DACA - DREAM ACT - Immigration Reform Thread

[TLR Is Mental Poison]

they can't "reinvent" themselves because this is who they are

this isn't like apple trying to reinvent its market perception of recycling ideas like new aol internet disk

you're talking about living functioning ppl

Please explain to me how a person like Bauchmann reinvents herself? Or a person like Rod Parsley (the prosperity preacher). Again this is the shyt they live. This is them.

The republicans y'all are talking about are Mitt Romney, John Huntsman, David Brooks. The moderate "I'm just a republican cause I like Reagans semen" electorate.

The republican party CANNOT reinvent itself without 1 of those 2 contrasting groups breaking a part. The Moderate Reaganbots have to leave and create a new party based on economic policies only. And the "I live by my faith" right wingers have to break a part.

But the two cannot coexist as a "party" by putting Rubio as the head and trying to "reinvent" itself. Its not gonna happen.

The republican party died in 2008. The grave just wasn't deep enough.

Dems have internal conflict that could warrant a split, but they are OK to stay as one party

Repubs have internal conflict that could warrant a split, they can't survive and removing them from the political stage is a worthy goal

I don't want to be "that guy" but I think your bias might be showing just a lil bit

 

[Brown_Pride]

No. No. No. What you just described is the perfect example of why people on the left don't understand the working class guy on the right. Those social issues mean a lot to them. You say Joe Schmo as if the educated don't already vote Democratic. Joe Schmo is why the Republican Party is still viable. It is based on cultural issues and beliefs. Beliefs that have persevered over generations. More importantly, what makes you believe that Republicans will win on fiscal issues? Were you not paying attention from 2006-2008?

What happened? The Democrats brought in pro-life Democrats (Dixiecrats if you will), and all these Bluedog guys and they took back everything. Their economic positions were the same, but their social stances gave those people on the fence the green light to back them. They gave into that cultural war. That's how they got their majority and that's why they were a big tent and Obama couldn't get them to do everything he wanted.

The Republicans I'm talking about are the guys who make up the tea party and they have always voted against what we consider to be their economic interests on the basis of cultural issues. If Republicans give that up then how are they going to win back the Midwest and places like Carolina that are more sympathetic to the Democratic economic vision when it is stated to them in personal terms?

well i thought "Joe Schmo REPUBLICAN" implied I was talking about the average republican but I see it wasn't specific enough.

Democrats got 39% of the "white vote" this time around meaning the republicans had that pretty well locked. Where did the GOP lose out?
Women
Latinos
Youth.

What i'm getting at is they can tone down the anti-rhetoric on the first two in order to make inroads.

Electorally the election was not close. Population wise it was much closer.(3 million)

GOP are themselves admitting they need to make moves for latinos. They can make those moves without stepping on the toes on religious toes.

The woman thing is a bit trickier but doing nothing is not doign something. I'm not saying the GOP needs to come out in support of xyz. They just need to not be completely against certain things. The hinged their hopes on sticking to their guns, they are realizing now that some change is required.

The Republican _Tea I WOULD GUESS is a fringe. They, IMHO could safely distance themselves in favor of a more moderate (classical) republican platform and win back many of ye old white women and i dare say at least not get blown the fukk out by the latino vote.

I'm not sayings it's easy, or even possible for these changes to occur, i'm saying some shyt needs to change and I think the GOP recognizes that. HOW and what changes exactly...Well i gave my best guess for now.

 

[No1]

well i thought "Joe Schmo REPUBLICAN" implied I was talking about the average republican but I see it wasn't specific enough.

Democrats got 39% of the "white vote" this time around meaning the republicans had that pretty well locked. Where did the GOP lose out?
Women
Latinos
Youth.

What i'm getting at is they can tone down the anti-rhetoric on the first two in order to make inroads.

Electorally the election was not close. Population wise it was much closer.(3 million)

GOP are themselves admitting they need to make moves for latinos. They can make those moves without stepping on the toes on religious toes.

The woman thing is a bit trickier but doing nothing is not doign something. I'm not saying the GOP needs to come out in support of xyz. They just need to not be completely against certain things. The hinged their hopes on sticking to their guns, they are realizing now that some change is required.

The Republican _Tea I WOULD GUESS is a fringe. They, IMHO could safely distance themselves in favor of a more moderate (classical) republican platform and win back many of ye old white women and i dare say at least not get blown the fukk out by the latino vote.

I'm not sayings it's easy, or even possible for these changes to occur, i'm saying some shyt needs to change and I think the GOP recognizes that. HOW and what changes exactly...Well i gave my best guess for now.

What I'm saying is that they cannot do what your suggesting without losing that group that you said they have locked. They got about 6% more of the white vote than they received last time. If Obama does well economically that can sway back.

But more importantly, 7 million white people stayed home this election. Any overtures made to those groups will probably result in even more of them staying home. Think about it, Romney had to go to the far right to win the Republican primary. Those "tea party fringe" people you're talking about ARE the Republican base. It's why my boys who are Rockefeller-type Republicans hate the current Republican party. They hate the Tea Party and the far right and they know that there's nothing that can be done about it.

That is the average Republican right now. The traditional Republicans like Tom Ridge won't even make it that far. So how can you put forward these reforms to make overtures to Hispanics when doing that will get you thrown in the bushes in the primary? Like I said, the Republicans are going to have to kick those extremists out of the party (who will be relevant against in 2014 because targeted groups like that show up for midterm elections), but that will result in short-term Ls. Whatever they gain from minorities, the youth and women will be offset by what they lose from older people and white men and the working class white person in general.

They might not vote Democratic, they just might not vote period. So that brings me back to my point, these overtures everyone seems to think they need to make are much more difficult to make then you all seem to realize.

Boehner today came out and said Obamacare is the law of the land and that's that, his aides had to walk back his comments hours later. The guy's in a tough-spot. It took the Dems 12 years of losing before they finally realized they had to pivot to get a Clinton. Republicans are about to beef with each other for the rest of Obama's term.

 

[Brown_Pride]

What I'm saying is that they cannot do what your suggesting without losing that group that you said they have locked. They got about 6% more of the white vote than they received last time. If Obama does well economically that can sway back.

But more importantly, 7 million white people stayed home this election. Any overtures made to those groups will probably result in even more of them staying home. Think about it, Romney had to go to the far right to win the Republican primary. Those "tea party fringe" people you're talking about ARE the Republican base. It's why my boys who are Rockefeller-type Republicans hate the current Republican party. They hate the Tea Party and the far right and they know that there's nothing that can be done about it.

That is the average Republican right now. The traditional Republicans like Tom Ridge won't even make it that far. So how can you put forward these reforms to make overtures to Hispanics when doing that will get you thrown in the bushes in the primary? Like I said, the Republicans are going to have to kick those extremists out of the party (who will be relevant against in 2014 because targeted groups like that show up for midterm elections), but that will result in short-term Ls. Whatever they gain from minorities, the youth and women will be offset by what they lose from older people and white men and the working class white person in general.

They might not vote Democratic, they just might not vote period. So that brings me back to my point, these overtures everyone seems to think they need to make are much more difficult to make then you all seem to realize.

Boehner today came out and said Obamacare is the law of the land and that's that, his aides had to walk back his comments hours later. The guy's in a tough-spot. It took the Dems 12 years of losing before they finally realized they had to pivot to get a Clinton. Republicans are about to beef with each other for the rest of Obama's term.

i hear you and again, i'm not saying these changes are easy...but possibly necessary

The only way you break from that fringe is to break from it. They can't double down on this last election without losing even more. They know that. What options do they have but to give it a shot? If the keep on current pace 2016 will be the most one sided L in history, baring Obama errors.

Their current platform does not allow for them to win.

Not being snarky but wtf would you do?
oh and i think a lot of those "fringe" would vote republican if the GOP said something to the affect of "live and let live". It doesn't outright say they are FOR abortion, but it doesn't allow the Dems to say, "see they don't want you to have abortions".

IMHO that's their best option, tone it down. THey already lie so doing one thing and saying another is honestly their best approach right now. Telling their base they are anti abortion, then speaking publicly about how they are antiabortion but FOR allowing women to have them.

It don't make sense...but then that's the republican way.

I just don't see another way.

 

[Brown_Pride]

Condoleezza Rice: GOP sent 'mixed messages' - Election News - KTAR.com

Rice is saying it now. The shift is already taking place. The new rhetoric is that they will have to change or die. Like it or not the GOP is goign to attempt to change. Based on how many talking heads both official and non the message has gone out they need to CHANGE and HOPE for the best. Irony.

I suspect we'll see them doing this "prep work" for some time. They are basically droping the subliminal "we need to expand our horizons" so that when they start expanding those horizons it's less shocking.

 

[Jello Biafra]

The Daily Caller has obtained details of an ACHIEVE Act proposal being floated by some Senate Republicans.

It appears similar to the conservative alternative to the Dream Act that Sen. Marco Rubio worked on last summer (before President Obama issued his executive order, effectively tabling the issue until after the election).

Essentially, the proposal involves several tiers: W-1 visa status would allow an immigrant to attend college or serve in the military (they have six years to get a degree). After doing so, they would be eligible to apply for a four-year nonimmigrant work visa (also can be used for graduate degrees).

Next, applicants would be eligible to apply for a permanent visa (no welfare benefits.) Finally, after a set number of years, citizenship “could follow…”

Below are a few of the details being floated to be eligible for the W-1 visa:

- “Applicant must have lived in the U.S. for five year’s prior to the Act’s enactment”;

- Must have entered the country before age 14

- Must have good moral character

- “Applicant must not have committed a felony, must not have committed more than one misdemeanor with a jail term of more than 30 days, must not have committed a crime of moral turpitude, and must not have a final order of removal pending”‘

- Must have knowledge of the English language, U.S. history, “and of principles of U.S. government”

- Applicant must be 28 or younger at time of application (or 32 if they have a bachelor’s degree from a U.S. college);

- Must pay a $525 fee

- Must submit to a medical exam and a background check, submit biometric and biographic data, and register with the Selective Service.

Details about the GOP's alternate to the DREAM Act emerge | The Daily Caller

I guess some in the GOP are serious about trying to change their image in regards to immigration.
Wonder how the proposed legislation will go over with the more hardline conservative and Tea Party wing of the party.

 

[King Sun]

I guess some in the GOP are serious about trying to change their image in regards to immigration.
Wonder how the proposed legislation will go over with the more hardline conservative and Tea Party wing of the party.

sounds fair to me.

 

[Broke Wave]

boooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[Mr swag]

What happens after the 4 years is over after they get a degree

 

[tru_m.a.c]

that shyt is the dream act

All they did was stack years to discourage folks/increase their chances of legal/financial troubles

we really gonna act like in the spring of 2011, unions were backed into a corner in wisconsin while hispanics were fighting for the Dream Act???

this fukkn country man...I swear fo gawd!

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

Rethugs will throw the last decade in the bushes, act brand new and take credit for whatever immigration deal comes about.

 

[No1]

Rethugs will throw the last decade in the bushes, act brand new and take credit for whatever immigration deal comes about.

Except the President always gets credit. :obamaword:

But this shyt won't fly with a lot of those insurgents in the House. It'll get ugly and they'll find a way to fukk it up.

 

[The_Sheff]

fukk that shyt. Throw all of that out, i dont want the repubs to be able to say THEIR bill was the one that was adopted. Anything they try to propose, throw it out and make a new one.

 

[Alexander The Great]

Must have knowledge of the English language, U.S. history, “and of principles of U.S. government”

this shyt always makes me laugh. 75% of natural born citizens would fail this

 

[Street Knowledge]

Obama To 'Begin An All Out Drive For Comprehensive Immigration Reform' In January | ThinkProgress

President Obama will “begin an all-out drive for comprehensive immigration reform, including seeking a path to citizenship for 11 million illegal immigrants,” after Congress addresses the fiscal cliff, the Los Angeles Times reports. The revelation comes just as a top Hispanic Democrat, Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-IL), is calling on Obama to step-up his involvement on the issue and engage in discussions with lawmakers.

The Obama administration’s “social media blitz” will start in January and is expected “to tap the same organizations and unions that helped get a record number of Latino voters to reelect the president.” Cabinet secretaries and lawmakers from both parties are already holding initial meetings to iron out the details of the proposal:

Cabinet secretaries are preparing to make the case for how changes in immigration laws could benefit businesses, education, healthcare and public safety. Congressional committees could hold hearings on immigration legislation as soon as late January or early February. [...]
In conversations with congressional offices, White House officials have said the president would be “all in” on the issue and would want to push for a broad bill. But officials have not been specific about exactly how the president will use the bully pulpit or whether immigration will be a showpiece of the inaugural speech on Jan. 21 or the State of the Union address in early February. [...]
A bipartisan group of six senators met behind closed doors in the Capitol for 30 minutes on Tuesday night for what is expected to be the first of many meetings on how to get a version of the immigration bill through Congress. On the Republican side, the newly elected junior senator from Arizona, Jeff Flake, joined longtime immigration reform advocates Graham and John McCain of Arizona for the talks. The Democrats were Schumer, Robert Menendez of New Jersey and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois.

During the presidential campaign, Obama identified the lack of immigration reform as his “biggest failure,” telling a Univision “Meet The Candidates” forum in September that “after the election … if they (the Republicans) have seen that people who care about this issue have turned out in strong numbers, that they will rethink it, if not because it’s the right thing to do, at least because it’s in their political interest to do so.”

Since Obama won 72 percent of the Hispanic vote in the November election, a growing number of Republicans have indeed softened their opposition to comprehensive immigration reform. Last month, the House GOP advanced a bill that would add visas for highly skilled workers while reducing legal immigration overall. The STEM Act expands the number of visas available to international students who earn masters and doctorates in science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) fields at U.S. universities, while also cutting the Diversity Visa program and reducing the number of total visas available. The Obama administration and Senate Democrats have come out against the measure and have generally opposed some Republican efforts — led by Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) to adopt piecemeal reforms.