Why isn't repbulican congress fixing immigration?

(facepalm) Yeah, sure, you quote their very words and then claim they mean the opposite of what they say. For example:

As DHS explains? It says right there that returns are aliens who appear to be inadmissible or deportable may be offered the opportunity to voluntarily return to their home country in lieu of formal removal proceedings before an immigration judge. Generally, aliens waive their right to a hearing, remain in custody, and, if applicable, agree to depart the United States under supervision. How do you think that that is not considered a deportation?​

If it's voluntary, it's not a deportation. Claiming it is a deportation because the person remains in custody for a time is rather like claiming that someone who's been detained by police for questioning is a convicted criminal. That's just not what the word means. But I don't really care to argue the point. As I said earlier to someone else, I feel that arguing terminology is pointless. So go ahead and keep telling yourself that deportation means what you want it to mean and not what it actually means if you want, it's not my problem.

This from the person who quotes a definition of a return that explicitly says it's voluntary and then claims that supports your bizarre notion that returns are actually deportations? How exactly do you get the idea that I'm arguing from emotions and ignoring facts when I say that all ideology is bunk and you should make decisions based on the best information available at the time? Did you not understand what I was saying or did you just not bother to read it? Let me simplify it for you. Ideology = bad. Pragmatism = good.

No, you made an extremely vague statement about wages etc without explaining how any of those things are impacted by immigration at all. I really want to hear your rationale for saying that immigrants increase inflation. Or perhaps decrease it, your statement was too vague to really tell which you meant.

I'd say I'm sorry to burst your bubble but that would be a lie. Although it may break your brain to even contemplate such a thing, not everyone in the world wants to move to the US. As I said before, I will support reasonable limitations on immigration if you can show that it's actually straining the system. Claiming we're anywhere near that point now is just ludicrous.

(double facepalm) Yea gods! Okay, first there were three links, so here they are again since you missed one:

http://www.aei.org/publication/how-does-immigration-affect-us-wages-and-jobs/
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/posts/2012/05/04-jobs-greenstone-looney
http://www.cato.org/blog/immigrations-real-impact-wages-employment

Secondly: Blogs? Are you serious? You're calling Cato, AEI and Brookings blogs? And you accuse me of being ignorant? What rock are you living under? Those are only three of the leading think tanks in the world. The Brookings Institution is the second oldest think tank in the US, founded in 1916, and is generally considered center to center left. The American Enterprise Institute is center right to neocon and was founded in 1938. The Cato Institute is libertarian and was founded in 1974. These institutions have been around since before the person who coined the term "blog" was born. Heck, Brookings was around before that person's grandparents were born. When three of the most respected think tanks in the world from across the political spectrum are all saying the same thing, that should probably tell you something. Or you know, you could ignore them and continue to argue from emotion, facts be damned.

I said that I don't know that much about immigration proceedings, not immigration in general. I don't know that much about the details of what happens in a removal procedure or the day to day operations of ICE and the Border Patrol. Do you know the Quantum Mechanics of how a transistor works? No? Does that mean you can't have an informed opinion about the relative merits of different software? News flash: someone saying that they don't know something about one particular topic does not mean they're saying they're completely ignorant of everything in the universe. Adults recognize and admit the limits of their knowledge. People who pretend to be omniscient and infallible, well... Draw your own conclusions.

You're the only one who seems to have trouble with reading comprehension. If I'm ignorant, then educate me. I'm a good listener. And I'm more than willing to change my views when new information warrants it. And quite frankly, if you can't explain the basis for your position, that strongly implies that either you don't understand it yourself or you're not willing to admit what it really is.

 

And you still don't understand what a return is: Generally, aliens waive their right to a hearing, remain in custody, and, if applicable, agree to depart the United States under supervision. So if they remain in custody and are supervised at their departure, and sign a waiver to a formal removal proceeding, is that not a deportation? You must comprehend the definition. Now, where in your link does it make the claim that returns are not deportations? HINT: it doesn't make that claim. Do you know why? Because returns are counted in the deportation numbers.

Did I not make my decisions based on the actual information? Did you not make your decisions based on a lack of basic knowledge? Ignorance = bad; knowledge=good. Since you don't seem to be too knowledgeable on the subject....

I suggest you look into 3 very well renowned economists, Paul Krugman (Progressive Economist), George Borjas (Economist and mentioned in your own AEI link) and Victor Hanson (Economist), which all say exactly what I stated, un-skilled illegals lower wages and cost US GDP. Claiming we aren't anywhere near that point is what is ludicrous. Would it break your brain to actually prove your opinion or provide at least a modicum of basic knowledge on the subject.

Cato and Brookings both have the word blog after their initial www. You do understand that those sites do have blogs on them along with actual studies, right? As for the AEI, what does it say again...oh, yea, Likely good for wages and good for jobs.. That means they really don't know and are throwing out a guess for their justification which is all based on skilled immigration, again from your link:

and

So we won't let your inability to comprehend basic English words get in the way.

You haven't shown that you know anything abut immigration in general to this point.

I didn't say you were ignorant of everything, just immigration. Your opinion isn't an informed opinion, it's an opinion based on lack of knowledge and emotions (your projected morals).

I have tried to educate you, you simply keep throwing out snide insults, to which I toss back. The basis for my position are the facts, nothing more, nothing less.

 

We've had this conversation last year. http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...ress-have-authority-regulate-immigration.html

 

Yes, I am supporting my claim with facts - you just don't like them and therefore ignore them. For example, the fact that legal immigration levels are far too small for the demand. In 2008, 13.6 million people applied to the green card lottery - which has a grand total of 50,000 green cards to award.

Because most legal immigrants aren't white, the immigration laws can't be racist? The logic of that is so bad... Let me illustrate with an example. Let's say that Ash goes to the park to feed the squirrels. 50 grey squirrels and 5 red squirrels show up begging for food. (Ash is lucky that's all, squirrels being squirrels.) Ash chooses to feed 4 red squirrels and 5 grey squirrels. It'd be pretty ridiculous to try to claim that Ash doesn't prefer red squirrels to grey squirrels just because more grey squirrels got fed than red, isn't it?

The US admits more people than the rest of the world? No, no, and no. That's simply not true. That statement is based on comparing the US to all other countries that use a system like our green cards, which are Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. If you look at the actual numbers, that claim becomes patently ridiculous. Although the US does admit the most in absolute terms, it's nowhere near more than the rest of the world. the UK, Italy and Spain combined admit about the same number as the US. And the total for the 23 other countries listed in that OECD report is 2,957,995, which is almost three times the number the US admits. And that's not considering that most of those countries are tiny compared to the US. If you crunch the numbers and figure out the rate of admission, the US ranks 16th out of 24 countries, admitting 3.4 immigrants per 1,000 population. We're behind Portugal. Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all admit immigrants at more than double the US rate. The Swiss are at the top of the list, admitting 14.8 immigrants per 1,000 population - more than four times the US rate.

 

(sigh) How long are you going to keep calling me stupid because I use the definition of "deportation" that the rest of the world uses, instead of your made up one? This is pointless. And DHS doesn't claim that returns aren't deportations because DHS doesn't use the term deportation at all. DHS only talks about returns and removals. And when someone talks about "deportation numbers" those numbers are always removals, not returns (prove me wrong.)

No, you make your decisions based on pure prejudice and fictions created to justify those prejudices. You keep claiming to have facts supporting your case, but when challenged you never actually offer any. Do you seriously think that saying that immigration laws "control inflation, supply and demand, wages, resources, etc." constitutes citing facts? You have yet to answer my very simple question: how does immigration impact any of those things? That's just a vague claim with absolutely nothing backing it up.

(sigh) Refernces! You can't just make a vague claim about what Paul Krugman said and not provide any actual citations. And I'll bet that none of them said anything that even remotely resembles what you're claiming.

Prove my opinion? I've supported my opinion with hard numbers and with citations from some of the most respected think tanks in the world. You've provided some vague handwaving about inflation. Now which of us is lacking in a modicum of basic knowledge?

You know very well exactly what saying, "Wow 2 blog links, yea those are credible," implies - don't you try to weasel out of it now. Or are you now going to claim that you didn't say what you said? You either didn't know what Brookings, AEI and Cato were, or you didn't bother to check whose website you were looking at. (And considering that they all have their logos on the top of those pages...) Well, either that or you were just outright lying. So which is it?

As for "likely good for wages" etc, people who want to have serious discussions about facts and policy use nuance and never claim absolute certainty about anything.

I've shown pretty clearly that I know considerably more about it than you do.

You seem to simply say that any argument you can't refute is just emotion and morals, so (shrug) whatever. Although I am amused by the irony of a conservative denigrating positions based on morals.

Where? When? How? Where have you ever tried to provide actual facts? All you do is keep trying to redefine the word "deportation." And you're the one throwing snide insults, my snark has been quite minimal while you call me stupid several times in every post.

Somehow that doesn't surprise me.

 

people applying for green cards dont regulate our demand, this country and the people out of work who are already here LEGALLY decide what the demand is. we dont need anymore poor people, we have enough of those already.

if ash fed 2500 grey squirrels to every 3 red squirrels then yes you could say ash preferred grey squirrels.

ok then not every other country combined, but more than any other country. you're still failing

 

The rest of the world uses your definition? That's Here is a good article explaining the definition of deportation http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/obama-administration-record-deportations

By quoting the exact words of your links?

Are you really this inept?

If you have 40 houses to sell, and have 50 buyers, what happens to the price of the houses? If you have 500 gallons of water and and 600 people what happens to the water? Isn't CA experiencing a drought right now? Isn't Vegas and Southern CA in drought stage pretty much year round? Whats happening to all our fresh water supply, is it not becoming contaminated from sewage? Basic economics backs up my statements, but if you want a better analogy just look at India and China, what is overpopulation doing to them?

Did you not read your own link where in it states what Borjas found? Hanson we discussed last year and I linked to your thread it is in. Here from Krugman (Progressive Democrat) himself

A basic search would have revealed to you this very basic common knowledge information.

You haven't supported your opinion. Your links discuss legal immigration and state that illegals do cause low wage earners to be the most impacted. Your links verify everything I have stated, they even refer to the very economists that I told you to go read.

Huh? The Brookings link and the Cato link are to their Blog sections, not their report sections. Even still, their substance in their blog articles state exactly what I stated, they are discussing legal immigrants. Not only are you inept, you are also inane.

Because for legal skilled immigrants its probably true, for unskilled illegal immigrants it is not. Again I suggest you read what Paul Krugman states about illegal from Mexico.

I just spit all over my screen.

Your morals aren't my morals so please don't project your ignorance on to me.

I haven't called you stupid, I have called you inept. Do you not know the difference between those two words?

Why would it surprise you, you had it all explained to you before, surely you aren't so inept that you have came back to argue the same stupidity you have before and were shown to be incorrect about, are you?

 

The Republicans are not interested in fixing Illegal Immigration, never have been and never will be.
Enough said.
The better question is why is it the Republican Congress still cannot pass a BUDGET?

 

For the same reason the Democrats never did.

 

True......

 

the right has done zero in the past and will continue to do zero and history is on my side, by criminals of I meant drug dealers and murderers , the real criminals are the companies and people who hire illegals

 

Enforcing the law seems to be a position that seems to escape the Progressive Socialist Left.

 

This congress, just as the last congress cannot fix any problems. I am not a Trump fan, but he is right about one thing, pretty much ALL politicians are doing the bidding of their financial backers. There is wayyyyy too much money at stake for either Reps or Dems to fix immigration. Otherwise they would simply make it a Felony (for every individual violation) for an employer to hire any person who is not legally allowed to be employed in the US. (CEO's would be the responsible parties in corporations). This will never happen simply because politicians/corporations depend on the citizenry being divided. As long as the people are fighting amongst themselves, (Reps vrs Dems) politicians have the needed cover (and lack of solid majorities) to force accountability.

 

See above post. Us Vrs Them insures a divided country and enables ALL politicians to ignore the best interest of the country.

 

Yep, those weak-kneed , lying repubs like Boehner and McConnell ran on reversing all the outrageous things 0bama was doing, and then funded it all once they were elected.

McConnell thew Congress' "power of the purse" into the trash can, just days after he was reelected. He ran on repealing 0bamaCare, stating that "The first step in health care reform was the complete repeal of the ACA." Then once elected he thew that into the trash as well, by saying it was unrealistic to expect Congress to repeal it.

 

Are you saying that a movement on the left exists, where voters hold politicians accountable for looting the treasury to buy vote and reward their corporate and political cronies, exceeding their Constitutional authority, and heaping irresponsible amount of debt onto future generations?

All I see is the TEA party movement on the right.

If there was such a movement on the left, to threaten the corrupt political establishment in Washington, the political elites and media would be savaging them along with the TEA party movement

It would be wonderful to see a movement on the left that stood up for the people.

 

Yeah, as Obama has said ad nauseum, " I have my phone and my pen and I know how to use them." So Obama is the obstructionist here. He doesn't want to bend.

 

Maybe you can point to the immigration bills coming out of the Congress that Obama has used his pen to obstruct, I'll wait.........................

 

I would love to see a party that was neither "R" or "L", but a party that fights to remove the powerful influences that corrupt our politicians. At this point in time no such party exists.

 

And passing laws that are both just and enforceable in the first place seems to be a position that escapes the Reactionary Authoritarian Right.

No, the problem is not politicians doing the bidding of their financial backers. At least in this case. If the wealthy donor class had their way, comprehensive immigration reform would have passed a decade ago, loosening immigration restrictions and providing legal status for undocumented immigrants, which is the obvious, sensible, and moral solution. Not to mention easy to implement.

No, the problem is that Republican primary voters seem to have decided they should get their way all the time on every issue, regardless of what the majority of the American people think about it. When a small faction that seems to think they have a divine mandate to rule over the rest of us like some sort of aristocracy starts seizing power wherever they can, is it any wonder that democratic institutions stop working properly?

It's time for the Tea Party to stop acting as if anything bad that happens must be the fault of anyone who dares to disagree with them and start taking responsibility for their actions.

While the Tea Party may be happy to burn the country to the ground to expunge the memory of a black man desecrating the Oval Office, Boehner and McConnell would rather not be the ones run out of the country on a rail when the angry mob breaks out the tar and feathers because they took away millions of people's health coverage and let the insurance companies start canceling policies again because the person actually got sick.

If you see the Tea Party doing any of that then you must be looking in a funhouse mirror. It's the Tea Party that's torpedoed any chance of a balanced budget agreement by refusing to raise taxes.

It's Progressives on the left who have been pushing for a responsible budget that actually pays for government. It's Progressives who've stood up against things like voter ID laws designed to disenfranchise millions of people.

News flash: the Tea Party is not "the people" or "the voters" or anything close to a majority. The Tea Party is one small faction that thinks that government should be at their beck and call, the Constitution be damned.

Well if your idea of immigration reform is deporting as many brown people as you can lay your hands on, yes, Obama is being an obstructionist to that. Along with the majority of the US.

 

Republicans no longer try to fix things. They just keep breaking them, you know 'cause government doesn't work if we break it.

 

Yeah, listening to the arsonists complain that the building is on fire is getting a little old, don't you think?

 

There does not have to be an independent party. I'm just looking for patriotic Democrats to speak up. Dems who are tired of the corrupt crony corporatists in their own party, so far all they do is wave pom poms and cheer on the corruption.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, they act just like the Democrats now.

 

Democrats lost their spine after bush sent us into Iraq. They crumbled under the pressure to go to war or be labeled "Unpatriotic" or out of fear they "didn't support the troops". I lost any respect I had for the Dems after that spineless display. They didn't stand up for what they told us they believed in, rather they cowtowed to bush/cheney's war machine and Foxnews.

 

And bush enforced existing immigration laws how?