Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jeb Bush is the only politician talking about comprehensive immigration reform and a path to permanent residency for the 11 million already here. He announced it at the National Hispanic Christian Evangelical Conference held in Houston, on Wednesday. He's not just looking for the Hispanic vote, he's looking to pick up the legions of Democrats and independents who don't want to vote for Hillary and would never vote for a right wing ideologue. That's his strategy.
As a reference, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio didn't bother to even show up to the NHCEC . Shows you what they think of the Hispanic vote and how many votes they expect to get from the Latino base.
Question is, were they invited? Or did the NHCEC only want those who support amnesty attend the event?
I know Hillary Clinton is going to be a hard sell for the people for many reasons. Problem for the Dems is she's the only one they got. It's either Hillary or Pee Wee Herman.
On the other hand, the republican field is full of radicals. Each with a small, exclusive base. Jeb Bush has a track record of successful governance and he is the one person who can marginalize the tea party republicans and propose solutions for America that include all Americans moving forward. His campaign is not just focused on taking away from Americans or killing programs and creating division. His campaign is focused on what he will do to shape the nation for all of us.
Full of radicals. LMAO What an idiotic statement. Shape the nation, lol. Move forward, lol.The one person who can marginalize the tea party lol. You didn't say anything. Nothing about policy. It's always about policy. Unless of course one is into tabloids and reality shows.
Oh, not this again. Who is advocating to forcibly deport all these illegals....no one! The solution is to remove all of the incentives for them to remain here and to continue to come here such as jobs, benefits and birthright citizenship for their kids. Don't care what they bleed. Americans lawbreakers bleed red, white and blue also but they don't get excused from justice. Allowing illegal alien kids to remain here simply because their lawbreaking parents brought them here is rewarding the parents for doing so. Why should illegals escape deportation simply because they are already here? Who among them has given the ultimate sacrifice for our nation? By doing what?
Our government can't even keep track of visa overstayers but they are going to keep track of millions of illegal aliens to make sure they pay back taxes? They not only should they get to the back of the line for citizenship but legal status also but do it in their own country not here. We need the jobs they are holding so how does allowing them to remain here in legal status fix that problem?
Plenty of voters advocate this (I never claimed that any current candidates are, but that's beside the point)
And how do you remove incentives for them to stay here? Illegals are doing under the table work or work using fake social security cards (which, by the way, is not a crime as the Federal identity theft law only covers actual identity theft, not use of fake social security numbers). Even the most stringent enforcement measures won't get most of these workers/employers, and would be monumentally expensive to even try. So, then what? That's why I make the points I make. And, yes, millions would come out of the woodwork to pay fines/obtain legal status (just as they did under Reagan) as it gives them added security. Just like millions were prepared to come out of the woodwork (and many did) to take part of the deferred action. To maintain their legal status, these people would "check in," especially as legal status would allow them to get formal employment (that's worth a lot and is why you require that the temporary worker status be renewed every so often). And the truth of the matter is that many of the jobs that illegals do, especially in agriculture, are not jobs that Americans have been taking, even at a legal wage (i.e. minimum wage): Why Americans Won't Do Dirty Jobs - Businessweek. The "they're taking our jobs" line has been shown to be false many times over. Yes, you could always increase salaries for these "dirty" jobs, which would increase American interest in them, but you better be prepared for the consequences that such wage increases would have on everyone else.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 05-01-2015 at 08:29 PM..
Plenty of voters advocate this (I never claimed that any current candidates are, but that's beside the point)
And how do you remove incentives for them to stay here? Illegals are doing under the table work for the most part. Even the most stringent enforcement measures won't get most of these workers/employers, and would be monumentally expensive to even try. So, then what? That's why I make the points I make. And, yes, millions would come out of the woodwork to pay fines/obtain legal status (just as they did under Reagan) as it gives them added security. Just like millions were prepared to come out of the woodwork (and many did) to take part of the deferred action. To maintain their legal status, these people would "check in," especially as legal status would allow them to get formal employment (that's worth a lot and is why you require that the temporary worker status be renewed every so often). And the truth of the matter is that many of the jobs that illegals do, especially in agriculture, are not jobs that Americans have been taking, even at a legal wage (i.e. minimum wage): Why Americans Won't Do Dirty Jobs - Businessweek. So things are not so black and white.
Please provide a link that most illegals are working under the table. Doesn't matter anyway with e-verify in place most employers wouldn't take the chance with stiff fines for non-compliance so you are wrong that the status quo would continue. What huge expenses would it incur? Since voters can't deport illegal aliens and only congress can enforce our immigration laws then why bring them up?
I already told you that Americans need the jobs they are holding so why would you advocate for them to remain here and continue to work? There is no truth whatsoever that illegals are doing jobs that Americans won't do. I already explained that there are unlimited H-2A visas for legal, foreign crop pickers and that only 3% of illegals are picking crops. Did you miss that or just ignore it? Other than that there are no jobs that Americans both adults and our youth won't do for a fair wage. Who do you think did them before millions of illegal aliens flooded our borders?
BusinessWeek? Don't make me laugh. They represent the greedy employers and corporations that just want to increase their profits so they make the false claim that they can't find an American worker to do the job. I suggest you educate yourself on this subject. If nothing else have some respect for our nation's immigration laws and our right to enforce them. They are in place for good reasons. These people need to go back home where they belong and we need to stop the flow. Amnesty will just encourage more to come. We need to discourage them, not encourage them.
We are already spending billions covering their social costs so raising the wages for an American worker would still be a net gain for us. Illegal aliens also send billions out of our country to their homelands. The American worker would be spending all of their money in our economy and be gainfully employed rather than living off of unemployment or welfare.
Please provide a link that most illegals are working under the table. Doesn't matter anyway with e-verify in place most employers wouldn't take the chance with stiff fines for non-compliance so you are wrong that the status quo would continue. What huge expenses would it incur? Since voters can't deport illegal aliens and only congress can enforce our immigration laws then why bring them up?
I already told you that Americans need the jobs they are holding so why would you advocate for them to remain here and continue to work? There is no truth whatsoever that illegals are doing jobs that Americans won't do. I already explained that there are unlimited H-2A visas for legal, foreign crop pickers and that only 3% of illegals are picking crops. Did you miss that or just ignore it? Other than that there are no jobs that Americans both adults and our youth won't do for a fair wage. Who do you think did them before millions of illegal aliens flooded our borders?
BusinessWeek? Don't make me laugh. They represent the greedy employers and corporations that just want to increase their profits so they make the false claim that they can't find an American worker to do the job. I suggest you educate yourself on this subject. If nothing else have some respect for our nation's immigration laws and our right to enforce them. They are in place for good reasons. These people need to go back home where they belong and we need to stop the flow. Amnesty will just encourage more to come. We need to discourage them, not encourage them.
Jack Martin, director of special projects at FAIR . . . argues that more than half of the country's illegal immigrants work in the "underground economy," meaning that they are paid cash under the table, without paying any kind of taxes.
Do you have evidence to suggest otherwise?
So, I repeat that it would be essentially impossible, and extraordinarily difficult and EXPENSIVE to try, to enforce the measures you outlined above. By the way, employers are already taking a huge risk in employing such workers to begin with. Will increased enforcement really cease all under the table employment of illegals? No. And prohibiting something never works to eradicate something.
2) And I already told you that Americans, when given the opportunity (see the BusinessWeek post . . . by the way, pointing out that the article comes from BusinessWeek, which provides quotes from various officials/farmers/etc., isn't a serious argument against it. Seriously?), haven't been doing the jobs that many illegals currently do. And, for this point, I'm more interested in what has actually happened vs. polls showing an interest (and the Alabama approach was shown to be a failure . . . the farmers were begging for the law not to be enforced after they were finding it near impossible to attract American workers). Yes, business is about profits (no secret there). But the jobs that illegals do are, by and large, unskilled jobs, which is why they are so low-paid to begin with. Should employers pay $20/hr to pick a tomato? Think about what that would do to the cost of food, etc.
Still, where's your evidence to support the claim that these businesses are making "false claim[s]?"
And I'm not advocating lawlessness or disrespect to immigration laws. Rather, I'm advocating a change in the law to permit legal status. There's a big difference, which takes into account practicality, among other concerns. The illegals (well, at least the adult illegals) have already shown disrespect to our laws, which is why my plan calls for paying back taxes/fines before being able to gain legal status.
Your make it so difficult so that people self-deport language also fails to take into account that many of the illegals here have working-age/adult US citizen children; in the worse case scenario, the US citizen children would care for their parents/families. Again, they aren't going anywhere. The question is how to adequately deal with the situation.
But, note, even with your make it difficult/unpleasant/"impossible" to gain employment in the US, there still has to be adequate border security (which I support) to prevent new workers from coming in to take advantage of under the table work. Your goals are laudable. I just don't think they are feasible/practicable.
Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 05-01-2015 at 09:02 PM..
This thread is about the strategic political move Jeb Bush made in Addressing the Evangelical hispanic citizens at a national event. It is not a rehash of the anti immigration bullet points.
The fact that Jeb Bush addressed a national, conservative, Hispanic, Christian organization and declared his stance that all 11 million illegals have a place in this nation and doing it very early, speaks volumes.
Doesn't anyone find this peculiar and interesting?
He's willing to lose the vote of those on the intractable right and still feel he can win the primaries.
He win's the primaries, Hillary is in deep Kimchi.
OldGlory. Wouldn't you rather have a republican in the driver's seat than a Democrat? Or is dogmatic purity more important to you?
So, I repeat that it would be essentially impossible, and extraordinarily difficult and EXPENSIVE to try, to enforce the measures you outlined above. By the way, employers are already taking a huge risk in employing such workers to begin with. Will increased enforcement really cease all under the table employment of illegals? No. And prohibiting something never works to eradicate something.
2) And I already told you that Americans, when given the opportunity (see the BusinessWeek post . . . by the way, pointing out that the article comes from BusinessWeek, which provides quotes from various officials/farmers/etc., isn't a serious argument against it. Seriously?), haven't been doing the jobs that many illegals currently do. And, for this point, I'm more interested in what has actually happened vs. polls showing an interest (and the Alabama approach was shown to be a failure . . . the farmers were begging for the law not to be enforced after they were finding it near impossible to attract American workers). Yes, business is about profits (no secret there). But the jobs that illegals do are, by and large, unskilled jobs, which is why they are so low-paid to begin with. Should employers pay $20/hr to pick a tomato? Think about what that would do to the cost of food, etc.
Still, where's your evidence to support the claim that these businesses are making "false claim[s]?"
And I'm not advocating lawlessness or disrespect to immigration laws. Rather, I'm advocating a change in the law to permit legal status. There's a big difference, which takes into account practicality, among other concerns. The illegals (well, at least the adult illegals) have already shown disrespect to our laws, which is why my plan calls for paying back taxes/fines before being able to gain legal status.
Your make it so difficult so that people self-deport language also fails to take into account that many of the illegals here have working-age/adult US citizen children; in the worse case scenario, the US citizen children would care for their parents/families. Again, they aren't going anywhere. The question is how to adequately deal with the situation.
But, note, even with your make it difficult/unpleasant/"impossible" to gain employment in the US, there still has to be adequate border security (which I support) to prevent new workers from coming in to take advantage of under the table work. Your goals are laudable. I just don't think they are feasible/practicable.
make it difficult/unpleasant/"impossible" is code for do nothing to solve the issue. There is a comprehensive immigration bill sitting in the House right now that was passed with a bipartisan vote of the Senate 62-38. The House could bring it to the floor and add amendments until the issues were resolved and pass it.
Conservatives don't want a solution. They like the status quo and use immigration as a wedge issue to unify their base. They block any solution that would take immigration off the political table.
If you are competing with illegal immigrants for jobs, you have made some seriously bad life choices. If an American citizen born with all the privileges and access to free public education that it comes with is whining about the difficulty of finding work as a day laborer, crop picker, dishwasher or lawn mower it is hard to feel bad for them. If an immigrant from a third world country with no education can steal your job, that is your fault.
Tell that to the roughly 50 million people born in America with IQs below 85.
This thread is about the strategic political move Jeb Bush made in Addressing the Evangelical hispanic citizens at a national event. It is not a rehash of the anti immigration bullet points.
The fact that Jeb Bush addressed a national, conservative, Hispanic, Christian organization and declared his stance that all 11 million illegals have a place in this nation and doing it very early, speaks volumes.
Doesn't anyone find this peculiar and interesting?
He's willing to lose the vote of those on the intractable right and still feel he can win the primaries.
He win's the primaries, Hillary is in deep Kimchi.
OldGlory. Wouldn't you rather have a republican in the driver's seat than a Democrat? Or is dogmatic purity more important to you?
My original post was more in line with the OP, but I admit that things seem to have gotten off topic a bit as a discussion of the merits of immigration reform generally, so I'll cease my back and forth with OldGlory.
As to your question now: no, I don't find what Jeb Bush did peculiar and interesting, especially as his immigration stance has been known for years and, even during this cycle, he has long made his views publicly known. And Marco Rubio's immigration approach isn't radically different than Bush's for what its worth. No leading GOP contender's is really for that matter.
This thread is about the strategic political move Jeb Bush made in Addressing the Evangelical hispanic citizens at a national event. It is not a rehash of the anti immigration bullet points.
The fact that Jeb Bush addressed a national, conservative, Hispanic, Christian organization and declared his stance that all 11 million illegals have a place in this nation and doing it very early, speaks volumes.
Doesn't anyone find this peculiar and interesting?
He's willing to lose the vote of those on the intractable right and still feel he can win the primaries.
He win's the primaries, Hillary is in deep Kimchi.
OldGlory. Wouldn't you rather have a republican in the driver's seat than a Democrat? Or is dogmatic purity more important to you?
Bush is the easiest of all the GOP hopefuls, Hillary can beat.
The Bush name and like Romney, he is big government = TOXIC
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who is advocating to forcibly deport all these illegals....no one! The solution is to remove all of the incentives for them to remain here and to continue to come here such as jobs, benefits and birthright citizenship for their kids. Don't care what they bleed. Americans lawbreakers bleed red, white and blue also but they don't get excused from justice. Allowing illegal alien kids to remain here simply because their lawbreaking parents brought them here is rewarding the parents for doing so. Why should illegals escape deportation simply because they are already here? Who among them has given the ultimate sacrifice for our nation? By doing what?
