Immigration debate solved? What say ye?

[caulfield12]

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/201...rts-daca-216954

 

Politico panel solves the immigration issue. Sort of.

 

Basically, the Dreamers (690,000) would get a pathway to citizenship (number of years still not defined) in exchange for a 50% cutback in the Diversity Visa Lottery and 25,000 fewer family (chain/family reunification) visas for the next three years.

 

Or simply the Dreamers for doing away completely with the Diversity Visa lottery program.

 

Expanding the numbers to an amount between 1.3 to 1.8 million would bring the wall/border security of $25 billion into play, in addition to the visa cutbacks above.

 

More than 1.8 million, visa cutbacks/the Wall/e-verify are all in play.

 

 

Somehow, I have a feeling the House Republicans would never accept something that seems fairly reasonable.

 

 

Fresco—described by Jawetz as “the consummate deal maker”—was intrigued by the Dreamer-for-diversity-visa trade. Fresco said he preferred trimming visa numbers for immigrants who might come in the future to stepping up enforcement to deport immigrants already here. “I always say I have no principles,” he said, “but I actually do have one, which is sort of minimize net pain, maximize net happiness in the universe. … And so, I do think the act of removing someone from the United States is such a pain-inducing act, as opposed to denying someone entry into the United States, which is pain-inducing but not as much. I do place a higher value on maintaining a person here than I do on a person’s entry.”

 

....

 

Brown, who worked at the Department of Homeland Security under Republican and Democratic administrations, had a slightly different analysis of the wall. “I agree that it’s a boondoggle, it’s a waste of money, but I also know, having worked with DHS, they’re not going to build the great wall of Mexico,” she said. “They can’t, they won’t. President Trump will be long out of office even if he serves two terms before there is an actual wall. … All of the farmers and ranchers in Texas and New Mexico will be an eminent-domain hell for decades. … The reality is, it’s not happening, which is why it’s easy for me to say, OK, I will trade. Mr. Trump, you can have your 25 billion to try to build your wall in exchange for these Dreamers.”

 

 

At the end of the session, however, none of the negotiators thought the real Congress would be anywhere near as successful as they were. Camarota, Fresco and Jawetz all agreed that Congress would most likely do nothing by March 5. The best they expected was that lawmakers would approve a short-term DACA extension to punt the issue down the road for at least another year. Brown, the optimist in the group, gave even odds between Congress doing nothing and punting for a year or so.

 

“If I’m in Vegas,” Fresco said, “1-to-2 on nothing, 3-to-1 on a one-year punt, 75-to-1 on a deal, on an actual deal.”

 

If they’re right, the Dreamers’ future in this country will be in limbo once again.

Edited February 9, 2018 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

There's no reason at all to reduce legal immigration. We shouldn't make the white nationalist position the starting point for discussions.

[caulfield12]

There's no reason at all to reduce legal immigration. We shouldn't make the white nationalist position the starting point for discussions.

 

If that’s the position, then nothing will happen until at least 2021.

 

Because it’s pretty unlikely the Senate can tip blue with the House in November. Realistically, they will keep kicking the can down the road until they really need Democratic cover (over an infrastructure bill?)

 

House Republicans don’t want an “amnesty” vote on their records before midterms.

 

The country is pretty evenly split three ways...1/3rd want more immigration, 1/3rd want less and 1/3rd would like it to remain the same.

 

In the long-term, the Republicans have to be aware of how many potential voters they’re alienating. They (Hispanics) weren’t motivated enough to vote last election because they didn’t have a clue how bad Trump would turn out to be...but they will vote in droves the next two election cycles, if the Democratic Party can prevent itself from tearing in half over the issue.

Edited February 9, 2018 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

It's not evenly split. Huge majorities want to protect dreamers. A majority wants immigration to stay the same, 1/4 wants to increase and a 1/4 wants to decrease.

 

As far as losing Hispanic voters, why do you think Republicans are working at every level to delegitimize democratic institutions and outcomes? They get far fewer votes and still get solid majorities, and they suppress the vote on top of that.

[caulfield12]

It's not evenly split. Huge majorities want to protect dreamers. A majority wants immigration to stay the same, 1/4 wants to increase and a 1/4 wants to decrease.

 

As far as losing Hispanic voters, why do you think Republicans are working at every level to delegitimize democratic institutions and outcomes? They get far fewer votes and still get solid majorities, and they suppress the vote on top of that.

 

If you make it about specifically protecting those 690,000 Dreamers, either citizenship or residency, the numbers are in the 80’s.

 

If you generically ask it, without any mention of Dreamers, DACA or illegals...about immigration, it’s much more opaque. It’s all in how you frame the survey question.

 

Besides the fact we have about 98% in Congress approving stronger Russian sanctions with no accountability for the executive branch for intentionally defying the will of the people with nary an explanation.

 

You’re just as likely to win an argument with a Tea Partier that fiscal conservatives don’t really exist because Reagan, Bush and Trump all cut taxes disproportionately to the advantage of the upper class while simultaneously blowing up Federal budgets...then used those deficits to justify “desperately needed” cuts to social programs.

 

Meanwhile, Democratic presidents have run excellent economies (Clinton) or had to spend trillions (Obama) fixing the messes created before they assumed office.

Edited February 9, 2018 by caulfield12

[StrangeSox]

There was just a quinnipiac poll on general immigration. Something like 54% the same and then split the rest between increasing immigration and the white nationalist position.

[caulfield12]

There was just a quinnipiac poll on general immigration. Something like 54% the same and then split the rest between increasing immigration and the white nationalist position.

 

 

This was from Obama’s second term, but it’s impossible for me to believe the numbers have actually improved.

 

New Rasmussen poll finds only 31 percent favor increasing immigration and that may be because only 18 percent of Americans think legal immigration is running higher than 500,000 per year. The real rate is more than a million per year. 58 percent of respondents either supported lower immigration levels or maintaining current levels.

 

The poll found that 31percent of Americans support increasing the number of legal immigrants into the country if the United States can fully secure the border and prevent future illegal immigration. 29 percent say the United States should decrease legal immigration levels, and 29 percent would rather retain current legal immigration levels. Therefore, a total of 58 percent do not want to increase legal immigration levels.

 

Another poll I found had e-verify as the most popular immigration reform, more popular than a pathway to citizenship.