Reports: Bipartisan Senate immigration proposal will grant citizenship to illegals in 13 years

posted at 12:01 pm on March 18, 2013 by Allahpundit

So say the NYT and WaPo. Obama’s own immigration proposal, by contrast, imagines citizenship for illegals in, er … 13 years. So that’s what having four Republicans in the “Gang of Eight” gets you — the same basic scheme as our very liberal president.

Cory Booker should be ready to run by 2028, so there you go. You’re welcome, Cory.

The arrangement would shrink the amount of time it takes to become a naturalized citizen, to three years from five years. But in an appeal to Republicans, it would also extend to 10 years, from 8, the amount of time that illegal immigrants must wait before receiving permission to work in the United States permanently…

Among those obstacles is a continuing concern among Republicans that a three-year naturalization process for illegal immigrants could give them a faster path to citizenship than people who enter legally. One possible solution, officials said, would be to reduce the wait for citizenship to three years for everyone. But they said the agreement could still unravel.

“We can’t create a system where it’s faster for illegal immigrants than for legal immigrants,” said one Republican familiar with the internal debate who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Republicans are clear that they are not going to create a special pathway to citizenship.”…

And as a side benefit, waiting a decade would mean that the costs of the overhaul would not kick in until the second decade because illegal immigrants do not qualify for government benefits until after they earn green cards. That means the 10-year cost estimates by the Congressional Budget Office would not include the expense of those benefits.

The cost of ObamaCare was gamed in a similar way. With O-Care, Democrats needed a way in 2010 to push the 10-year cost of the bill under a trillion dollars so that it’d be easier for the public to swallow. Solution: Postpone the start of the program until 2014, thereby rendering the cost for 2011, 2012, and 2013 effectively zero. In this case they’re pushing the total costs of new entitlements for illegals entirely out of that 10-year window, with the full brunt to hit circa 2026 — right as America’s long-awaited entitlement-driven debt crisis is hitting full force.

As for the timeline, Obama’s immigration plan imagines a green card in eight years and citizenship in five. Senate Democrats agreed to make the green-card period for this bill 10 years so that Rubio and McCain could treat us like idiots in arguing that they’d won some big concession. In fact, here’s what Rubio wrote at Red State back in January:

First, those who have violated our immigration laws must come forward and undergo a background check. If they have committed a serious crime, they will be deported. If they have not, they will have two choices. They can avail themselves of the current law which requires them to return to their native country, wait ten years and then apply for a green card. Or if they decide to remain in the United States, they will do so under the equivalent of a non-immigrant work permit by paying a substantial fine and back taxes. If they choose the non-immigrant work visa, they will not qualify for any federal benefits, including ObamaCare.

Those who choose the non-immigrant work permit will not be allowed to apply for a green card for a substantial period of time. And they will not be allowed to apply until the enforcement mechanisms outlined above are in place. Thereafter, once these conditions are met, and if they have not violated any laws while holding the work permit, the only thing they will be allowed to do is apply for a green card using the same process everyone else uses. That is, they apply, they wait in line behind everyone who has applied before them and when their turn comes up, they have to qualify for one of the existing green card programs.

I reasoned the next day that “substantial period of time” must mean a period considerably longer than 10 years. Otherwise, what incentive is there to choose the first option Rubio offers? If you’re getting a green card in the same amount of time no matter whether you stay in America or you leave, then there’s no incentive to leave. And yet that’s where we are today. The “substantial period of time” is the same period as the normal green-card period. And unless Congress tweaks the law so that legal immigrants can apply for citizenship in three years instead of five — which Dems will be happy to spearhead, I assume — then illegals will actually reach citizenship faster than legal immigrants will.

The only hitch is that illegals might have to wait an extra year or two for the green-card process to begin if Rubio gets his way by insisting that border-enforcement improvements be put in place before anything related to citizenship starts happening. But that’s still an open question, and meanwhile Rubio’s continuing to work on the bill and to lend his conservative cred to the compromises they’re reaching. What if they hammer out a final deal on the remaining issues — guest-worker program, visas, E-verify — and then Democrats turn around and declare that there’s no way they’ll make the citizenship process contingent upon border security as a trigger? Rubio might walk away at that point, but so what? They’ll have a bill that’ll have his support on every major plank except that one, and there are probably seven or eight Republican squishes in the Senate who’ll vote for it regardless. McCain, Graham, Collins, Murkowski — you know the names by now. In fact, the RNC’s new “autopsy” released today fully endorses comprehensive immigration reform as a partial solution to the party’s woes. Pro-amnesty Republicans have plenty of cover on this from the top. The only question is whether there are enough of them who think they can survive primary challenges to join Reid and Schumer on passing the bill.

In case you missed the previous 800 iterations of this argument, here’s Matthew Cooper at National Journal once again reminding Republicans that Latinos are solidly liberal on the issues and not likely to switch to the GOP anytime soon.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Instead, it was all shut the F&CK UP, SIT THE HELL DOWN and VOTE regardless if Romney is going to be Obama light!

astonerii on March 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM

By the way, the Romney fanatics got their last wish… I voted for the turd, but I left my entire family and set of hard to get to the polls friends home. I did not talk to them at all, I mean, that was the first part, right? Shut the f^ck up? Sit down… Sure did…

astonerii on March 18, 2013 at 3:33 PM

And will these wizards of smart be allowing ILLEGAL aliens to keep their citizenship with their birth country so they can be “dual citizens?”

Here in California lots of my friends are dual citizens and several of them are planning to go back to their birth countries as they witness the decline of the U.S. economy.

Silly me. I am an American citizen with no back-up dual citizenship, so I need to work hard to try to reverse the decline of my country.

Meanwhile my dual citizen friends say they don’t have time to pay attention to politics, even though these low-information voters still vote.

END DUAL CITIZENSHIP NOW!

If we actually valued U.S citizenship, we would only grant it to people who wanted to become 100% Americans.

wren on March 18, 2013 at 3:34 PM

First, those who have violated our immigration laws must come forward and undergo a background check. If they have committed a serious crime, they will be deported. If they have not, they will have two choices.

Isn’t Big Sis releasing criminal illegals because of sequestration? 70 to 75 % of these people will vote democratic. The end is near.

alanstern on March 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM

The states are no longer freely associated, they are forced to be servants to the Federal Government rather than be served by the Federal Government.

astonerii on March 18, 2013 at 2:24 PM

I would go a step further and say that, in many ways, they are nothing more than districts of the national government.

astonerii on March 18, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Remember Franklin’s answer about what sort of government we now had? Exactly.

GWB on March 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM

All, quit calling them “illegal immigrants”.

They are not “immigrants”. It lessons and insults legal immigrants and all their sacrifices and respect for the US laws.

These are illegal aliens who broke/disrespected the US laws.

NO land in the world allows what the US does.

No land self-destructs in the same fashion.

Schadenfreude on March 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM

END DUAL CITIZENSHIP NOW!

If we actually valued U.S citizenship, we would only grant it to people who wanted to become 100% Americans.

wren on March 18, 2013 at 3:34 PM

The US citizenship used to be exclusive. The people had to renounce their citizenship of origin, upon becoming US citizens. Now the law has changed so that one can hold not two, but more citizenships, concurrently.

Schadenfreude on March 18, 2013 at 3:41 PM

NO land in the world allows what the US does.

Schadenfreude on March 18, 2013 at 3:38 PM

Oh, I disagree. Somalia has open borders. I think Libya had open borders for a while. I think Mali has kinda open borders. Afghanistan definitely has open borders……..

GWB on March 18, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Illegal aliens have full access to welfare and other benefits, including health-care, now Obama’care’, in most states. They have some bennies in all states. Obama and Napolitano and the governors see to it. In some cases the initiatives are local to the states, see Cali., and in others they are federal.

They have ruined Cali, NV, NM, and a few others and the disease spreads.

Schadenfreude on March 18, 2013 at 3:45 PM

the Rs can win in 2016 if they do more to embrace young people and Latinos… You?

Illinidiva on March 18, 2013 at 2:07 PM

You mean like wear sombreros and paint ourselves in dark tanning material and call ourselves “Juan” and “Josita” and things like that?

Seriously, what’s with this ongoing request that we “do more to embrace…Latinos”?

You know how ridiculous it is when adults try to “fit in” with “youth” and you see parents trying to dress like their “youth” kid?

That’s how ridiculous (and artificial) this whole “do more to embrace youth and Latinos” thing is.

I’m pointing out how ARTIFICIAL it is to try to custom one’s appearance and presence to suit the stereotypical roles of age, ethnicity (and race), respectively.

How is it YOU think the GOP should “do more to embrace youth and Latinos”?

I’d really like to read your answer to that.

Lourdes on March 18, 2013 at 3:46 PM

GWB on March 18, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Those are wild (open) lands, not civilized and constitutional lands.

Thanks for strengthening my point.

Schadenfreude on March 18, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Schadenfreude on March 18, 2013 at 3:46 PM

*tips my hat*

GWB on March 18, 2013 at 3:51 PM

The US citizenship used to be exclusive. The people had to renounce their citizenship of origin, upon becoming US citizens. Now the law has changed so that one can hold not two, but more citizenships, concurrently.

Schadenfreude on March 18, 2013 at 3:41 PM

Yup, I also have a friend who immigrated legally who is a tri-citizen (Ireland, Canada and U.S.). And with her Irish citizenship, she has the right to live & work anywhere in the European Union.

Americans who only have one citizenship while granting multiple citizenship to others, especially to people who have entered our country ILLEGALLY, are fools!

wren on March 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Some of you squishes have no respect for people of another hue or culture.

It is insulting to pander to any human, be it from the left/right.

No self-respecting Latino, Hispanic, Asian, black, Middle-Eastern and etc. is any less for freedom, independence, self-reliance/respect than any other person.

This is the perspective of a sane Democratic advisor

Defying the odds, Mr. Obama did become the first president since Franklin Roosevelt to be re-elected with an election-year unemployment rate above 7.8%. Yet his victory wasn’t based on public affirmation of his agenda. Instead, it was based on a four-year mobilization—executed with unprecedented skill—of core Democratic constituencies, and on fear campaigns in which Mitt Romney and the Republicans were painted as waging a “war on women,” being servants of the wealthy, and of being hostile toward Latinos, African Americans, gays and the middle class. I couldn’t have imagined any one of the Democratic presidents or presidential candidates I served from 1960-92 using such down-on-all-fours tactics.

The unifier of 2008 became the calculated divider of 2012. Yes, it worked, but only narrowly, as the president’s vote total fell off sharply from 2008.

Schadenfreude on March 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM

Five really bad GOP assumptions:

1. All, or vast majority of, Hispanic American citizens demand amnesty for illegal aliens. Hardly any Hispanic Americans have respect for the law. (actually, 54% prefer amnesty, 40% prefer law enforcement and attrition. See this poll)

2. Existing Hispanic American citizens are not afraid of losing their jobs to newly-created legalized workers, who themselves don’t respect our laws.

3. The GOP can out-pander the Democrats in gaining more votes among these newly legalized Hispanic illegal aliens.

4. The GOP can ignore the non-Hispanic illegal aliens from China, Middle East, Ireland, etc., etc. who will become legal voters.

5. The 4 Democrats in the Gang of Eight have the best intentions of swelling the ranks of GOP voters.

So the GOP is planning to reward illegal aliens with their ill-gotten goods (residency) as a means to stop future illegal border-crossings???

GOP: Can you show me a single instance where rewarding the criminals with their ill-gotten goods is a sane and logical policy to stem future criminal acts?? Duh!

Here’s an idea for the GOP:

Stand for law and order and the 23 million unemployed American citizens (and against the 7 million employed illegal aliens!)

Appeal to the 40% of Hispanics who respect our laws and KEEP the conservative base by passing the SAVE Act. No mass deportatiuons, no round-ups, no big expenses – just enforce our damn laws!!!!
And here is how it works where enforced.

…instead of chasing after the 54% who are ALREADY Democrats and LOSING the conservative base!!!!

McCain, Graham, Rubio, et al — you are insane!!

If a general amnesty passes, it makes American citizenship a sham. I’m looking at Belize myself.

fred5678 on March 18, 2013 at 3:54 PM

What happens in front of your eyes, from the left/right, is globalization and the materialization of the “One World” project.

Obama is its master. However, using it as an excuse, he enables his muzzie brothers. They succeed, apace, in Lybia, Egypt, Africa, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afcrapistan, Pakistan and etc.

Schadenfreude on March 18, 2013 at 3:57 PM

Libya, sorry.

Schadenfreude on March 18, 2013 at 4:01 PM

the GOP…needed to do the immigration reform flip as a sign to Latino voters…

Illinidiva on March 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM

So you’re alleging that amnesty is “a sign to Latino voters” (since amnesty is what you/politicians MEAN when you refer to “immigration reform”).

So far, you’ve been suggesting all the Left’s/Democrats’ ideas and using their nomenclature as your advice to the GOP. I’m curious about this.

“A sign to Latino voters…immigration reform…”

Those are the primary concepts and the words you’ve used to identify your ideas. What’s synonymous in your view between “Latino” and “immigration reform (which is ‘amnesty’)”?

Lourdes on March 18, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Illinidiva on March 18, 2013 at 3:27 PM

So you’re alleging that amnesty is “a sign to Latino voters” (since amnesty is what you/politicians MEAN when you refer to “immigration reform”).

So far, you’ve been suggesting all the Left’s/Democrats’ ideas and using their nomenclature as your advice to the GOP. I’m curious about this.

“A sign to Latino voters…immigration reform…”

Those are the primary concepts and the words you’ve used to identify your ideas. What’s synonymous in your view between “Latino” and “immigration reform (which is ‘amnesty’)”?

Lourdes on March 18, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Not ‘synonymous’ but correlating.

Lourdes on March 18, 2013 at 4:05 PM

This is really stupid of the GOP. Even if the policy were correct (I do not concede it is), they are not even trying to hide the capitulation. If the legislation passes, it will have handed the other side a clear victory and will not redound at all to the benefit of the GOPers who caved. No wonder we call them “Vichy republicans”; they can’t even change course the right way.

alwaysfiredup on March 18, 2013 at 4:22 PM

How is it YOU think the GOP should “do more to embrace youth and Latinos”?

I’d really like to read your answer to that.

Lourdes on March 18, 2013 at 3:46 PM

I think that moderating on immigration is important. I also think knowing which cultural battles to fight and which to punt using federalism arguments.

However, I think that the huge thing is tone. Debt issues need to be reoriented to the kitchen level. Rubio pointing out that his middle class neighbors are bailing out big banks and crony- capitalist companies like Solyndra. And you know who tax reform would really benefit.. Millenials like myself who rent rather than owning homes. Republican policies need to be spoken about on that level. I’m fine with making Bloomberg and his ilk the primary enemies.. Make it “White People” from the Upper East Side against the hard working middle class folk.

Illinidiva on March 18, 2013 at 4:44 PM

I think that moderating on immigration is important.

Illinidiva on March 18, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Even if that’s true, its possible to “moderate” without adopting a plan essentially identical to Obama’s, which (as AP notes above) is what Rubio has done.

Jon0815 on March 18, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Illinidiva on March 18, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Stop your BS, its not just ill informed, but actually IDIOTIC.

Take it from an immigrant to this once great land, a LEGAL one who went through the steps described by USA laws on books, yes, laws that DO EXIST and that DO ALLOW for anyone to apply for an immigrant status. Anyone who wants to become an immigrant here has the same path to citizenship that millions of us have followed. No one in my extended family has applied for nor received welfare, food stamps, etc. We all earned it the right way: a job.

Why is it that all the idiots who have no experience nor even simple understanding of a subject are always first ones to suggest a solution? Put down that coloring book and crayons and try to learn something for a change.

Secure all borders, then ship all the illegals out and have them apply for re-entry the right way: BY LAW. The process works, as can be proven by tens of millions of (legal) immigrants.

Rubio, aka Romney Kite, can go to hell along with his mentors, although something tells me we’ll have yet another con job forced onto us by GOP come 2016.

riddick on March 18, 2013 at 5:36 PM

Romney LITE.

riddick on March 18, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Immigration legislation will not help the divide between Latinos and the GOP no matter what becomes of this proposed bill. The communication process is broken and needs to be fixed. Why do you think Bush carried a high number of Latino voters? I’ll tell you why, he treated them like real people and gave them a place at the table, not lip service. If we want the Latino vote, then its time to get civil and have honest discourse, otherwise it will be a waste of time.

DDay on March 18, 2013 at 6:00 PM

I think that moderating on immigration is important. I also think knowing which cultural battles to fight and which to punt using federalism arguments.

Illinidiva on March 18, 2013 at 4:44 PM

I’m sorry, what do you mean by immigration? It’s not clear from your post.

BoxHead1 on March 18, 2013 at 6:25 PM

If the GOP handles this wrong it really could finish them off. They could easily alienate such a huge part of their base that sink beyond recovery.

bluesdoc70 on March 18, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Remember how that “no tax increases for anyone” battle turned out ?

Yep.

FlaMurph on March 18, 2013 at 11:19 PM

Immigration legislation will not help the divide between Latinos and the GOP no matter what becomes of this proposed bill. The communication process is broken and needs to be fixed. Why do you think Bush carried a high number of Latino voters? I’ll tell you why, he treated them like real people and gave them a place at the table, not lip service. If we want the Latino vote, then its time to get civil and have honest discourse, otherwise it will be a waste of time.

DDay on March 18, 2013 at 6:00 PM

What does this mean exactly?

How does the current GOP not treat Hispanics like real people?

What is dishonest about current conservative discourse as relates to Hispanics?

What “place at the table” did W Bush give Hispanics that current GOP/Conservatives don’t give Hispanics?

What is uncivil about the discourse with regard to Hispanics?

My inference (which could easily be wrong, I admit) on what you wrote is that you believe the GOP/Conservatives are racist for not supporting amnesty and thus dishonest in their debate about amnesty and by not supporting amnesty don’t treat Hispanics like real people or give them a place at the table.

To the extent my inference is correct, calling people racist for not supporting a really bad policy (amnesty) is not a reasonable or logical argument and is not based on reality.

Monkeytoe on March 19, 2013 at 7:38 AM

I have been steadfast in supporting Republicans even though it was against my better judgement in many cases. I swore I wouldn’t support McCain, but went ahead and put up the signs because I felt it was my duty. Now I am mainly supporting Republicans because (1) they are not Democrats, (2) 2nd Amendment rights, and (3) no *#@$% amnesty.

Voting for third parties only brings us Democrats, so I am at a loss for a rational response. If they cave on gun control I am done with them. If we sit still for amnesty, gun control is just around the corner, in my opinion. If we get amnesty and then gun control, we might just as well have voted for Obama and his minions.

claudius on March 19, 2013 at 8:54 AM

Do any of you calling for an end to dual citizenship really think that Mexico would be bound by any requirement the US placed on one of their citizens?

They could renounce their Mexican citizenship daily and it would have no effect on how they were treated by Mexico as long as it needs the flow of cash from their workers in the US.

Nomas on March 19, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Nomas on March 19, 2013 at 9:06 AM

Then we punish their country until they relent.

astonerii on March 19, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Monkeytoe on March 19, 2013 at 7:38 AM

What does this mean exactly?

How does the current GOP not treat Hispanics like real people?

What is dishonest about current conservative discourse as relates to Hispanics?

What “place at the table” did W Bush give Hispanics that current GOP/Conservatives don’t give Hispanics?

What is uncivil about the discourse with regard to Hispanics?

My assertion is not a racist gesture, but a fact based description of what is the GOP. Of the millions of conservative Latinos living legally in the United States; how many or represented in the higher ranks of the GOP? Post Bush.

Whether by intent or unintended, the sudden crackdown on border speech security has created a big divide. We all agree our borders should be safe, but the rhetoric attached to it causes the problem. The bottom line is, the people that are being attacked verbally and sometimes physically have legal family members living in America. So, you tell me, how is this going to help promote a healthy relationship?

DDay on March 19, 2013 at 10:23 AM

If by definition, these illegals are “doing work Americans won’t do”, poor, and uneducated, just exactly where will they get the money to pay these fines and back taxes?

booger71 on March 19, 2013 at 11:14 AM

If by definition, these illegals are “doing work Americans won’t do”, poor, and uneducated, just exactly where will they get the money to pay these fines and back taxes?

booger71 on March 19, 2013 at 11:14 AM

By definition, when they file for taxes they will get massive amounts of money from refundable tax credits. You do realize that if they can claim to pay 50% of the lifestyle of any family members in Mexico they can claim them as dependents?

astonerii on March 19, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Yup, I also have a friend who immigrated legally who is a tri-citizen (Ireland, Canada and U.S.). And with her Irish citizenship, she has the right to live & work anywhere in the European Union.

Americans who only have one citizenship while granting multiple citizenship to others, especially to people who have entered our country ILLEGALLY, are fools!

wren on March 18, 2013 at 3:53 PM

So what exactly is your problem with dual citizenship and most importantly what does it have to do with illegal immigration? I am dual citizen too, US and French and I too can work anywhere in the EU space. My wife’s mom is French Canadian, so she too can take up Canadian citizenship if she wants to, but she isn ‘t interested. But how does this affect you in any way? We have more options, true, but most if not all duals followed the legal paths to citizenship here, and at any rate it’s not like we can live in both our country of birth and in the US at the same time, or work and enjoy benefits in both at the same time…you have to make choices, and by choosing to live in one country you lose most benefits in the other, which is fair enough….the only ing is that you have the right to return to your country of birth any time you please, as a full citizen with full rights, if so you wish, that’s a right nobody can take away from you. And anyways, that”s between you and your country of birth, it has nothing to do with and should not affect you as as a single US citizenship holder in any way….

jimver on March 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM

jimver on March 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Voting rights should be stripped from dual citizens. They do not have only our Nation’s interest at heart when they vote.

astonerii on March 19, 2013 at 11:43 AM

jimver on March 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Voting rights should be stripped from dual citizens. They do not have only our Nation’s interest at heart when they vote.

astonerii on March 19, 2013 at 11:43

Heah, and your opinin mens squat to me. Voring rights shild ne stripped from crazy people too, and you are a notable example that it’s not the case.

jimver on March 19, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Heah, and your opinin mens squat to me. Voring rights shild ne stripped from crazy people too, and you are a notable example that it’s not the case.

jimver on March 19, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Why should people who are beholden to their old nation’s be allowed to have any say in this nation?

astonerii on March 19, 2013 at 2:28 PM

My assertion is not a racist gesture, but a fact based description of what is the GOP. Of the millions of conservative Latinos living legally in the United States; how many or represented in the higher ranks of the GOP? Post Bush.

Whether by intent or unintended, the sudden crackdown on border speech security has created a big divide. We all agree our borders should be safe, but the rhetoric attached to it causes the problem. The bottom line is, the people that are being attacked verbally and sometimes physically have legal family members living in America. So, you tell me, how is this going to help promote a healthy relationship?

DDay on March 19, 2013 at 10:23 AM

As to 1 – we want to start a quota system? How many Hispanics do we have to have in high positions to make Hispanics happy? What about Cruz and Rubio, for instance? Or Martinez? The GOP has always had many hispanics in elected and other positions.

As to 2. B.S. verbally and physically attacked? You are using nonsense claims to try and get around the basic claim you are making, which is that if you oppose amnesty you are racist or, in the alternative, the also bogus claim that supporting amnesty will somehow result in electoral gains among Hispanics for the GOP.

It is a lefty tactic to say “I’m not calling you racist, but the language you employ” in opposing x, y or z, is uncivil or wrong. If you see particular language you think is offensive or race tinged – fine, call that out. Otherwise, you are trying to be too cute by half “I’m not calling opponents of amnesty racist, but all that language sure is hurtful”.

It’s such an absurd argument and the entire point of that “argument” is to try and cut off debate.

Such tactics are used when one doesn’t have an actual positive argument for one’s position.

Examples of the only arguments I have heard from the pro-amnesty crowd (all of which are not arguments but attempts to cut off argument):

1. opposing amnesty is racist
2. “uncivil language”
3. strawman (“we can’t deport 20 million people”)

the GOP has hurt itself with Hispanic voters because a) there are not enough high elected Hispanic officials? The GOP has hurt itself with Hispanic voters because allegedly anti-amnesty people are verbally and physically attacking Hispanics? The GOP has hurt itself with Hispanic voters because of “uncivil language?

Nonsense and tripe.

We all agree our borders should be safe, but the rhetoric attached to it causes the problem.

What rhetoric specifically? What do you mean by safe borders? that sentence has no meaning and is another way of calling anti-amnesty people racist. I’ve seen tons of rhetoric on the subject and not seen any that even approaches being about race, or ethnicity or color or anything else.

Monkeytoe on March 19, 2013 at 2:50 PM

jimver on March 19, 2013 at 11:37 AM

I don’t really feel strongly about dual citizenship, but it does seem to be a strange phenomena to me. The idea of citizenship to me is similar to religion. You only belong to one at a time. Either you are a Christian or a Muslim – you cannot be both. Likewise, you are either an American or a Frenchman, not both. Dual allegiance seems like a problem to me.

The concept that citizenship is like residency – that you can have multiple – is a very foreign idea to most Americans. When treated like that, citizenship has very little real meaning.

But, like I said, these are just thoughts about the concept itself. I’m not too worked up over it.

Monkeytoe on March 19, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Monkeytoe on March 19, 2013 at 2:50 PM

This was a very thought out and logical argument. The very point you are trying to justify is the one you are doing; which is closing off debate. Job well done. With this mind set, I must relinquish myself and our Party to always being second place losers. And please point out anywhere in regards to argument that is divided into Liberal language or Conservative. Language is just that, a form of communication, something of which you lack in your argument.

As for rhetoric and violence, where have you been? I live in Texas and I will tell you it exist.

DDay on March 19, 2013 at 5:08 PM

This was a very thought out and logical argument. The very point you are trying to justify is the one you are doing; which is closing off debate. Job well done. With this mind set, I must relinquish myself and our Party to always being second place losers. And please point out anywhere in regards to argument that is divided into Liberal language or Conservative. Language is just that, a form of communication, something of which you lack in your argument.

As for rhetoric and violence, where have you been? I live in Texas and I will tell you it exist.

DDay on March 19, 2013 at 5:08 PM

You lay out an argument that implies opponents of amnesty are “bad” (uncivill, hateful, violent). You give no cites to any facts to support this – you reply with some nonsense, I ask logical questions of your nonsense, and this is your response?

Silly.

I suppose your argument now can be summed up as “I live in Texas, the Rhetoric I hear is bad, therefore the party is doomed and we must pass amnesty”.

Now that is logical and thoughtful.

good job.

Also not sure how I “close off debate” by asking questions and pointing out that the only “argument” I have ever heard from the pro-amnesty side is:

examples of the only arguments I have heard from the pro-amnesty crowd (all of which are not arguments but attempts to cut off argument):

1. opposing amnesty is racist
2. “uncivil language”
3. strawman (“we can’t deport 20 million people”)

the GOP has hurt itself with Hispanic voters because a) there are not enough high elected Hispanic officials? The GOP has hurt itself with Hispanic voters because allegedly anti-amnesty people are verbally and physically attacking Hispanics? The GOP has hurt itself with Hispanic voters because of “uncivil language?

Nonsense and tripe.

As I stated, I have not seen a positive argument as to why granting amnesty will benefit the country in any way. I have seen a lot of facts supporting that it will harm the country – but never a single argument as to the benefits. Instead, we hear that there is some king of “moral obligation” to illegal aliens – which, even if it were true (it isn’t), is not an argument as to how granting amnesty is good policy for the U.S.

You claim that people against amnesty are uncivil. And? First, it is hard to be civil when people are trying to jam a Sh** sandwich down your throat. second, being uncivil and being racist are two very different things. So what if people are uncivil in politics? Conservatives have been called fascist and worse by liberals every single minute of every single day for the last 50 years. Civility can be over-rated. But, you weren’t really talking about civility – you were trying to claim racism without saying it.

If you have some argument to make, make it. If you want to call everyone who disagrees with you about amnesty a racist – do it. Don’t be coy with your “uncivil rhetoric” and “it is not helpful to build a relationship” garbage.

As you refuse to make any kind of argument aside from some snark about bad rhetoric, I have to assume the only argument you have is “racist”. Which was my very first point in response to your comment. Looks like I was right.

And please point out anywhere in regards to argument that is divided into Liberal language or Conservative. Language is just that, a form of communication, something of which you lack in your argument.

My argument lacks language? What is it then? How are you able to respond at all if there is no language involved? This sentence makes no real sense.

Regardless, I stated, which is true, that one of the main arguments liberals make (in regard to anything) are saying “Racist” / “sexist”, etc., sometimes saying only “bad rhetoric” and/or putting forth a straw-man. I did not say the “language” was liberal or conservative, but the form of argumentation – implying or outright stating anyone who disagrees with you is racist – is liberal argument 101. The whole point of calling someone you disagree with a racist is not to counter their argument or try and persuade them, it is to try and make that person not worthy of response. It is a tactic, and is most often use by liberals. Saying “racist” is not an argument for or against anything in and of itself. Explain why something is racist may be an argument (not always, as the left’s definition of racism has grown to encompass everything). Simply saying racist is not an argument.

You have yet to posit an argument. You have said only that you think the language is bad and therefore, what?

I merely challenged your implication that being anti-amnesty is racist and pointed out that it is not an argument. I have no doubt that some people who are anti-amnesty don’t like Hispanics (being anti Hispanic is not racist as Hispanic is not a race. Indeed, most Hispanics are descendents from Spain, Portugal and thus are of European descent and therefore aren’t really “minorities” at all). But, that doesn’t translate into an argument for amnesty. Again, I have yet to hear an argument for amnesty.

With this mind set, I must relinquish myself and our Party to always being second place losers.

What mind-set exactly? Asking questions? Pointing out that your comment was simply a soft-sell on the whole race-card gamut? Pointing out that Hispanics have been in high offices and are in high offices as Republicans? That Hispanic voters are generally liberal and will most likely continue to vote in a strong majority for democrats even if the GOP caves on amnesty?

What mind set exactly do you contend I display? An unwillingness to let you shut down debate by implying I’m a racist?

Obviously, based on that comment, you believe that amnesty will result in electoral gains among Hispanics for republicans. Can you explain why you believe this, with citations to facts? After the Reagan amnesty, we saw no movement toward the GOP among Hispanics. Why would it be different this time? Hispanics by and large are not conservative – they come from very left wing South American countries and were raised and educated steeped in left wing ideology because of that. What makes you believe that if the GOP votes for amnesty, Hispanics will suddenly start voting for conservative ideas?

The idea that the GOP must pass amnesty to attract Hispanic voters is thrown around by some people as if it is a given. My point is that there is no factual support for the idea that passing amnesty will result in any gains for the GOP among Hispanics. I think amnesty will be very bad policy for the country for a host of reasons, so wouldn’t support it even if it showed some small uptick in Hispanics voting for the GOP (I put country first over party), but even saying that I have never seen any evidence to support this contention anyway. It’s always just stated as if true.

Let me put it another way. Democrats have never passed amnesty. They have had chances and they did not do it.

so, assuming that both parties are equally at fault on the lack of an amnesty, and assuming that amnesty is what drives Hispanic votes, then any Hispanics that were conservative or lean right would already be voting for the GOP. Which means that we already know what a post-amnesty Hispanic vote breakdown will be. It will be the same as the vote breakdown for Hispanics is today – 60/40 for dems at best. Why didn’t Hispanics punish dems for not passing amnesty in the past by voting GOP? Because they don’t vote based on amnesty – they vote as liberals.

It is actually quite condescending to believe that Hispanic-American voters vote based on whether illegals get amnesty.

Monkeytoe on March 19, 2013 at 5:54 PM

As to 1 – we want to start a quota system? How many Hispanics do we have to have in high positions to make Hispanics happy? What about Cruz and Rubio, for instance? Or Martinez? The GOP has always had many hispanics in elected and other positions.

And to point out how inept your argument really is; Cruz and Rubio are of Cuban heritage and Martinez is Mexican. They are not even remotely similar except in regards to language spoken. Cubans are political refugees and Mexicans are illegals. Hispanic is not a race.

DDay on March 19, 2013 at 5:59 PM

And to point out how inept your argument really is; Cruz and Rubio are of Cuban heritage and Martinez is Mexican. They are not even remotely similar except in regards to language spoken. Cubans are political refugees and Mexicans are illegals. Hispanic is not a race.

DDay on March 19, 2013 at 5:59 PM

They outnumber the Cubans by many multiples. Exactly why do they either not have any competent people to run, or can they not vote in one of their own incompetents? Hmmm…

astonerii on March 19, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Dday,

You said

My assertion is not a racist gesture, but a fact based description of what is the GOP. Of the millions of conservative Latinos living legally in the United States; how many or represented in the higher ranks of the GOP? Post Bush.

I pointed out, just as quick examples of “latinos”, Rubio, Cruz and Martinez, to which you say:

And to point out how inept your argument really is; Cruz and Rubio are of Cuban heritage and Martinez is Mexican. They are not even remotely similar except in regards to language spoken. Cubans are political refugees and Mexicans are illegals. Hispanic is not a race.

DDay on March 19, 2013 at 5:59 PM

So, Rubio, Martinez and Cruz are not “Latino” or “Hispanic”? What is your point?

And, not all Mexicans are illegal and not all illegals are Mexicans.

I guess your new argument is that we need more Mexicans in high positions in the GOP? Because as conservatives, we believe in quotas? Is that your thought process?

It has become quite clear that you have no idea what your are even saying.

Monkeytoe on March 19, 2013 at 6:42 PM

So, Rubio, Martinez and Cruz are not “Latino” or “Hispanic”? What is your point?

And, not all Mexicans are illegal and not all illegals are Mexicans.

I guess your new argument is that we need more Mexicans in high positions in the GOP? Because as conservatives, we believe in quotas? Is that your thought process?

It has become quite clear that you have no idea what your are even saying.

Monkeytoe on March 19, 2013 at 6:42 PM

The only thing clear here is your ignorance. Have a good day.

DDay on March 19, 2013 at 7:22 PM

The only thing clear here is your ignorance. Have a good day.

DDay on March 19, 2013 at 7:22 PM

It is true that I am ignorant of the point you believe you are making, but that is because you are unable to put forward a coherent thought that incorporates facts and a point.

I attempted to understand your point by asking you many questions, all of which went unanswered. The few things you did say completely contradicted yourself, such as appearing to argue that Cruz, Rubio and Marinez are not Latino/Hispanic.

Not sure how you think that is a victory for your “thoughts”.

Monkeytoe on March 20, 2013 at 7:46 AM

Monkeytoe on March 20, 2013 at 7:46 AM

Also note he disparages the fact that Mexicans are under represented in Government now that Bush is not President and blames Republicans who are out of power for it.

astonerii on March 20, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Also note he disparages the fact that Mexicans are under represented in Government now that Bush is not President and blames Republicans who are out of power for it.

astonerii on March 20, 2013 at 9:14 AM

In fairness, I read his point (after he impliedly changed it from Latinos to Mexicans) to be that there are not enough Mexicans high up in the GOP or enough elected GOP Mexican officials.

I have not seen a breakdown of how Mexican-Americans vote, but the Hispanic vote in general is usually about 65-35 for democrats nationally. Take Cubans out of that mix, and it is probably more like 75-25 for dems. My guess is that Mexicans are even higher for dems than the average for Hispanics.

So, I’m not sure how many high ranking Mexicans in the GOP it would take to meet his quota.

Monkeytoe on March 20, 2013 at 11:32 AM

In fairness, I read his point (after he impliedly changed it from Latinos to Mexicans) to be that there are not enough Mexicans high up in the GOP or enough elected GOP Mexican officials.

And by Mexican, I of course mean Americans of Mexican descent – not actual Mexican citizens.

Monkeytoe on March 20, 2013 at 11:33 AM

And by Mexican, I of course mean Americans of Mexican descent – not actual Mexican citizens.

Monkeytoe on March 20, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Thank you for you respect. But, I feel that some matters should be cleared up.

1) I have never called anyone a Racist nor have I inferred so.

2) I am strongly against any type of quota systems, they don’t work.

3) I am against any type of amnesty that does not involve some type of punitive action.

I will try to make this clear as possible. It is my understanding that immigration reform is to cover all immigrants. With out stating any statistics I am sure it would be safe to say the largest section of undocumented immigrants arrive from Mexico. At least this is the case in my area of domicile. To be more specific it is an area that is about 92 to 95 percent Mexican American populated. Within this population of more than 2 million, most, if not all have family members from Mexico. So, my biggest objection to immigration reform is; why not give these people a voice in the process (not quotas). Whether this translates into future Republican votes or not would be up to them. As you have stated, this does not appear to be the case,ie.. Reagan Amnesty. Either way a dialog would begin.

If, I had a dollar for every time I was told that “if Republicans think they will get my vote if Rubio runs, they are wrong”. I would be a very wealthy person. I am not sure if anything has been cleared up between our two thoughts, but at least it’s a start.

DDay on March 20, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Thank you for the response.

I don’t know what you mean by letting Mexicans and/or Mexican-Americans having a voice in the immigration reform process. As far as Mexican-Americans, their voice is the same as everyone else’s – through our representative democracy. Not sure why they should have more or less voice in it than anyone other citizen.

As to Mexican illegals, or any other illegals, I don’t know why we would give them a voice in the process at all – they are not citizens and have not earned a voice in our democratic process.

Of course, I am against granting any kind of legal status to illegals before the border is secured and we spend a number of years enforcing our current immigration laws to ensure we stem the flow of illegals. this does not mean I am against raising legal immigration amounts if we need it, but we have to stem the tide of illegals before we do anything regarding the current illegals that are here.

I’m also not sure what dialog would begin or is necessary. I am always concerned with the idea that conservatives need to have special dialogues with different groups of people. conservatism is a set of principals that applies equally whether you are black, white, Mexican, Chinese, or other. Low taxes and low spending is the same regardless of your race/ethnicity. Color blind gov’t is the same for everyone regardless of race/ethnicity. Needing a dialogue indicates some kind of different treatment for one group than other groups, which is wholly unconservative. Small gov’t is small gov’t regardless of your race/ethnicity.

If, I had a dollar for every time I was told that “if Republicans think they will get my vote if Rubio runs, they are wrong”. I would be a very wealthy person. I am not sure if anything has been cleared up between our two thoughts, but at least it’s a start.

DDay on March 20, 2013 at 12:10 PM

I don’t know why this is in your response. I won’t vote for a republican – whether Rubio or otherwise, that signs off on granting legal status before we deal with the current flow of illegals. Otherwise, we will be going through this whole charade again in 10 years with a new cohort of 20-30 million illegals we will basically have invited through this amnesty. It has nothing to do with Rubio’s ethnicity – outside of his position on immigration reform I really like Rubio. Unfortunately, the establishment is all for amnesty, so I’m guessing that there will not be a non-amnesty option in the GOP primary in 2016 – which means I will likely sit out that presidential election.

Monkeytoe on March 20, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Monkeytoe on March 20, 2013 at 1:23 PM

In principal I agree with 100 percent of what you have stated. Thank for having taken the time to explain your position.

DDay on March 20, 2013 at 1:39 PM

In principal I agree with 100 percent of what you have stated. Thank for having taken the time to explain your position.

DDay on March 20, 2013 at 1:39 PM

that’s the problem with arguing in comments. Oftentimes (and I’m just as guilty as anyone else) one writes a quick comment that would make sense in a natural flowing conversation, with inflection, etc., but on paper can be read entirely differently. And, we end up arguing even though we actually mostly agree.

Monkeytoe on March 20, 2013 at 3:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3