the Senate for that year.

On an issue like Immigration, where it is very difficult to form a coalition even with support from both parties, the Republicans (and some Dems) easily blocked any progress whatsoever.

fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7981
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison
Contact:

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby fisticuffs » Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:16 am

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012062100 ... t=My+Yahoo
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... gress.html
In 2010, despite nearly unanimous opposition from Republicans, the DREAM Act passed the House. The bill died in the Senate, even though three years earlier, a dozen Republican senators had supported it. ABC News wrote at the time: "By a vote of 55 to 41, the bill -- the Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors, or DREAM Act -- failed to win the 60 votes needed to break a GOP filibuster, even though the measure passed the House last week."


Dems acted. Republicans filibustered. Anyone claiming the dems failed to act on immigration is a liar. This includes Mittington Williard Romney.
Last edited by fisticuffs on Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8705
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby Huckleby » Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:16 am

Detritus wrote: Nevertheless, I repeat: Where did you get that phrasing?

CNN, NY TIMES, NPR
I never heard word "citizenship" on FOX either
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/us/po ... ation.html

And if he did utter the word somewhere, it was in reference to an insignificant number of soldiers, so lets get back to the main topic: all of those disenfranchised, innocent kids who grew up in America.

Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3459
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:56 am

fisticuffs wrote:Why did the 55 votes for the Dream Act lost to the 41 votes against? That is what you are missing. Unprecedented procedural obstruction. I'd go as far as calling it treason.



As liberal from Wisconsin, you might want to tone down the treason claims, when referring to the minority of a legislative body stopping a bill from passing, through unprecedented obstructionist procedures.

Or is it only treason if you like the bill that gets blocked?


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests