Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Immigration and Amnesty (Page 3)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  12  13  14   
Author Topic: Immigration and Amnesty
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
djquag1,

it is a common myth that addictions are price inelastic, but addictive consumption is quite elastic to price. See this paper on 'rational addiction'

http://research.chicagobooth.edu/economy/research/articles/68.pdf

Or the effects of tobacco taxes

http://tigger.uic.edu/~fjc/Presentations/Papers/taxes_consump_rev.pdf

Price elasticity depends on how addictive the substance is, heroine is much less elastic than caffiene.

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There's a problem to the analogy of the economy to a household, or the other tales of the debt-fear mythology. That is, the economic theories that emerge from those premises fail to generate accurate predictions about the world, and the corrective actions that they recommend often make conditions worse. We've gone over the Keynes/Austrian thing several times over the past few years (try going through this). Short version: the economic collapse of 2008 was inconsistent with free-market/Austrian/conservative economic theory (link), but it was quite consistent with Keynes' general theory. The use of austerity policies, which are the natural prescription from a conservative economics perspective, have been very harmful in Europe (certainly compared to the US, which at least had the Obama stimulus). And still the limitations on stimulus in the US are responsible for millions of people being unnecessarily unemployeed here. Seriously, in every single recession since the Great Depression, the US has used an increase in government hiring as a macro-economic counter-force to inadequate aggregate demand, and it is only due to the influence of conservative economic thought that for the first time as a country since Herbert Hoover we decided that the cure for higher unemployment was to fire people. The vacuousness of the pro-austerity movement can be seen in the bogus Rogoff and Reinhart paper that was championed by pro-austerity Republicans in Congress as a reason for why they were playing hard-ball on cutting government, when the paper itself was a amateurish fraud.

You would think that when the core foundations of a theory get so consistently rebutted by events and facts that there might be some rethinking of policy, but that hasn't been apparent so far.

We are still in the aftermath of a global economic crisis that was caused directly by the conservative policy of deregulation in the financial industry . The leading perpetrators were investment banks that made stupid bets amounting to $54T. The secondary culprits were ratings agencies whose whole purpose was to be a private sector form of regulation to verify the banks were not not making stupid bets (here's a source that shows that they know they were acting recklessly). Third were those who generated flawed mortgages and then resold them in bundles to the investment banks: most of those guilty were private sector mortgage companies, although there were some originated by the quasi-governmental Freddie and Fannie (though note that they were more "quasi" than governmental - they had traded on the stock market for decades, their employees were not government workers but rather investment bankers who took in the same big bonuses for short-sighted concerns).

And who has the conservative movement (in its Republican and Tea Party guises) focused their anger on over the past few years? Government workers. Unions. Food stamp recipients. The unemployed. Immigrants. The government by assertion that it's all due to Freddie and Fannie. Everyone but those who are actually responsible for the damage done to millions of people, and who are living in the same affluence they were in when they caused the problems that we are all experiencing.

[ June 22, 2013, 09:12 PM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

The government by assertion that it's all due to Freddie and Fannie. Everyone but those who are actually responsible for the damage done to millions of people, and who are living in the same affluence they were in when they caused the problems that we are all experiencing.

In reality Bush and Clinton pushed banks and brokerages to make bad loans to undeserving people, and even threatened their ability to expand as businesses and their operating licenses if they did not do so, all in the name of social/ethnic equality. Surprise surprise, those people who had questionable incomes could not pay those giant loans.

Guess what? As insane as it is, Obama is now doing this again. Prepare for the next bubble and crash, courtesy of a guy who criticized the last admin. for doing exactly what he is right now:
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-02/business/38220144_1_housing-recovery-housing-market-housing-officials
http://jonathanturley.org/2013/04/03/obama-administration-pressures-banks-to-give-loans-to-people-with-weak-credit/
http://www.policymic.com/articles/33051/obama-pushes-risky-home-loans-which-started-current-recession

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:

The government by assertion that it's all due to Freddie and Fannie. Everyone but those who are actually responsible for the damage done to millions of people, and who are living in the same affluence they were in when they caused the problems that we are all experiencing.

In reality Bush and Clinton pushed banks and brokerages to make bad loans to undeserving people, and even threatened their ability to expand as businesses and their operating licenses if they did not do so, all in the name of social/ethnic equality. Surprise surprise, those people who had questionable incomes could not pay those giant loans.

There's not a shred of truth to that assertion- it's a rather blind repetition of ideological propaganda that was made up to create false narrative, but doesn't stand up to any amount of scrutiny.

Clinton was responsible in as much as he didn't try to block the rollback of Glass-Steagall, which let investment banks buy into the commercial banking market and create the pressure and unregulated avenue for extending bad loans.

Not only were the programs you're referring to actively prohibited from making bad loans (the "pressure" you refer to was on institutions that were refusing to make good loans to people, largely along racial and social lines, because they could make higher margins by tricking them into worse terms or by simply shipping money off to wall street investments instead of focusing on local growth) and when the collapse started happening, they sailed though the early stages in good condition because most of their portfolios were in those more stable, low margin loans that they'd been "pressured" to take on. They only started having trouble when we failed to get ahead of the unemployment surge and the bottom fell out, leaving people who were previously perfectly credit worthy laid off and unable to keep up with their payments.

Bush did expand the overall target to people with lower ratings, but only over concerns that those people were otherwise being suckered into predatory arrangements such that a wider backstop was needed to try to ensure that they could find honest offerings that were actually tuned to their real capacity to afford them.

The pressure for bad loans cam almost exclusively from investment banks- now able to draw on not only commercial bank deposits, but their ability to create loan-backs funds- giving unregulated brokerages huge, risk free, origination bounties to turn in as many high risk, high margin loans as they could get people to take on in order to pad out their CDO bundles under the illusion that they had managed to game the default risk out by mixing them with a few better quality, low margin loans.

The Obama administration absolutely is encouraging that cycle to repeat, but not theough programs that ultimately serve to improve the overall quality of lending, but through the fact that it has allowed the DoJ and SEC to turn a complete blind eye to the rampant fraud and criminal behavior of the major banks.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LetterRip
Member
Member # 310

 - posted      Profile for LetterRip   Email LetterRip   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca,

the loans had very little to do with the crisis, here is what I wrote quite some time ago,

quote:
While the government creating a moral hazard has some part, the vast majority can be laid at the feet of the ratings agencys creating bad models to give AAA ratings to derivatives that were not that strong. The model creators (the wonks who did the modeling) stated in a number of articles that they new the models were garbage, but they created them specifically to give AAA ratings to the MBSes, which they were being pressured to do by management. (My understanding is that for each AAA rated MBS the rating agencies received a significant fee for providing the rating).

Without the AAA ratings absolutely none of the rest of the crisis could happen (there wouldn't have been any pressure to make ridiculous housing loans since the finance companies could no longer make hundereds of billions off of selling the AAA rated MBSes - if the bonds had been rated A or AA which is the highest ratings that the MBSes were able to achieve under the original models then they could have sold only to less risk averse investors).

http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/12948.html

Since the MBSes can no longer achieve AAA ratings, there isn't really much in the way of economic risk for weaker credit rating loans, worst that happens is a simple default. It was the 'unwinding' (loan defaults -> credit downrating -> forced sell off -> prices plunge) spiral that caused the crash, the bad loans themselves mattered very little).

LetterRip

Posts: 8287 | Registered: Jan 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
(And you can see the crazy spin in action here as you go from the first link which notes that "weaker" in this case means "good" in as much as good is a little weaker than perfect, to the next link which, in its title, even, blatantly lies by saying that the plan is to make loans to people with weak credit.)
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And, Seneca, you prove my point even in your erroneous assertion by completely passing by responsibility on the part of the investment banks, the ratings agencies, the private mortgage companies all in an effort to attribute blame not to those most responsible, but rather to implicate other groups that are unpopular in conservative ideology.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by LetterRip:
Seneca,

the loans had very little to do with the crisis, here is what I wrote quite some time ago,

quote:
While the government creating a moral hazard has some part, the vast majority can be laid at the feet of the ratings agencys creating bad models to give AAA ratings to derivatives that were not that strong. The model creators (the wonks who did the modeling) stated in a number of articles that they new the models were garbage, but they created them specifically to give AAA ratings to the MBSes, which they were being pressured to do by management. (My understanding is that for each AAA rated MBS the rating agencies received a significant fee for providing the rating).

Without the AAA ratings absolutely none of the rest of the crisis could happen (there wouldn't have been any pressure to make ridiculous housing loans since the finance companies could no longer make hundereds of billions off of selling the AAA rated MBSes - if the bonds had been rated A or AA which is the highest ratings that the MBSes were able to achieve under the original models then they could have sold only to less risk averse investors).

http://www.ornery.org/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/6/12948.html

Since the MBSes can no longer achieve AAA ratings, there isn't really much in the way of economic risk for weaker credit rating loans, worst that happens is a simple default. It was the 'unwinding' (loan defaults -> credit downrating -> forced sell off -> prices plunge) spiral that caused the crash, the bad loans themselves mattered very little).

LetterRip

The ratings agencies have a vested interest in returning our economy to business as usual prior to the meltdown. Don't believe it? Why don't we start looking at the revolving door between these financial institutions and these agencies. The only reason Moody's downgraded the US is because the US looked like it might not keep the inflation-debt-inflation whirlpool going for a moment. It was a shot across the bow.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
(And you can see the crazy spin in action here as you go from the first link which notes that "weaker" in this case means "good" in as much as good is a little weaker than perfect, to the next link which, in its title, even, blatantly lies by saying that the plan is to make loans to people with weak credit.)

The fact that it is even that close at all after such a major disaster is proof where this slippery slope is taking us. Do you seriously doubt that?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
And, Seneca, you prove my point even in your erroneous assertion by completely passing by responsibility on the part of the investment banks, the ratings agencies, the private mortgage companies all in an effort to attribute blame not to those most responsible, but rather to implicate other groups that are unpopular in conservative ideology.

The banks are businesses. Businesses are not governments. Businesses are more concerned about themselves and profit. If the government pushes them to do something which will have negative longterm effects, the business can choose to harm itself by not cooperating and sitting by while a competitor will, or they can cooperate. Do you not see the difference in power?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The government did not push the Investment Banks to make $54 trillion in stupid bets (called collateral debt obligations) that were the prime cause of the economic collapse of 2008. Because the entire American financial industry was so ridiculously over-leveraged (making bets with 20 times their actual working capital), the dollar size of their actions absolutely dominates all other causes of the banking collapse that led these "job creators" to take actions that destroyed almost 5 million jobs. And the fundamental flaw of conservative/free market economics that Alan Greenspan testified to on 10/23/2008 was that in the free market model, while it was possible that one firm might make such stupid decisions, it was impossible that all of them would. And yet they did.

And I disagree about your assertion of where the power always lies between government and banks. The government could not even place a limit on bonuses at $500,000 for a single year on the executives who were responsible for doing so much damage to the economy. What makes you think that the government holds the power and the banks do not?

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The ratings agencies have a vested interest in returning our economy to business as usual prior to the meltdown.
Theoretically, the ratings agencies had a vested interest in doing the actual job that they were paid to do, and thus they should have spoken up when they saw that a collapse was coming. But they took the money and kept quiet, demonstrating why it was a bad policy to push for excessive deregulation and expect that profit-making firms in the private sector would provide the appropriate level of regulation.
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Seneca, do you disagree that those most responsible in priority order were the investment banks, the ratings agencies, and then the mortgage companies (primarily private sector, with some involvement of Freddie and Fannie)?
Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So in typical 11th hour rush politics, the Corker Amendment, which has basically BECOME the bill as of Friday, now has a provision which allows immigrants who criminally overstay their temporary VISAs to qualify for a "path to citizenship."

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/06/21/Corker-Amendment-permanantly-gives-citizenship-to-those-overstaying-visas

quote:
Just as public anxiety about the weak border security provisions in the Senate immigration bill was building, GOP Sen. Bob Corker stepped forward with an amendment to "fix" the problem. The result of his efforts, however, has been a "Christmas tree" measure, covering items far beyond border security. Breitbart News has learned exclusively that one provision of Corker's amendment will allow workers who stay in the country past their visa will remain on the "path to citizenship."
Even in the future, breaking the law won't stop progress on what VP Joe Biden calls the "unfettered path" to citizenship.
The Corker Amendment ostensibly addresses measures to beef up border security. It, however, is also likely to be the last amendment considered on the immigration bill. As such, it has become a 1,000+ page amendment to supplant the current proposal and provide multiple new provisions. It has become the vehicle for ObamaCare 2.0.
Buried within the text of the Amendment is a seemingly innocuous provision:
(f) APPLICABILITY OF CERTAIN GROUNDS OF INADMISSIBILITY.—In determining an alien’s inadmissibility under this section, section 212(a)(9)(B) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(9)(B)) shall not apply.
What does that mean?
Current law states that those applying for green cards are ineligible if they are either "illegally present" at any point or overstay the terms of their work visa. Such an immigrant, in current law, would have to return to their home country and restart the immigration process. The Corker Amendment wipes away that enforcement mechanism.
In the current draft of the Corker Amendment, any worker in the country on a legal work visa for 10 years can get a green card, even if they overstay their visa. The Corker Amendment allows immigrants to break the law in the future and still be eligible for citizenship. It absolves prospective behavior, not simply past mistakes.
Prior to the Corker Amendment, the 4.5 million immigrants outside the country on a visa waiting-list were subject to laws restricting their presence in the US. The Gang Senate bill would offer them immediate green cards, as long as they hadn't violated current US Law.
The language in the new Corker Amendment referenced above, however, would remove this restriction. They would become immediately eligible for a green card, even if they lived illegally in this country. The Corker Amendment wipes away any immigration enforcement. It is designed to maximize the number of individuals who qualify for citizenship.
The Corker Amendment is an obvious attempt by the DC GOP establishment to find a path to vote for the Senate bill. It throws a lot more money at the border, but it also weakens internal enforcement and controls. The Corker Amendment actually stipulates that, in perpetuity, you can break the law, overstay your visa, and still be eligible for citizenship.

So we've been told for years that terrorists, such as the Boston bombers, could come into the US legally on temporary VISAs, overstay them, and then we'd lose track of them and they could attack us from inside. Though the bombers hadn't overstayed their VISAs, we've been warned by Homeland security that we need better enforcement for people who do, as it is a major security weakness. Now the democrats and RINOs pushing through this bill in super-fast mode want to make that formally ok...

if this bill becomes law it will basically tell anyone who wants to enter the US to not bother trying to legitimately immigrate, just apply for a temporary VISA which is easier to get and then overstay it and nothing bad will happen to you. Why bother having immigration laws at all?

[ June 23, 2013, 09:01 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
(And you can see the crazy spin in action here as you go from the first link which notes that "weaker" in this case means "good" in as much as good is a little weaker than perfect, to the next link which, in its title, even, blatantly lies by saying that the plan is to make loans to people with weak credit.)

The fact that it is even that close at all after such a major disaster is proof where this slippery slope is taking us. Do you seriously doubt that?
Helping people with good credit getting loans that they need and have the capacity to pay is a really frightful slope alright.
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
The banks are businesses. Businesses are not governments. Businesses are more concerned about themselves and profit. If the government pushes them to do something which will have negative longterm effects, the business can choose to harm itself by not cooperating and sitting by while a competitor will, or they can cooperate. Do you not see the difference in power?

Sure, but that's irrelevant here. The issue instead is the government forcing business away from behaviors that generate short term profits but have long term bad effects and toward lower profit margin behaviors that are more sustainable in the long term.

As you say, corporations aren't government, they're legally bound to pursue profits for their shareholders, regardless of the long term consequences. By the same token, government isn't a corporation; it's the tool we use to collectively curtail such market failures and force companies toward long term sustainable behavior, even if it means lower profit margins in the short term.

[ June 23, 2013, 10:36 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
So in typical 11th hour rush politics, the Corker Amendment, which has basically BECOME the bill as of Friday, now has a provision which allows immigrants who criminally overstay their temporary VISAs to qualify for a "path to citizenship."

You can't criminally overstay a Visa. Over staying a Visa is a civil offense, not a criminal one.

(And dragging the Boston bombers into the matter is a complete non sequiter, since they were here completely legally; there is nothing remotely like them about this issue)

You seem to be completely glossing over the 10 year prerequisite in the misleading argument you're making; it's not a matter of simply overstaying a Visa, it's a matter of having managed to secure a work visas for 10 years, and then overstaying to keep working when they lose out in the lottery; people who really, by that point, have proven themselves more than qualified for permanent residence status, but haven't managed to win the draw to get it yet.

It's not just getting a temporary visa and overstaying it, it's getting a work visa and holding down a job for 10 years, then overstaying it, a situation where it's outright absurd to not forgive a minor technical violation in light of a proven track record.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
So in typical 11th hour rush politics, the Corker Amendment, which has basically BECOME the bill as of Friday, now has a provision which allows immigrants who criminally overstay their temporary VISAs to qualify for a "path to citizenship."

You can't criminally overstay a Visa. Over staying a Visa is a civil offense, not a criminal one.

+1! [Cool]

Seneca, do you get outraged at people who "criminally" drive a day past the expiration date on their driver's license or their license plate before renewing it? Of all the problems going on in the country, that complaint seems so tightly anal-retentive that one might need the to consult a proctologist before the shrink could work on your anxiety.

[ June 23, 2013, 11:08 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
So in typical 11th hour rush politics, the Corker Amendment, which has basically BECOME the bill as of Friday, now has a provision which allows immigrants who criminally overstay their temporary VISAs to qualify for a "path to citizenship."

You can't criminally overstay a Visa. Over staying a Visa is a civil offense, not a criminal one.

(And dragging the Boston bombers into the matter is a complete non sequiter, since they were here completely legally; there is nothing remotely like them about this issue)

You seem to be completely glossing over the 10 year prerequisite in the misleading argument you're making; it's not a matter of simply overstaying a Visa, it's a matter of having managed to secure a work visas for 10 years, and then overstaying to keep working when they lose out in the lottery; people who really, by that point, have proven themselves more than qualified for permanent residence status, but haven't managed to win the draw to get it yet.

It's not just getting a temporary visa and overstaying it, it's getting a work visa and holding down a job for 10 years, then overstaying it, a situation where it's outright absurd to not forgive a minor technical violation in light of a proven track record.

How about the people who overstay VISAs in order to commit crimes? Any defense for the fact that the bill allows people to get on a path to citizenship even with criminal records?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
How about the people who overstay VISAs in order to commit crimes?
How many of those people do you think exist?
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
How about the people who overstay VISAs in order to commit crimes?

How about people who commit crimes? I don't see how overstaying a visa has any bearing on how they should be treated.

quote:
Any defense for the fact that the bill allows people to get on a path to citizenship even with criminal records?
The fabrications, you mean? The only violation the bill excuses is overstaying a visa, and even then, only after having had one for 10 years. It doesn't say anything about having a criminal record, despite the article trying to miscast overstaying a visa as a crime. (And having a criminal record would be a moot point, since committing an actual crime, not just a technical civil violation, would be grounds for deportation regardless of their current visa status. And if, for some reason, the person was not deported for the crime and has finished serving jail time for it, then it's apparent that a decision was already made the there is little to no risk of recidivism to make it a useful consideration)
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The fabrications, you mean? The only violation the bill excuses is overstaying a visa, and even then, only after having had one for 10 years. It doesn't say anything about having a criminal record, despite the article trying to miscast overstaying a visa as a crime. (And having a criminal record would be a moot point, since committing an actual crime, not just a technical civil violation, would be grounds for deportation regardless of their current visa status. And if, for some reason, the person was not deported for the crime and has finished serving jail time for it, then it's apparent that a decision was already made the there is little to no risk of recidivism to make it a useful consideration)
You are clearly wrong. The bill allows people with criminal records to stay. Next time you are hit and injured by an illegal with no insurance you can thank Congress.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/05/21/Sen-Chuck-Grassley-Clears-Path-To-Citizenship-For-Illegal-Aliens-With-Two-Drunk-Driving-Convictions

quote:
An amendment proposed by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) to the comprehensive immigration reform bill that clears the path to citizenship for illegal aliens with two convictions for drunk driving has passed.
As the Senate committee continues the markup process on the comprehensive immigration reform bill, very little has changed from the original Gang of Eight proposal that would grant citizenship to the estimated 11 million illegal aliens in the United States. However, on Monday Sen. Grassley was able to pass an amendment that won't grant citizenship to anyone with three drunk driving convictions.
The amendment also stops deportation of anyone who has two or more drunk driving convictions before the passage of the bill:
TWO OR MORE PRIOR CONVICTIONS. —An alien who received 2 or more convictions for drunk driving before the date of the enactment of this Act may not be subject to removal for the commission of an aggravated felony...
The Grassley amendment would mean that citizenship could have been granted to people like Carlos A. Martinelly Montano, who had two drunk driving convictions before he struck a car while drunk, killing a nun and injuring several other passengers, in Bristow, Virginia in 2010:
Carlos A. Martinelly Montano, 24, faces up to 70 years in prison when he is sentenced Feb. 3 on the murder charge and a host of lesser related charges to which he pleaded guilty earlier in the day.
The charges stemmed from an Aug. 1, 2010, crash in which Martinelly Montano struck a car carrying Sister Denise Mosier, 66, as she was traveling to a retreat at the Benedictine Monastery in Bristow, Va.
Martinelly Montano, who entered the country illegally with his family from Bolivia in 1996, had twice been convicted on drunken-driving charges before the accident. After the second conviction in 2008, he was released by the county into the custody of the Department of Homeland Security and was awaiting a deportation hearing when the crash occurred.

http://nbclatino.com/2013/04/30/10-lesser-known-provisions-of-the-senate-immigration-bill/

quote:
5. The Senate’s proposed Immigration plan disqualifies applicants with one felony and with 3 or more misdemeanors. However, some may be eligible for humanitarian waivers if they have a USC or lawful permanent resident (LPR) spouse, parent or child.
I guess the next thing you're going to tell me are that criminal misdemeanors or felonies that Obama wants to waive aren't criminal violations? Even if you forget the felons, it doesn't even take a waiver for an illegal alien with 2 misdemeanors, including DUI. Why do we want to let illegal immigrants off the hook when citizens would get harsher punishment?

What's the point of even having law if the executive refuses to enforce it and the democrats and RINOs want to gut it?

[ June 24, 2013, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What's the point of even having law if the executive refuses to enforce it and the democrats and RINOs want to gut it?
You may as well ask what the point is of the death penalty if a governor gets to pardon people. A humanitarian waiver granted only in certain circumstances will not be granted in every circumstance, and cannot in any case be granted where those circumstances do not apply.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So the effective change from the status quo is that, as a citizen, we'd be sure that we'd be able to keep him in jail for his full term and there'd be no chance of his home country deciding to extradite and release him.

What harsher punishment to citizens get, exactly? That's a completely nonsensical assertion, unless you're suggesting that we strip citizenship and deport people for similar offenses. RAther it seems like the bill sets up a situation where they're treated exactly like a regular citizen up to a point where we decide that we're better off deporting them because we have the legal latitude to do that rather than dealing with recidivism.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I will agree, though ,that this amendment, which is a completely different issue that the Corker one in your previous post which the same assertion was being made about, does in fact allow people with slight criminal records to still attempt to apply for citizenship.

Assuming that they've served the time, paid the associated fines, or otherwise complied with their sentence, that's about as it should be, since punishments for crimes should not exceed the bounds of the sentence prescribed for them in the first place.

[ June 24, 2013, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Pyrtolin ]

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
I will agree, though ,that this amendment, which is a completely different issue that the Corker one in your previous post which the same assertion was being made about, does in fact allow people with slight criminal records to still attempt to apply for citizenship.

Assuming that they've served the time, paid the associated fines, or otherwise complied with their sentence, that's about as it should be, since punishments for crimes should not exceed the bounds of the sentence prescribed for them in the first place.

That's ridiculous, because we screen people who attempt to legitimately immigrate here with similar criminal records or sometimes even no criminal records and a flag on a watch list. What message does this send to people who follow the rules?
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We screen for people likely to commit crimes, sure. That doesn't mean that we block people who've made minor mistakes in the past but otherwise don't show signs of being a future treat.

As for message, it lets people know that we operate on a humane and rational basis, and evaluate based on current and expected future behavior rather than damning them for past mistakes.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
We screen for people likely to commit crimes, sure. That doesn't mean that we block people who've made minor mistakes in the past but otherwise don't show signs of being a future treat.

As for message, it lets people know that we operate on a humane and rational basis, and evaluate based on current and expected future behavior rather than damning them for past mistakes.

SO what do you tell people trying to immigrate legally and go through our laws properly? "Sorry, you're a sucker?"
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
SO what do you tell people trying to immigrate legally and go through our laws properly? "Sorry, you're a sucker?"

No, given that this part applies to people trying to go through the process legally, it says "If you make a mistake, it's not the end of the world"
Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Originally posted by Seneca:
SO what do you tell people trying to immigrate legally and go through our laws properly? "Sorry, you're a sucker?"

No, given that this part applies to people trying to go through the process legally, it says "If you make a mistake, it's not the end of the world"
Wrong. Since we don't allow in every single person who attempts to legally, and we are letting the overwhelming vast majority of those who broke the law and snuck in illegally to stay, we are telling the people still waiting for legal immigration that they are fools and should have broken our law.
Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Since we don't allow in every single person who attempts to legally, and we are letting the overwhelming vast majority of those who broke the law and snuck in illegally to stay, we are telling the people still waiting for legal immigration that they are fools and should have broken our law.
You're changing what were talking about a third time? That has nothing to do with Corker (forgive overstaying a visa after a person has a long track record of legal residence) or Grassley's amendments (allowing some leniency in the immigration process for minor infractions for people who are currently legal residents).

Now you're talking about the part of the bill that works to try to fix things for people that are already here and integrated into our economy, at which point the message is "We're sorry that we're not quite ready to do away with the racist, quota based, lottery that we use instead of a sane immigration system that reviews each application expediently and on its own merits, but at least we can smooth over some of the damage that it causes in the short term."

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pyrtolin:
quote:
Since we don't allow in every single person who attempts to legally, and we are letting the overwhelming vast majority of those who broke the law and snuck in illegally to stay, we are telling the people still waiting for legal immigration that they are fools and should have broken our law.
You're changing what were talking about a third time? That has nothing to do with Corker (forgive overstaying a visa after a person has a long track record of legal residence) or Grassley's amendments (allowing some leniency in the immigration process for minor infractions for people who are currently legal residents).

Now you're talking about the part of the bill that works to try to fix things for people that are already here and integrated into our economy, at which point the message is "We're sorry that we're not quite ready to do away with the racist, quota based, lottery that we use instead of a sane immigration system that reviews each application expediently and on its own merits, but at least we can smooth over some of the damage that it causes in the short term."

I'm able to juggle several concepts at the same time, especially when they impact each other.

It is fundamentally wrong to reward people for violating the law, it achieves the exact opposite of what the intent of laws, enforcement and penalties are for: deterrents.

If this law passes it will be seen as huge encouragement for more illegal immigrants to run across the unsecured border so they can wait for the next amnesty, just as 1986 showed us. And these are not desirable people, many are fronts or directly involved with dangerous cartels, many have no regard for our other laws since they are already breaking some anyway. Ever get hit by an illegal? They just disappear afterward and you have no resource other than your own UIMC.

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pyrtolin
Member
Member # 2638

 - posted      Profile for Pyrtolin   Email Pyrtolin   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm able to juggle several concepts at the same time, especially when they impact each other.
Juggling concepts is one thing. Asking what message a particular Senator's amendment sends then suddenly shifting to talking about a different amendment or part of a bill does without any segue as if you'd been talking about that all along is something else completely.

quote:
It is fundamentally wrong to reward people for violating the law, it achieves the exact opposite of what the intent of laws, enforcement and penalties are for: deterrents.
There's no talk of rewarding anyone, just about treating a minor civil violation like what it is instead wasting huge amounts of resources that could be better put to use looking for meaningful criminal activity.

quote:
If this law passes it will be seen as huge encouragement for more illegal immigrants to run across the unsecured border so they can wait for the next amnesty, just as 1986 showed us.
Only becausew we've failed to actually give them any other good alternative by actually fixing the system so that they can apply and get admitted properly in a timely fashion.

quote:
And these are not desirable people, many are fronts or directly involved with dangerous cartels, many have no regard for our other laws since they are already breaking some anyway.
Just like people who speed or park illegally have no regard for laws in general? And yes, a small number of criminal actors take advantage of the broken system to slip in and use the legally threatened status of otherwise earnest people for cover- but that only speaks even more to helping those people get the proper legal paperwork so that they can help flush out those criminal actors without fear of repercussions instead of being forced to turn a blind eye to them to protect their own livelihoods.

quote:
Ever get hit by an illegal?
Do you call people who speed illegals as well? PEople who are late in renewing their vehicle registrations? People who let their parking meters run out? People who let their lawns grow beyond what local ordinances specify? Or you reserve that otherwise equally applicable term to just dehumanize one particular group of people?

People with all the proper documentation do the same thing just because they want to avoid a ding on their insurance record. Denying people proper documentation certainly does give them extra incentive to avoid situations that would bring scrutiny on their status, but that should suggest that we clean up the process so that they can get the proper documentation, not exacerbate the situation by providing them even more incentive to evade notice.

Posts: 11997 | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Juggling concepts is one thing. Asking what message a particular Senator's amendment sends then suddenly shifting to talking about a different amendment or part of a bill does without any segue as if you'd been talking about that all along is something else completely.

If you've been following this, the Amendment has BECOME the bill through a trick of procedure and also a last minute attempt to flood it with lots of pages so people won't have time to read it before a vote on it is forced.

quote:
There's no talk of rewarding anyone, just about treating a minor civil violation like what it is instead wasting huge amounts of resources that could be better put to use looking for meaningful criminal activity.
It is absolutely a reward for people to be given preferential positioning for citizenship when they have broken our laws to getting here.

quote:
Only becausew we've failed to actually give them any other good alternative by actually fixing the system so that they can apply and get admitted properly in a timely fashion.
Since when is it the US's job to welcome the entire world's population in if all 7 billion wanted to be here? We are the most free country in the world with the largest economy. One can easily extrapolate your argument to say that we have a duty to let in all 7 billion humans if they wanted to come here, totally absurd.

It is not our responsibility to give people alternatives to trying to come to the USA. If their countries suck, they need to rise up and fix them or die trying, as we did. We shouldn't sit idly by and refuse to enforce our own immigration laws and our own border security.

quote:
Just like people who speed or park illegally have no regard for laws in general? And yes, a small number of criminal actors take advantage of the broken system to slip in and use the legally threatened status of otherwise earnest people for cover- but that only speaks even more to helping those people get the proper legal paperwork so that they can help flush out those criminal actors without fear of repercussions instead of being forced to turn a blind eye to them to protect their own livelihoods.
This part demonstrates one of the biggest divides in the immigration debate. People like yourself who equate illegals to speeders on a highway, that's not sound thinking. You probably do not live near the southern border nor do you have loved ones there. There are organizations that track all the violent crimes these illegals do to American citizens, some of it may shock you. This is not a small problem and not something to brush under the rug as insignificant. Before you so callously dismiss this issue, I urge you to read these victims' names and see what the cost of "looking the other way" is.
http://www.immigrationshumancost.org/text/crimevictims_2.html
http://www.ojjpac.org/memorial.asp


I also submit that citizens face tougher penalties for DUI than illegals because illegals are let go after a DUI when we can't even identify them or where they live, so then they skip bail and skip trial and we lose track of them. The answer is not to legalize them and hope they come more cooperative, the answer is to kick them out and make room for more productive immigrants who will follow our laws and be productive members of our societies. Surely we can all agree we do not have unlimited space for unlimited immigrants, so if we have to be selective why can't we choose the law abiding ones?

quote:
Do you call people who speed illegals as well? PEople who are late in renewing their vehicle registrations? People who let their parking meters run out? People who let their lawns grow beyond what local ordinances specify? Or you reserve that otherwise equally applicable term to just dehumanize one particular group of people?

People with all the proper documentation do the same thing just because they want to avoid a ding on their insurance record. Denying people proper documentation certainly does give them extra incentive to avoid situations that would bring scrutiny on their status, but that should suggest that we clean up the process so that they can get the proper documentation, not exacerbate the situation by providing them even more incentive to evade notice.

At least with citizens you can write down a license plate number as they flee, with an illegal, they often force their information or have none at all. If you live near the border you'd notice all the cars running around with plates or with stolen plates.

[ June 24, 2013, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: Seneca ]

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I live near the border. I live in the state that until the economic collapse, was the number one entryway for illegal immigrants in this country.

All I can say is that you are vastly overstating the problem that illegals represent. I've worked with and interacted with them. The vast, vast majority are just hard workers(harder working then most Americans) who want to provide for their family. Some of them I met walked a couple hundred miles through desert, risking death. (And a lot of people died attempting that. Dozens every year, and that's not counting the bodies that aren't found. For all the violence that the cartels and coyotes represent, virtually all of the violence is targetted at other gang members or the immigrants that the coyotes are smuggling in. Surprisingly few American citizens are targetted.

Republicans are fulfilling their own prophecy here. They're scared that new citizens are going to vote Democrat, so they talk crap about and dehumanize immigrants. Then, when the bill passes, they're just not going to understand why these people don't want to vote for good Republican ideals.

Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Interesting point. Lindsey Graham said that if the immigration bill doesn't become law, Republicans are going to lose any hope of capturing the WH for a generation or longer. If you're right, they'll lose it either way.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
djquag1
Member
Member # 6553

 - posted      Profile for djquag1   Email djquag1       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's not at that point yet, but it's getting there.

I doubt that the new voters will make that big of a difference, though. The demographics that most immigrants fill aren't well known for having high voting percentages, although their children are more likely to break out of that mold.

The irony is that because most of them are such hard workers, and have had to live life here as illegals, I'm betting that a lot of them would be more then open to the "by your own bootstraps" Republican ideals. Not to mention the very high percentage of illegals who are religious.

But of course that's all ruined, because aside from a few like Lindsey Graham, Republicans enjoy labeling all immigrants as vile criminals who are a blight on the nation. They'll end up voting Democrat out of spite, or most likely, they won't vote at all.

Posts: 769 | Registered: Jan 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Greg Davidson
Member
Member # 3377

 - posted      Profile for Greg Davidson   Email Greg Davidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm able to juggle several concepts at the same time, especially when they impact each other.
By juggling, do you mean that when your approach has been discredited on one topic (say, economics half way up this page) you just leap to another topic without acknowledging your prior errors of assertion?

[ June 24, 2013, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Greg Davidson ]

Posts: 4178 | Registered: Dec 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But of course that's all ruined, because aside from a few like Lindsey Graham, Republicans enjoy labeling all immigrants as vile criminals who are a blight on the nation. They'll end up voting Democrat out of spite, or most likely, they won't vote at all."

I think they are likely to have the same general attitude as the Univision generation, that Republicans can't be trusted.

Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Seneca
Member
Member # 6790

 - posted      Profile for Seneca   Email Seneca       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Greg Davidson:
quote:
I'm able to juggle several concepts at the same time, especially when they impact each other.
By juggling, do you mean that when your approach has been discredited on one topic (say, economics half way up this page) you just leap to another topic without acknowledging your prior errors of assertion?
Which errors are you talking about, the dead victims of our efforts to solve other nationas' social ills? How about the fact that the CBO report said this would only, at BEST, stop 25% of illegal immigration?

If the war on terror is such a big deal that Obama needs to wiretap everyone's phones and practice rendition on US citizens, why won't he secure the southern border as is required by law now for over 50 years?

Posts: 6017 | Registered: Jan 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  12  13  14   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1