Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Friday, December 2, 2016

As congressional Republicans trash President Barack Obama’s 2014 State of the Union address, the leaders of the GOP’s House majority are signaling that they’re finally ready to move on one of the priorities that the president identified in his 2013 speech: Immigration reform.

On Thursday, House Speaker John Boehner presented the party leadership’s immigration plan in a closed-door meeting of House Republicans.

“It’s important to act on immigration reform because we’re focused on jobs and economic growth, and this is about jobs and growth,” Boehner reportedly told his colleagues.

But a quick examination of leadership’s one-page “Standards for Immigration Reform” memo, a draft copy of which Politico has published online, suggests plenty of reasons to doubt that Republicans are really ready to move on a comprehensive immigration reform plan. In fact, such a move may be even less likely than it was a year ago.

The memo makes it clear that any bill to come out of the House will fall far short of the bipartisan compromise that passed the Senate in June. That bill would open a pathway to permanent U.S. citizenship for some 11 million undocumented immigrants who already live in the United States (along with spending $30 billion to double the size of the Border Patrol and build 700 miles of new border fence, among other security measures).

“There will be no special path to citizenship for individuals who broke our nation’s immigration laws – that would be unfair to those immigrants who have played by the rules and harmful to promoting the rule of law,” the memo reads. “Rather, these persons could live legally and without fear in the U.S., but only if they were willing to admit their culpability, pass rigorous background checks, pay significant fines and back taxes, develop proficiency in English and American civics, and be able to support themselves and their families (without access to public benefits).”

The memo does not specify what living “legally and without fear” would entail — be it eligibility for a green card, eventual citizenship, or neither — but it does take pains to stress that “none of this can happen before specific enforcement triggers have been implemented to fulfill our promise to the American people that from here on, our immigration laws will indeed be enforced.”

Stricter enforcement is the key theme of the memo; in fact, it’s the very first principle in the House GOP’s “step-by-step, common-sense approach.” In a section titled “Border Security and Interior Enforcement Must Come First,” the memo insists that “it is the fundamental duty of any government to secure its borders, and the United States is failing in this mission. We must secure our borders now and verify that they are secure.”

This should set off alarm bells for reform advocates, who have seen this border security ruse before. The strategy goes as follows: Almost every time the national conversation turns to immigration, Republicans demand stricter border security measures as a precondition to any reforms. Democrats tend to accede, and then Republicans demand more. No legislation ever passes.

This helps to explain how the Border Patrol went from employing 12,185 agents in 2006 to 21,394 in 2013 — with a plan to add 20,000 more, if the Senate bill were to pass. Such a massive force completely defies common sense — especially considering that the U.S.-Mexico border has never been more secure. But given that Boehner has called the Senate bill’s security provisions “weak” and “laughable,” it’s a safe bet that the House will ask for even more stringent measures. And a bill that spends so much on militarizing the border without providing a pathway to citizenship would likely be a non-starter in the Democratic-controlled Senate (even if President Obama is willing to be flexible).

Of course, that assumes that Boehner can even get a bill through his own chamber — which is far from guaranteed. After all, the hardline anti-immigration forces that killed reform efforts in 2013 haven’t gone anywhere; anti-reform House aides have already reportedly begun meeting to plot a strategy to kill this latest legislative push, and the GOP caucus as a whole remains divided, at best, on the issue.

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2014 The National Memo

78 Responses to Why House Republicans Are (Still) Unlikely To Move On Immigration Reform

  1. Decker ‘The Matador” continually gets to the factual premise and is dead on with facts and his summary plunges the sword into the back of GOP BULL…

    “But as long as the GOP is still trumpeting a “border security first, citizenship never” strategy, it’s a fair bet that Republicans are more interested in appearing as though they want to take action than they are in actually doing something.”

    It has always been about appearances and extreme right wing talking points and propaganda…

    This time they listen to Rove….and that sacres the me big time…

    Immigration Reform and the Hispanic Vote By KARL ROVE
    June 5, 2013 7:25 p.m. ET

    from the article;
    “There is growing public support for providing a pathway to citizenship for those now in the country illegally. A February CBS/New York Times poll found 56% supported a pathway to citizenship for illegals, up from 38% in December 2007. Just 20% now say they should leave the country. An April Associated Press poll found 63% support a pathway, up from 50% in August 2010……Support for a pathway has grown most among Republicans. A January AP-GfK poll found 53% of Republicans now support it—up from 31% in 2010. (A Quinnipiac poll last week found support among Republicans at 39%.)”

    all of it here…

    http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323844804578527010474733462

    Again….Rove is not interested in immigration reform at all…just numbers….

    He just wants more votes…..for Jeb Bush who supports quasi GOP version of immigration “reform.” Jeb… is the GOP logical replacement for the bully Christie… and Rove realizes that his corporate Koch buddies and agricultural multinationals need immigrants….Slavery…

    • ” Jeb… is the GOP logical replacement for the bully Christie… ”

      I have been commenting that with the re-emergence of Romney over the past couple of months was he considering running again? If Christie is out of the picture, is it possible they would go back to Mr. 47%?

      • With the current state of affairs at the RNC….it is possible…..in this case…we have to follow the money…the safest candidate, with the “moderate Republican” moniker, is Jeb Bush…his family has the money, political power and organization to pull this off…and they are Koch brother friendly….

        • He does have those, and there are many on the right that see Bush as the only way to stop Clinton. I think americans are fatigued of both families and this matchup would put a lot of voters over the edge for an “It’s all rigged” mentality leading to even more voter apathy.

    • Rove’s reasoning for supporting expanded immigration is the overall reasoning behind this push for expanded immigration. The noble-sounding rhetoric about being humane, giving immigrants opportunities just like our ancestors had, etc. is nothing more than a disguise for the despicable greed that really underlies this effort.

      As for the poll that Rove mentioned, these polls don’t say much. Other polls have found the opposite. The results of polls seems to depend on who is asking. Other indicators, such as constituent feedback to Congress, website visitation numbers, etc. reveal a public that, where aware, is strongly opposed to any immigration expansion.

  2. Think about this. The Republican Party is incapable of leading the Country in any capacity, period. Because to lead requires followers, and their base constituency didn’t elect their candidates to lead them. They expect them to do exactly what their told. They said, round ’em up, and ship ’em back! Richard Reid, the shoe bomber, now housed in a super max prison in CO. has more options, and latitude, than John Boehner. What can we do, has been the Republican’s conundrum, since Bush.
    That continues to be the unanswerable question Republicans have been
    struggling with for over 5 years now. And the answer up to this point
    has been. Wait for Obama to suggest something. Then, we’ll spend the next six months tarring him with it, and listing all the reasons why this is just the kind of a thing a President that don’t understand, ah, what was the issue? Minimum wage? Oh yeah, that don’t understand business! Taxes? That don’t understand economics, and job creators! And, or, a jobs bill, that’s DOA! That takes spending, and we’re having a hard time with a President that wants to load our grandchildren up with job killing debt! Where’s the jobs Mr. President????? This year, they are going to some more acting. This time the angry beyond belief, Conservative, is going to be replaced with the reasonable acting Conservative. That will “try his hardest to work with the President.” But, in the end, will fail. Because after all, both sides have to want to meet in the middle. And sadly, President Obama is just this my way, or the highway! He don’t even think Congress or the Constitution mean anything. We just can’t get anything done, with this unreasonable Dictator!

    • I really like your opening sentence: “It’s obvious, the Republican Party is incapable of leading the Country in any capacity, period.”
      I couldn’t agree more.

      I’ve posted a number of times my feeling that Republicans know absolutely nothing about how to run a government. And in addition to Republicans actually being clueless about the true workings of a government, I’ve come to realize over the past few years that that’s because they have one main motivation in making any decision or pushing for any piece of legislation, and that is: “Is there a payoff for ‘ME’ or maybe my cronies in this decision or piece of legislation? Never does a Republican think: “Will this decision or piece of legislation benefit my constituents or the country or the planet (that’s rarely, if ever, really a consideration to them – even though they may pretend that it is).

      And this focus on ‘ME’ can even be seen in the issue discussed here by Decker on immigration. Republicans are determined to not allow a path to citizenship for the illegals currently in the country for fear that allowing them to vote legally may not be in the best interests of ‘ME’. They’re afraid if the 11 million or so illegals are allowed to become citizens it will increase the likelihood that the GOP will have a tougher time winning elections and therefore there is no payback for ‘ME’ in allowing that to happen.

      Just like with immigration reform, everything a Republican focuses on has to be about ‘ME’. Even if what they’re pushing for seems to be somewhat helpful to some component of the country or economy, helping someone or something else is not their true motivation; whatever they’re focused on is because they’re convinced they’ll get some form of kickback – be it – support from some rich benefactor for their next campaign, or favorable recognition from the Republican base that will help them in their next primary battle or election objective, or it’s for money under the table or cash inflow from a lobbiest; there has to be something in it for ME!!!

      And because a Republican’s true focus is always on ‘ME’, rather than on what is best for their constituents, state or country, they rarely ever consider all the potential negatives that may be associated with whatever objectives they set – which is why, a large percentage of the Republican led states rank very poorly on a large number of measures that are not related to low taxes, balanced budgets and other purely budgetary issues. A high percentage of GOP run states rank at the bottom of America’s states when compared on measures such as violence, police and fire protection, auto accident fatalities, firearms related homicides, education, health and human services, the percent of their citizens living in poverty, the corruption of their civil servants, the amount of welfare their citizens need and on and on and on. All of which demonstrate clearly the GOP’s total lack of competence when it comes to governing a state or the nation.

      • my&nbspclassmate’s&nbspstep-aunt&nbspΜ­­­­­­а­­­­­­K­­­­­­е­­­­­­ѕ&nbsp$­­­­­­­­61/hr&nbspon&nbspthe&nbspl­­­­­­а­­­­­­ρ­­­­­­τ­­­­­­ο­­­­­­ρ.&nbspShe&nbsphas&nbspbeen&nbspout&nbspof&nbspa&nbspј­­­­­ο­­­­­ƅ&nbspfor&nbspnine&nbspΜ­­­­­­ο­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­հ­­­­­­ѕ&nbspbut&nbsplast&nbspΜ­­­­­­ο­­­­­­ո­­­­­­τ­­­­­­հ&nbspher&nbspρ­­­­­­а­­­­Уment&nbspwas&nbsp$­­­­­­­­13482&nbspjust&nbspW­­­­­­ο­­­­­­r­­­­­­King&nbspon&nbspthe&nbspl­­­­­­а­­­­­­ρ­­­­­­τ­­­­­­ο­­­­­­ρ&nbspfor&nbspa&nbspϜ­­­­­­е­­­­­­W&nbspհ­­­­­­ο­­­­­­ս­­­­­­rs.&nbspGet&nbspthe&nbspfacts,…&nbspWW&#x57&#x2EGoogleamazingwork2014realeyeuuwt&#46&#113r&#x2E&#110&#x65&#116&#47&#109&#x57&#113&#x5A/

        ★★★ ★�★★ ★★★⥭★ ★★★In fact, such a move may be even less likely than it was a year ago.

      • How can they run a government when they cater to a base that wants to eliminate government? Norquist said it himself “Our goal is to reduce government until it is so small I can drown it in my bathtub”. If you have no interest in doing something you will never be good at it.

        • And Grover’s objective comes again from the Republican mindset of it’s all about ‘ME’. If we eliminate government and return to the days of yore when the everyone fended for him or herself – we’d all have more money to spend on themself (or ME).
          To Hell with the fact that America would look like the absolutely lawless country of Somalia where the average life expectancy is probably not much more than 50 and people would be killing each other off like flies. All that matters is that I can keep all my money and spend it on ‘ME’.

      • Officially, the GOP supports amnesty and immigration increases. The push for it ultimately comes from the rich donors you mention. The opposition to immigration permissiveness comes from the voters–and not just conservative Republican voters.

        • Considering that 70% of Americans feel that illegals should be able to stay in the country and 63% think they should have a path to citizenship – I’d say the majority of voters do not have opposition to immigration ‘permissiveness” – it does not come from the voters, it comes from the FAKE supposedly official GOP support for amnesty and immigration reform

          See this from a recent NYTimes article:

          In six nationwide nonpartisan polls released since January, at least 70 percent of Americans said they supported options allowing those immigrants to remain in the country with some form of legal status. Generally only about one-quarter of those polled said the immigrants should not be allowed to stay.

          But results vary widely when Americans are asked whether legal status should include the possibility of citizenship. In a large national poll released on March 21 by the Public Religion Research Institute and the Brookings Institution, 63 percent of Americans said immigrants here illegally should be allowed to become citizens if they met certain requirements

          • This poll does not reveal much. Polls like this are often put out by those who have a vested interest in seeing immigration increased. There are other polls out there, such as those taken by Pulse Opinion Research, that show the opposite. What the polls say appear to depend on who is taking the poll.

            The next step, therefore, is to look at other indicators. Those other indicators show a public that, where engaged on this issue, is strongly opposed legalization and immigration expansion. Constituent feedback to Congress is overwhelmingly opposed to legalization (in July Rep. Tom Cotton said that of 1800 calls he received to his office on immigration, 12 supported legalization and 1788 opposed). Also according to compete.com, NumbersUSA, an organization that advocates immigration restriction and reduction, beat out pro-expansion groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, La Raza, and America’s Voice in web visitation, often by an order of magnitude or more, for the last year.

        • Wisdom has finally entered the comments. Many do not want to share our good life even if it is not quite as good as the rich. I even know a rich man I like.

      • Lately, they seem to have more in common with organized
        thugs, than one of two major political organizations. Right
        down to the protection racket they are running on the U.S.
        economy. “You know, Mr. Obama, you’ve done a good job
        getting the economy back on it’s feet.” It’d be a shame if
        something happened to it, like a default.” “No, just sayin’.” “Somethin’ like that, who knows what that would do to your Presidency?” “Bein’ the first Black guy, and all.”You know the Boss, right?” “Well, he don’e think much of that health plan.” “Protection is kinda our racket.” “Competition,” he says, could be really bad for your people’s legacy, if you get what we mean?” Sometimes I almost expect to see them pull out their heaters, and machine gun the place. Throw reporters over balconies.

        • How to win friends and influence people. Call them thugs. Hope your party win the House so we get an immigration bill. AS a conservative .I have no problem with melting millions of illegals into our society. If we the GOP get some credit for it in the form of good governing, that is a big plus. But I doubt you will stop calling us the worst names in the English language. Got to be one to know one.

          • Well, there comes a time, with some people, you
            just aren’t going to win any friends anyway. So you may as well call them like you see them. When they act like thugs act. I see myself, or I like to see myself, as part of the American family. Naive, I suppose. But when the politics gets so rough we have elected officials, actually threatening to be purposefully harmful to the Country, unless they get their way, it crosses a line with me. We have enough enemies in the world, without supporting more of them in our own government. The fact is, these people, many of them, have no business in government to begin with. Not in this one anyway. In others, a group can come in, and without the power to take over, using the established rules. They resort to threats, beatings, terror, and midnight assassinations. Before too long their leader, now, a tyrant, gets up in front of the assembly, and starts to call out names of the opposition. Then, a military officer appears, and they are taken in front of a firing squad, as what’s left of the country’s failed attempt at representative government is obliterated by the sound of their former fellow elected assemblymen being executed. This happen by the way, when the Bathe Party took control in Iraq. Do I believe from what I’ve seen out of the T-Party, some would be agreeable to this scenario? Yes, I’m afraid they would. But the fact they act like they are doing everyone else a favor, by agreeing to not cause a default, says to me, they don’t see themselves as part of the Country all the rest of us are living in, unless they are calling the shots. That’s just so screwed up, I can’t explain it. As to immigration. When Reagan granted a blanket amnesty, there were about 4 million souls in country. Then, we just jacked along, the employers replacing the now legal labor, with more illegal labor, because it was cheaper. Never making much of an effort to address the influx, or the illegal hiring. Until someone happens to notice, hey, we got 12 million people, and we don’t know for sure it’s 12. Might be 10? Who’s been keeping track? No one. So somebody gets the idea to politicize the hell out of it, politics being what they are. And, now
            the incessant scapegoating has a lot of the Right Wing base calling for a mass roundup. Which would be a disaster politically, but the base is so
            upset, they don’t care. And won’t agree to anything else. Stay tuned.

          • Right near home in South Florida is the round-up retention center for illegals. It is a revolving door according to my neighbor who works there. South Florida of course is Hispanic. The community seems to be prosperous. One thing I do know is we are spending a lot of money on plane tickets sending the same person back twice and three times. I vote for amnesty and let the chips fall where they will. A blanket round-up is foolish.

          • Right. That’s Krome Detention Center. It’s about
            10 miles from my house. Originally built in far West Miami-Dade County, in the Everglades swamp. With suburban sprawl, it’s now our friendly, Fed facility. Housing mostly Caribbean Nationals, who’s eventual status, because of one issue or another, is winding it’s way through the maize of what is our immigration bureaucracy. With some, who have been picked up, because of various other crimes, have served their sentences, but can be neither released, nor repatriated. Due to the fact, we can’t establish their identity, or their Country of origin. Of course, there is a booming industry of immigration lawyers, who fight, or prolong the deportment process, as prisoner’s claims of being qualified to remain in the U.S. under one exemption or another, wind their way through the immigration court system. And, as you point out, there are the return customers. Now, the other group from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and areas South, are mostly the agrarian immigrants, who work the huge farms in deep South Dade, to the Okeechobee Lake area. Picking, and boxing the various crops. It’s seasonal, and many used to go home, back to their families are. However, since they’ve tightened security, many have gotten caught, and detained. So, they have managed, at great expense, by the way, to bring the family here. I reaalize that wasn’t the intended effect officials were going for. But, these are people without a
            lot of options. It’s actually a tradition, as many
            of their Fathers, and Grandfathers, migrated
            back, and forth across the border in times past,
            as a natural course of their livelihood. It’s amazing to see a man of 55 or 60, who’s entire life has been fashioned around commuting to the same operations here in the States, then back home for 6, or, 7 months, then, back here. Some would disagree, but I see this as another human being, working, surviving, raising his kids, in a way he knows how. And I don’t see where that necessarily detracts from anyone’s life here. And the last thing I would want to see, is this man, and the many like him, would get hurt, because we can’t, with all our advantages, formulate a fair, and sensible immigration policy. Both to us, and the immigrant they say is vital to their businesses.

        • Could you explain in greater detail the factual evidence to support the fact he will never make it out of the primary….why? What factors do you foresee to state this? Why John Huntsman anology….please explain past one sentence…

          • Factual evidence? I can give you only hypothesis.
            Mr. Huntsman is a moderate conservative. He was “RINOed” to death. The primary belongs to the extremists of the party. Personally, I like (this) Mr. Bush–he seems to be the smart one of the bunch. But he won’t get the support of the TParty: if by some vivid stretch of the imagination he were to get the nomination, I truly believe the extremists would run a third candidate: they would rather commit suicide than back a RINO, a brand he already wears. Just read the comment sections in WT and Fox on any subject regarding this Mr. Bush.

      • Know what I think? I think the WSJ, a Murdoch production, doesn’t want his little munchkins in
        Republicanland, to panic. As the appointed one,
        Chris Christie, goes down in political flames,
        over a shitty little piece of political chicanery.
        Sure, Jeb would love to be President. He’s
        smart, and right there’s the reason, he’ll never
        run. The Bush name casts a long shadow on
        general elections. And the T-Party idiots control
        the primaries. So who, with a fairly decent
        political record, would want to destroy everything
        they’ve ever stood for. to head up the crazy
        “Uncle Sugar,” Party?

      • There is nothing moderate about Jeb Bush’s immigration views. We already allow 1 million legal permanent residents and some 700,000 guest workers to come in each year. Additionally, perhaps 700,000 illegal immigrants come in each year. Legal immigration alone far exceeds that which any other nation on the planet allows. The push for more immigration comes from the wealthy and corrupt business interests who stand to profit from cheap labor and more consumers. All indications are that we have too much immigration and should reduce it.

        How is someone who wants to disregard our immigration laws and have unlimited immigration moderate and someone who simply wants our already generous immigration laws enforced extreme?

        • The economic advantages of legalizing “illegal immigrants” are significant. Many immigrants are natural entrepreneurs, establishing companies, creating jobs, and driving innovation. Well-educated and highly-trained foreign workers are inventive and productive. Expanded work forces increase business flexibility, allowing companies to quickly respond to changing demands. Larger labor forces also encourage specialization. Labor productivity rises as companies adjust to larger work forces and invest in employees.

          Immigration may depress wages for the least skilled workers. However, these are the last jobs that government should seek to protect. Moreover, the work force, like the economy, is not a fixed pie. Immigration makes a more innovative, flexible, and productive economy, leading to new and better jobs. The benefits rise over time, with an expanding economic pie.

          • As I said, Forbes is a mouthpiece for wealthy interests which would profit from more cheap labor. Immigrants are human, just like natives. They are not going to magically create more jobs. That is pure speculation. Remember, speculation is what led to the economic mess this country is currently dealing with.

            In addition, our resource base is a fixed pie. It is not getting larger, and bringing in more people only depletes it faster.

          • A Guzzardi and Californians for Population Stabilization lie in my opinion. See the investigation of Guzzardi above and your comment that states you are a friend of his…

          • It is a physical fact that our resource base is finite that that adding more people to it will deplete finite resources faster.

    • A lot more people than just conservative Republicans oppose amnesty and immigration increases. We simply cannot afford to bring so many people in or allow those who came illegally to stay. Our unemployment rate is testimony to that.

      • Factually not correct…And I for one agree with commentator Robert Lynch…a professor of economics at Washington College and a visiting senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

        Lynch: “……What we know from following millions of examples of people who have gone from being undocumented to legal citizens is that, once they acquire that guarantee of permanent residency here in the United States, they start to invest much more heavily in their English-language ability and their education and training…..And so we see dramatic improvements in their productivity and rising levels of education and skill levels, which result in much higher incomes. His analysis considers that all static; that never happens…….We also see people moving into jobs where they’re more productive. We also see, once they become legalized, that the formerly undocumented can now get access to permits and licenses and credits, and they start businesses. And we know that newly legalized immigrants create new businesses and hire more workers at higher rates than native-born Americans……And so any immigration reform that unleashes this entrepreneurial potential is going to create a bigger economy, more jobs, and a better government system, more — that is fewer, lower deficits than we have right now.”

        Story here:

        http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics-jan-june13-immigration_06-05/

        • Look at our unemployment/underemployment rate (our real one, that is). We don’t have enough jobs as it is. Bringing in more workers and legalizing ones who have no right to be here is not going to help Americans and legal immigrants who are already here find jobs. That is basic arithmetic (something that many economics Ph.D.’s seem to have trouble with). On top of that, our public infrastructure is overstrained, our national debt defies comprehension, and our natural resource base is strained by the presence of too many people as it is (e.g. water supplies in the Western, especially Southwestern, states). This is all striking evidence that we already have more people than we can provide for, and bringing in more people is only going to make things worse.

          As far as the opposition to permissive immigration is concerned, if you don’t believe me, I suggest you go to http://www.compete.com and compare the number of visitors the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, America’s Voice, and La Raza get compared to NumbersUSA. After seeing those, it is pretty apparent that it is not just outspoken conservative GOP voters who oppose this. This is not a Democrat vs. Republican thing, this is a commoner vs. elite thing.

          • Again…please get on topic…o–what is your real point as it relates only to Decker’s article?

            Decker states above: “But a quick examination of leadership’s one-page “Standards for Immigration Reform” memo, a draft copy of which Politico has published online, suggests plenty of reasons to doubt that Republicans are really ready to move on a comprehensive immigration reform plan. In fact, such a move may be even less likely than it was a year ago…..But as long as the GOP is still trumpeting a “border ” security first, citizenship never” strategy, it’s a fair bet that Republicans are more interested in appearing as though they want to take action than they are in actually doing something.”

            This is the point of the article—what the GOP is willing or not willing to do….not anti- immigration reform…

        • Putting this positive spin out there is refreshing How about the attitude, can do. It will work and it benefits the country as immigrants always have. Of course the rich may get richer in this process. Got to consider this outcome, inequality. Only kidding.

      • Irrespective of others who may have a range of opinions
        on the best course for reforming immigration. The GOP
        must first find some consensus, within their caucus to
        establish an agreed upon starting point. Other than the
        usual, ubiquitous talking points. Between first secure the
        border. Which ultimately translates into, let’s do nothing.
        To something so pathetically abhorrent, as the specter
        of knocking down doors, and removing parents, from
        their children, many of whom are U.S. Citizens. And, of
        course then, they may as well load the people on box
        cars. Because, by that point, the Party that overseen
        such an action, would be toast. Guaranteed. The politics
        is, the Left has positions that are somewhat flexible. The
        Right, has no positions they are able to agree to. Including
        whether to reform immigration at all.

        • What the GOP need to do on immigration (and what the Democrats need to do too) is set an immigration policy that is in the interests of the American people (as opposed to the interests of big business). Unfortunately, right now that means doing nothing is probably the best course of action, with the Senate having passed that nation-wrecking bill back in June. Sometimes doing nothing is better than acting just for the sake of doing something.

          Also, immigration authorities do not separate parents from their children. The parents, whether they are illegal or not or whether their children are citizens or not, are the legal guardians of the children. If the children are left behind, that is due to the decision of the parents, not the immigration authorities. Those citizen children may re-enter legally upon their 18th birthday. This is a far better deal than U.S. citizens who are convicted and sentenced to prison terms get. They are forceably separated from their families and they do not have the option of taking their children with them. The American people do not find enforcing immigration law abhorrent, and no one is talking about Nazi-style mass deportations in boxcars.

          • What you mean is, some Americans will not find
            this this method of enforcing immigration laws
            abhorrent. I’m American, and fairly run of the mill, one. And, I would find such action, reprehensible. The system, by which I mean our system, whereby otherwise non sanctioned labor, was allowed to work, habituate, under a de facto, and very consistent, non enforcement policy, for otherwise illegally procured labor. And this deliberate, and institutionalized flouting of these laws was allowed to continue unabated, for decades. To the considerable benefit of several major industries. And moreover, at the request of those industries. Then, to turn the full force of the enforcement regimen on the laborers themselves, and their families. Because some people suddenly decided, and wrongly decided, these 10 million souls were at the heart of our economic problems. And no, I don’t see how you may back away from it’s Nazi like qualities. If it walks like a Nazi, and talks like a Nazi, and scapegoats like a regular common garden variety Nazi Fascists. Then, let’s keep it real. It is what it is. What a government does not do, is make robbing banks at gunpoint a crime. Then allow the systematic robbing to continue for 40 years without prosecution. Due to the fact the ill gotten gains kept winding up in the pockets of some very influential people. Then,
            one day, retroactively start going after one side of the conspiracy with the full force of a law that had mostly sat on it’s hands. While finding the other co-conspirator, and indeed, the law itself, blameless! What would you think about a Country who’s system was so corrupt, so bereft of fairness, and unconcerned with justice, it would carry forward such an action? As the world, as it does, looked on. I’m not trying to be dramatic here. I’m trying to say to you, it would be one of the darkest days in our Country’s history. I don’t know how to make my my feelings any more clear than that.

          • Again, nobody is calling for Nazi-style mass roundups. That is not the only way to enforce immigration laws. The best way to enforce these laws is to mandate workplace verification and back it up with SSN-No Matching. There would be no way that employers can plausibly deny they hired illegals then. After having illegals exposed in their workforce, the employers should be required to terminate the employment of those illegals or face huge fines and criminal charges. This would very likely make the cost of hiring illegals higher than the gains in doing so (both for the employers and the illegals), and thereby halt and reverse illegal immigration. On top of that, illegal aliens should be arrested and deported when they are detected by law enforcement at any level of government.

            Both employers and illegal employees should have the full force of the law directed at them. Yes, the employers who hire illegals are corrupt and exploitive, but the illegals are not innocent victims here. They knowingly and consciously broke the law (often committing document felonies in doing so), and they should face the consequences.

            By the way, Eisenhower carried out a very effective mass deportation in 1954, and he was hardly a Nazi.

          • Your belief in the propaganda of mass deportation
            is the result of your approval of such a policy. And not on the facts. Here’s an example of such.

            What did Hoover, Truman, and Eisenhower have in common?Here is something that should be of great interest for you to pass around. I didn’t know of this until it was pointed out to me.

            Back during The Great Depression, President Herbert Hoover ordered the deportation of ALL illegal aliens in order to make jobs available to American citizens that desperately needed work..

            Harry Truman deported over two million Illegal’s after WWII to create jobs for returning veterans.

            And then again in 1954, President Dwight Eisenhower deported 13 million Mexican Nationals! The program was called ‘Operation Wetback’. It was done so WWII and Korean Veterans would have a better chance at jobs. It took 2 Years, but they deported them!

            Now….if they could deport the illegal’s back then – they could sure do it today..

            That has all been debunked as part of the daily
            claptrap ideologues glom onto to make their false
            arguments for mass deportations. Which will never, by anyone’s knowledgeable, prediction,
            ever happen. But, don’t let me dissuade you.
            Knock yourself out!

          • The 1954 operation resulted in about 1 million apprehensions. Many more fled when they saw that the government was serious about enforcing the law. Those apprehensions were done with only about 1000 INS agents. What resulted was ten years of robust, effective enforcement. Sure there was still some illegal immigration, but by 1959 it was so low as to be statistically insignificant. The 1965 Immigration Act ultimately reversed these gains (Lyndon Johnson had been an opponent of strict immigration enforcement prior to the 1954 operation). The point is that it can be done, and done humanely, but that is not the preferable method. Although slower, strict workplace enforcement would not only stop current illegal immigration but it would also prevent future illegal immigration. This is the way to go.

      • As I pointed out in another of your posts, It is not “a lot more people’ who oppose amnesty and immigration. If fact, it is a minority, only about 30% who oppose that. And it’s only 37% that oppose a path to citizenship -all proven by numerous polls of Americans in 2013 – you are on the wrong side of the immigration debate.

          • I am interested in this subject and I post whenever I find an article on this subject, no matter what political point of view it has. Politically, I am an independent moderate myself.

          • Oh I realize that your interested in anti legalization of immigrants based upon the very provable false premise of that it is bad for american workers. This is discredited by every reputible economist in the USA…

            This article is NOT about your beliefs….it is about Deckers: Decker states above: “But a quick examination of leadership’s one-page “Standards for Immigration Reform” memo, a draft copy of which Politico has published online, suggests plenty of reasons to doubt that Republicans are really ready to move on a comprehensive immigration reform plan. In fact, such a move may be even less likely than it was a year ago…..But as long as the GOP is still trumpeting a “border ” security first, citizenship never” strategy, it’s a fair bet that Republicans are more interested in appearing as though they want to take action than they are in actually doing something.”

            This is the point of the article—what the GOP is willing or not willing to do—the article is nothing about the specifics of immigration reform as Decker outlines….so….

          • See below for my response about what this article has to do with Decker.

            An economist saying so does not prove something. These economists have their reasons for having the positions that they do, and are not necessarily objective sources. Don’t forget that economists in general were shocked by the housing bust.

            I have clearly laid out how legalizing illegal aliens, as well as bringing in more legal workers, would harm American workers. When the labor supply increases but demand remains flat, wages decline. That is both basic economics and basic arithmetic.

          • What you state is a bald face lie. Propaganda:

            “I have clearly laid out how legalizing illegal aliens, as well as bringing in more legal workers, would harm American workers. When the labor supply increases but demand remains flat, wages decline. That is both basic economics and basic arithmetic.”

            In my opinion, from your friend Joe Guzzardi…Californians for Population Stabilization. A group that demonizes immigrants.

            Investigative report here:
            http://nbclatino.com/2013/03/2
            REPORT:”“This is what these pro-nativism, anti-immigrant groups do,” he says. “They push an agenda predicated on lies, hate and misinformation and when confronted – they backtrack. Say it wasn’t them – like kids, except their words harm people — the real lives of immigrants and Latinos.”

          • A lie? No, basic arithmetic. Think about it. Adding more workers to a country where there is already inadequate employment, insufficient infrastructure, an incomprehensible national debt, not to mention a finite resource base will not benefit the nation’s workers at large. It will only benefit those at the top of the economic ladder.

        • These polls does not reveal much,and they certainly don’t prove anything. Polls like this are often put out by those who have a vested interest in seeing immigration increased. There are other polls out there, such as those taken by Pulse Opinion Research, that show the opposite. What the polls say appear to depend on who is taking the poll.

          The next step, therefore, is to look at other indicators. Those other indicators show a public that, where engaged on this issue, is strongly opposed legalization and immigration expansion. Constituent feedback to Congress is overwhelmingly opposed to legalization (in July
          Rep. Tom Cotton said that of 1800 calls he received to his office on immigration, 12 supported legalization and 1788 opposed). Also according to compete.com, NumbersUSA, an organization that advocates immigration restriction and reduction, beat out pro-expansion groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, La Raza, and America’s Voice in web visitation, often by an order of magnitude or more, for the last year.

          • What factual basis do you have for stating this:

            “These poll does not reveal much,and they certainly don’t prove anything. Polls like this are often put out by those who have a vested interest in seeing immigration increased.”

          • I said that there are other polls that show the opposite. And many of these polls are put out by media groups that have strong editorial stances in favor of immigration expansion. That is not proof, but it certainly raises questions about these polls and calls for other indications besides polls to be looked at.

  3. The push to legalize illegal aliens and give them work authorization (i.e. amnesty), along with the push to increase legal immigration and guest worker programs is all about greed. Corrupt, self-serving business interests want an unending supply of cheap labor, and cloak their less-than-noble motivations behind all this soaring rhetoric about being humane, being a nation of immigrants, etc. Groups such as America’s Voice and La Raza are really not much more than fronts for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other like-minded business lobbies.

    We must do whatever it takes to stop amnesty and immigration increases.

    • Interesting….this is what I read a week ago: GOP Pushing to Legalize Illegal Immigrants, Hurt American Workers
      http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-guzzardi/gop-pushing-to-legalize-i_b_4650585.html

      But I don’t agree with the premise it will hurt American workers. On the contrary, it will help workers in long run…

      The pros and cons of legalizing illegal imigrants can be viewed at this PBS story about it last year….And I for one agree with commentator Robert Lynch…a professor of economics at Washington College and a visiting senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

      Lynch: “……What we know from following millions of examples of people who have gone from being undocumented to legal citizens is that, once they acquire that guarantee of permanent residency here in the United States, they start to invest much more heavily in their English-language ability and their education and training…..And so we see dramatic improvements in their productivity and rising levels of education and skill levels, which result in much higher incomes. His analysis considers that all static; that never happens…….We also see people moving into jobs where they’re more productive. We also see, once they become legalized, that the formerly undocumented can now get access to permits and licenses and credits, and they start businesses. And we know that newly legalized immigrants create new businesses and hire more workers at higher rates than native-born Americans……And so any immigration reform that unleashes this entrepreneurial potential is going to create a bigger economy, more jobs, and a better government system, more — that is fewer, lower deficits than we have right now.”

      Story here:

      http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics-jan-june13-immigration_06-05/

      Finally—from Forbes Magazine 3 months later:
      Immigration Benefits The U.S., So Let’s Legalize All Work

      Quoting the article which I agree with:
      “The economic advantages are significant. Many immigrants are natural entrepreneurs, establishing companies, creating jobs, and driving innovation. Well-educated and highly-trained foreign workers are inventive and productive. Expanded work forces increase business flexibility, allowing companies to quickly respond to changing demands. Larger labor forces also encourage specialization. Labor productivity rises as companies adjust to larger work forces and invest in employees…..Immigration may depress wages for the least skilled workers. However, these are the last jobs that government should seek to protect. Moreover, the work force, like the economy, is not a fixed pie. Immigration makes a more innovative, flexible, and productive economy, leading to new and better jobs. The benefits rise over time, with an expanding economic pie.”

      Fear mongering and demonizing “illegal immigrants” is unAmerican.

      • These studies you mention are bankrolled by the very interests which would profit from more immigration. They are hardly objective viewpoints. Think about it–do these conclusions stand up to common sense? Supply and demand applies to labor too. If more workers are brought in, the supply of labor increases but the demand remains constant (there might be more demand for service workers to meet the needs of this expanded population, but that does not result in a net gain of jobs for the native workers who were already there).

        As for their position that having more workers will lead to more innovation, they do not know that. That is mere speculation. Remember, speculation is what got us into the current economic mess we are in. Also, historically, it is tight labor markets, not loose ones, that lead to more innovation.

        Regarding the statement that unskilled jobs should not be protected, I ask why not? Unskilled workers do important things (sanitation, farm labor, etc.). Why are those workers any less deserving than people in largely parasitic occupations such as venture capital?

        Finally, it is not demonizing to illegal immigrants to insist that they follow they law. They broke the law, and they should be held accountable for their actions. After all, citizens are expected to follow the law.

          • If I’m not mistaken, Forbes has been a cheerleader for doing just about whatever it takes to make money for some time. It is a mouthpiece for wealthy business interests.

          • So–what is your real point as it relates only to Decker’s article?

            Decker states above: “But a quick examination of leadership’s one-page “Standards for Immigration Reform” memo, a draft copy of which Politico has published online, suggests plenty of reasons to doubt that Republicans are really ready to move on a comprehensive immigration reform plan. In fact, such a move may be even less likely than it was a year ago…..But as long as the GOP is still trumpeting a “border ” security first, citizenship never” strategy, it’s a fair bet that Republicans are more interested in appearing as though they want to take action than they are in actually doing something.”

            This is the point of the article—what the GOP is willing or not willing to do….not anti- immigration reform…

          • If Decker is right, than how this relates to this article is that the GOP officeholders’ dealings with the immigration issue can be explained by the fact that their donors want them to do one thing, but the voters want them to do another.

  4. Decker states above: “”But as long as the GOP is still trumpeting a “border ” security first, citizenship never” strategy, it’s a fair bet that Republicans are more interested in appearing as though they want to take action than they are in actually doing something.”

    On a side note that is getting posted here—-I would also like to point out that there is an organization that is pushing discriminatory anti-immigration in the guise of population control in California. It wants to spread lies and distortions nationwide about what legalizing illegal immigrants would do to the USA and its workers…… The group is called Californians for Population Stabilization . It is being investigated for some questionable positions.

    An article was posted at huffpost (that I referenced below) that falsely suggested legalizing illegal immigrants is somehow wrong for this country. The author who wrote this article is Joe Guzzardi, the National Media Director for Californians for Population Stabilization

    News story here about Californians for Population Stabilization:
    California org. focused on curbing population growth under scrutiny for anti-immigrant stance by Adrian Carrasquillo 12:29 am on 03/23/2013

    http://nbclatino.com/2013/03/23/california-org-focused-on-curbing-population-growth-under-scrutiny-for-anti-immigrant-stance/

    From the article:
    “The nonprofit Californians for Population Stabilization (CAPS) is under scrutiny for comments made by a member of the organization who said the DREAM Act is dangerous because children of “illegal aliens” may be communists or drug smugglers and because of ads against proposed parts of immigration reform like legalization or a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, a dicey area to wade into for a nonprofit…Marilyn Deyoung, chairman of the board for CAPS, was interviewed by Cuentame, a Latino social media advocacy organization, which posted the video on Youtube……“A baby can join a gang and then commit a crime, a baby can drop out of school and become a criminal, a baby grows up,” she said about immigrants. “The DREAM act is dangerous, children of illegal aliens who were brought here under this stupid birthright citizenship visa. They’re not getting into the depth of whether they’re communist or whether they’re drug smugglers or had felonies or had been in prison or anything. They know how to game our benefits — they’re on food stamps, they go to the hospital, get free education, free medical care.”..

    I caution many here that there is a concerted effort to push propaganda and lies about the dangers of legalizing illegal immigrants…this demonization of illegal immigrants is UnAmerican and sholud be seen for what it is…propaganda.

    • U.S. population growth is unsustainable, and illegal immigration (and illegal immigrant fertility) is a significant contributor to that growth. I don’t see what is so questionable about what Joe Guzzardi said here. These are valid concerns (at least about them being drug smugglers). Rep. Steve King of Iowa expressed similar concerns last summer, and was unfairly crucified in the media for doing so. He stood his ground.

        • I am proud to say that I personally know Joe Guzzardi and I often read his columns. They are usually “right on the money”.

          • I read the link here. There is nothing of substance here. Joe Guzzardi’s concerns are valid ones–there is nothing racist about them. It is not a lie that there are illegal immigrants that are gang members and drug smugglers–it is a fact.

          • off topic..Decker states above: “But a quick examination of leadership’s one-page “Standards for Immigration Reform” memo, a draft copy of which Politico has published online, suggests plenty of reasons to doubt that Republicans are really ready to move on a comprehensive immigration reform plan. In fact, such a move may be even less likely than it was a year ago…..But as long as the GOP is still trumpeting a “border ” security first, citizenship never” strategy, it’s a fair bet that Republicans are more interested in appearing as though they want to take action than they are in actually doing something.”

            This is the point of the article—what the GOP is willing or not willing to do—the article is nothing about the specifics of immigration reform

  5. Without some form of consensus just how can anyone expect the House to move? The closest thing to consensus these days is to do nothing. Just my opinion and I hope I’m wrong.

    • Your observation is correct…and Decker would agree:

      ” …the hardline anti-immigration forces that killed reform efforts in 2013 haven’t gone anywhere; anti-reform House aides have already reportedly begun meetingto plot a strategy to kill this latest legislative push, and the GOP caucus as a whole remains divided, at best, on the issue.”

Leave a reply