Eight ain’t enough

Not sure it matters much what the Gang of Eight wants to do with immigration reform. Most of the House Republican caucus will oppose just about anything, so the real question is what happens with the ones who voted with Dems on the fiscal cliff and Sandy funding. This end game (from Steve M) sounds about right:

If I had to bet, I’d assume that nothing passes — that the House GOP will make the bill even tougher on immigrants, possibly even stripping out any path to citizenship, and it will still be deemed “amnesty” by most of them, while going too far to the right even for willing-to-compromise Democrats. Then the apparently pro-reform Republicans, Graham and McCain and Rubio and Boehner and the rest, can argue that Republicans really, really wanted reform, but Democrats insisted on “amnesty.” And those Republicans will get brownie points for trying, at least with the mainstream press (Hispanics won’t be fooled), while the crazy back-benchers will get credit with their base for stopping The Invasion Of America. And Rubio will be set up to run in 2016 as the guy who can really get this done.

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

65 replies
  1. 1
    Bulworth says:

    Sounds about right.

    Too bad. The morning papers had me feeling rather optimistic.

  2. 2
    Ivan Ivanovich Renko says:

    The confederate bastards really do think all brown people are just stupid, don’t they?

  3. 3
    PeakVT says:

    The outcome may turn on the Spanish-language media, and whether or not it will report honestly on the proposals from the various factions. If the Senate Dems put up a good bill and the House Republicans counter with something outrageous, we know the English-language media will say both sides do it. But will the Spanish-language media?

  4. 4
    mikej(droid) says:

    Repiblicans wouldn’t vote for this even when passing it would have made Bush look good. There is no way on earth they let Obama sign this bill surrounded by a sea of happy hispanic faces.

  5. 5

    Am I the only one who’s sick to death of these “gangs”? I don’t know why it rubs me the wrong way, but it does. So does “czar”. Reporters are such lazy bastards, they can’t let any hackneyed old phrase go by without throwing it into their newest piece. And if there aren’t any helpful clichés lying around that fit, they’ll take some reasonably fresh turn of phrase and beat it into clichéhood. So I guess I’d sum up by saying that at the end of the day, what we need is gang of some number who can bring about a real sea change so we can throw all those clichés under the bus.

  6. 6
    Hunter Gathers says:

    It’s all about current MSM man-crush Rubio. Sure, they find Paul Ryan’s baby blues, cut physique and disire to punish teh poors in order to give the rich more money appealing, but it wasn’t enough to put the Daddy party back in the White House.

    Rubio supposedly appeals to Latinos (a dubious proposal outside of Little Havana), is a Neo-Con, hates Social Security and has just enough hair to give David Gregory a stiffy. Watching Hillary Clinton crush him will be delightful.

  7. 7
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    And those Republicans will get brownie points for trying, at least with the mainstream press

    I don’t know, Steve King and the rest are so hateful that this could get ugly enough to make the Gregorys uncomfortable. Also too, how will this play out for Graham? I’d really love to see that smarmy little shit lose a primary.

    I continue to be singularly unimpressed by Marco Rubio, but then right up till election day 2000 I kept thinking people were gonna see the Shrub for the nitwit he was. And is.

  8. 8
    Violet says:

    And Rubio will be set up to run in 2016 as the guy who can really get this done.

    Seriously? Good ol’ Cuban wingnut Marco Rubio? Appealing to the rest of the Latino population? I’m just not seeing it.

  9. 9
    redshirt says:

    It’s all just a game, isn’t it?

  10. 10
    Fred says:

    @Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.):
    No doubt you are right but it’s really above my pay grade.

  11. 11
    Violet says:

    @Hunter Gathers:

    Rubio supposedly appeals to Latinos (a dubious proposal outside of Little Havana), is a Neo-Con, hates Social Security and has just enough hair to give David Gregory a stiffy.

    Isn’t his hair thinning? Four years can take a toll.

  12. 12
    Geoduck says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist:

    I continue to be singularly unimpressed by Marco Rubio, but then right up till election day 2000 I kept thinking people were gonna see the Shrub for the nitwit he was. And is.

    Eh. Shrub was one of The Tribe, or could fake it well enough to skate by. Rubio? No way.

  13. 13
    Omnes Omnibus says:

    @Zapruder F. Mashtots, D.D.S. (Mumphrey, et al.): Gang of Four was a pretty cool band.

  14. 14
    Violet says:

    @Geoduck: Shrub also had a former president for a Daddy and a brother who was governor of the state he needed to steal. Rubio has none of those connections.

  15. 15
    Quincy says:

    I disagree. I think this one goes down like the fiscal cliff deal and Sandy funding. Republican leadership doesn’t want the party blamed for blocking immigration reform and wants the issue off the table before the 2016 primaries so they let it pass with Dem votes. 85% of the House Republican caucus still gets to vote against it to protect themselves from primaries.

  16. 16
    Roger Moore says:

    I don’t buy it. If nothing else, Rubio has put his name on the Gang of Eight plan, which means that he can be associated with its terms in the future. If it’s unacceptable to the base because it’s amnesty, it’s probably enough to block his run for the presidency. Maybe one of the other Republican backers of the plan could survive having supported amnesty, but I can’t imagine the Republican base supporting somebody with a Spanish surname who had advocated amnesty. It will be seen as proof that he’s one of them and is trying to let his people take the country away from honest white folks.

  17. 17
    Hunter Gathers says:

    @Violet:

    Isn’t his hair thinning? Four years can take a toll.

    He’ll spend just enough money on Rogaine to keep his receding hairline at bay long enough in order to have the pleasure of getting destroyed by Clinton.

  18. 18
    General Stuck says:

    You know, that would be my first blush as well, Stevem’s take. But there is another element being introduced as gleaned from GOP soul searching (granted a very small area) on what makes them tick to find the energy to get out of bed in the morning. And that is access to power, having power, for power’s sake. They may need to suffer some more in the pol wilderness, but there is no way out for them but to get this done. If they want to sit in the captains seat again. And if they try and fail in the GOP run House, then that is just more nails in their electoral coffins.

    edit – and it won’t matter how the press paints the fail for the wingnuts having tried, at least.
    The Hispanic citizens in this country are fine tuned into the issue, and will know who is to blame, or what party. And the beatings will continue at the ballot box until morale improves/

  19. 19
    ruemara says:

    The core powers behind the GOP are sick of the Teabaggers. They’re the silent influence. The Teabaggers are the media darlings, the way you can’t figure out why in the fuck reporters give a damn about Kim Kardashian. They get the attention and it used to be power, but they don’t win. that’s what it will boil down to and that’s why I don’t expect this to fail.

  20. 20
    Patricia Kayden says:

    Doug,

    I can’t see Republicans not passing some form of immigration reform. To win the Presidency, they need the Latino vote. Period. They’re not doing this for altruistic reasons — this is about getting back into the White House.

  21. 21
    jonas says:

    Rubio in 2016? Sure, Republicans think that’ll be the ticket, but right-wing Cubans from Florida have about as much cred with the average Latino as Herman Cain and Clarence Thomas do with African Americans. They still can’t seem to get that it’s not the messenger, it really is the message.

  22. 22
    Violet says:

    What’s Rush Limbaugh saying about it? What is Fox News’s line on it?

  23. 23
    redshirt says:

    @Patricia Kayden: They don’t need Latinos to re-gain the White House. They just need to change the Electoral College rules, implement even more stringent Voter ID laws, and get better at outright cheating.

    I know they can do it!

  24. 24
    Violet says:

    @jonas: I’ll never forget about ten years ago a wingnut Latino ran for a city-wide office where I live. In the neighborhood I was living at the time–which had a large Latino population–people had scribbled “Republicano!” over his lawn signs. They didn’t care that he was Latino. He was a Republican and they wanted to make sure every Latino knew that.

  25. 25
    Emma says:

    @Violet: Even for some Cubans he’s not all that. Rubio has a bigger and tougher road to row than his supporters imagine.

  26. 26
    Steve M. says:

    @Patricia Kayden:

    To win the Presidency, they need the Latino vote. Period.

    Not if they game the Electoral College, suppress the non-white and student vote, and do whatever the upcoming Supreme Court overturn of the Voting Rights Act allows them to do.

  27. 27
    Roger Moore says:

    @Patricia Kayden:
    That’s great, but the Republican party doesn’t get a vote. The people who actually vote on the stuff are individual senators and representatives who have their own narrow parochial interests to look after. They care a lot more about getting reelected themselves than they do about the party as a whole, and the first step is keeping the wingnuts happy enough that they don’t lose the primary.

  28. 28
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Violet: I’m gonna guess Rush is belching furiously about amnesty, and Fox is cautiously promoting the “compromise on a difficult issue”

  29. 29

    And those Republicans will get brownie points for trying, at least with the mainstream press (Hispanics won’t be fooled)

    Hispanics will know exactly who is on their side. If immigration reform passes, they’ll know Obama not only fought for them, but won. If it doesn’t, they’ll know the Republicans hate them. Politically, nothing else matters. In real life, reform will help people.

    What I’m saying is, TV journalists can pat each other on the back about how reasonable Republicans are all they want. They can also organize a team to fart the Star Spangled Banner. Both will be equally as important and make as much of a difference to anything.

  30. 30
    General Stuck says:

    @Steve M.:

    It looks like the cheating via the electoral college scheme is not yet ripe enough per sufficient desperation. And the VRA, won’t have much to do with a POTUS vote, as those states are already deep red, with the possible exception of VA and NC.

  31. 31
    AA+ Bonds says:

    There are still more old hands in the Republican gang in the Senate than in the House. Right-wingers in the House won far-right districts with far-right policies and supporting this bill would be political suicide for them. Right-wingers in the Senate still have to carry entire states.

  32. 32
    AA+ Bonds says:

    @Frankensteinbeck:

    Hispanics will know exactly who is on their side. If immigration reform passes, they’ll know Obama not only fought for them, but won. If it doesn’t, they’ll know the Republicans hate them.

    And, unfortunately for America, that’s why people in the House will probably still raise hell over this bill – because the way American voters got immigration reform was to vote against the Republican, and voters realize that. Republicans have operated since 2006 on the idea that their #1 priority is to deny voters any reward for voting against them.

    Pete Sessions was serious about a “Taliban-style insurgency”. Whatever the House can shut down, it will shut down. House members will defend their land-based fiefdoms from voter-based democracy, and there will be further attempts to convert democracy to a semi-medieval system based completely on the power of districts.

  33. 33
    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford says:

    @Patricia Kayden: Logic means nothing to Republicans and I’ve seen no real sign that the party is moderating. There are Republicans like Jindal and Rubio who want to get their names out in the press so they talk about moderating but the base of the party has only moved further to the right since the election.

  34. 34
    Mnemosyne says:

    @Violet:

    Along the lines of ethnic voters, I got a little nervous this year because the Republican running for state representative was an Armenian-American and I live in an area with a majority-Armenian population. He was even smart enough to leave “Republican” off his signs.

    Fortunately, I underestimated my neighbors and the Democrat was returned to office quite handily. So it doesn’t even work on other, non-Latino ethnic groups.

  35. 35
    AA+ Bonds says:

    @J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford:

    Logic means nothing to Republicans

    Exactly the opposite, I’d think. Republicans who won primaries for safe Republican seats through Tea Party bonafides, or by tacking to the right to edge out Tea Party competitors, have only to use their own reason to decide to oppose anything short of Herman Cain’s Mexican-killing robo-turrets.

    In the context of our wack-ass system, it’s perfectly logical to kneecap your party nationally to keep your own fiefdom secure. No one who backs the Republican philosophy of “good = selfish” is going to jump on a grenade for the party.

  36. 36
    Origuy says:

    @Hunter Gathers:

    He’ll spend just enough money on Rogaine to keep his receding hairline at bay long enough in order to have the pleasure of getting destroyed by Clinton.

    Rogaine doesn’t do a damn thing for receding hairline. It’s only “widow’s peak” baldness that it helps.

  37. 37
    Alex S. says:

    The Democrats’ calculation is that the demographic frontier has been crossed in the 2012 election. From now on the Democrats can try to pass some of their dream legislation and they cannot lose, because a) these laws pass and Democrats get what they want or b) Republicans derail them and hasten their own demise. Immigration is a no-brainer. But as filibuster reform showed, Democrats can still beat themselves and some Democrats will not vote for immigration reform. Luckily, the Republicans who are in favor of the bill will provide cover. Other dream legislation might include slightly more gun control and a small reaction to climate change.

  38. 38
    schrodinger's cat says:

    MSM and GOP have it wrong. Having Palin as a token, did not win the women’s vote for the GOP. Rubio is not going to get the immigrant vote or the Latino vote. GOP’s demonization of immigrants, Obama and anyone who does not look like Mitt Romney is not going to be soon forgotten.

  39. 39
    Hoodie says:

    @AA+ Bonds: Yeah, I can’t see any of the hardcores in the southern congressional districts being on board for this, it would be like signing up for an assault weapons ban. Even if they can get it past the House with Dem votes, this immigration gambit alone won’t be any big winner for Republicans in the near term. The party still has a nativist core that’s wedded to rhetoric that the federal government is about giving goodies to lazy moochers, and we all know what that means. That message was made clear over the last few years, and no one is going to forget it just because they throw Marco Rubio up on the stage. They do have some others, like Sandoval and Martinez, who could make inroads, but that’s because they’re also doing things like going along with Medicaid expansion in Obamacare, and that’s heresy to the base.

  40. 40
    mdblanche says:

    @Violet: Seriously? Good ol’ Cuban wingnut Marco Rubio? Appealing to the rest of the Latino population? I’m just not seeing it.

    Try again, but with your eyes closed.

  41. 41
    AA+ Bonds says:

    @Hoodie:

    Yes – many people have strange ideas about how much the health of the Republicans nationally matters to individual Republican politicians locally. With not a hint of proportional representation in our legislative elections, there is no downside and plenty of upsides to individual right-wing Republican House members shooting down any Republican immigration reform that comes out of the Senate.

    If Boehner backs the plan, he still has no stick and no carrot to offer “his” caucus. Republican Congresspersons can easily array themselves against any hope of majority for their party, and win big as power-hungry individuals.

  42. 42
    Tonybrown74 says:

    @Mnemosyne:

    Hell, they even tried that shit once in Massachusetts against Ted Kennedy.

    To my fellow “Mass-holes”: remember GOP Senatorial Candidate Jack E. Robinson?

  43. 43
    honeybooboo says:

    It will be pretty much the opposite of whatever wrong way Cole things will happen.

  44. 44
    honeybooboo says:

    It will be pretty much the opposite of whatever wrong way Cole thinks will happen.

  45. 45
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    I think SteveM is on the money here.

    These creatures, these Rethuglican creatures, are simply vile.

  46. 46
  47. 47
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    @Hoodie:

    The party still has a nativist core that’s wedded to rhetoric that the federal government is about giving goodies to lazy moochers, and we all know what that means.

    The irony is the federal government DOES give a lot of goodies to greedy moochers, The catch is, the greedy moochers are defense contractors, banksters, oil executives, agribusiness outfits, and manufacturers of questionable airport security equipment, just as examples off the top of my head.

  48. 48
    Sargeant Pepper's Spray says:

    Watching Hillary Clinton crush him will be delightful.

    @Hunter Gathers

    And make no mistake she will crush him if it’s on. The Obama machine will get out the necessary votes and Hillary would force the GOP to fight for states Obama never had a chance in like West Virginia, Arkansas and Missouri. She would simply crush Rubio if the economy is doing well 4 years from now. The only sad thing is Rubio might, “might” be smart enough to know it…

  49. 49
    J.A.F. Rusty Shackleford says:

    @AA+ Bonds: Good point.

  50. 50
    Brachiator says:

    @Patricia Kayden:

    I can’t see Republicans not passing some form of immigration reform. To win the Presidency, they need the Latino vote. Period. They’re not doing this for altruistic reasons — this is about getting back into the White House.

    Totally agree. Drafts of this legislation have been sitting around for months, perhaps years. And some Democrats and Republicans have long agreed on key issues. Nothing was ever done before because some GOP leaders, and some Democrats, believed that they could ignore it and fight over juicier issues.

    The only question is whether the Tea Party People and the other dumber Republicans can be persuaded to go along with the Congressional leadership.

    The other fun thing is that cocky Democrats believe that they can still hang onto the Latino vote even if they allow Republicans to share some of the credit for any passed legislation on immigration reform.

    And my super cynical side says that the GOP will let immigration reform go through in exchange for stalling gun control legislation.

    @Hunter Gathers:

    Watching Hillary Clinton crush him will be delightful.

    If Biden decides that he wants to run, Clinton’s political career will probably be effectively over. And Biden can probably crush any GOP opposition as well.

  51. 51
    Roger Moore says:

    @Brachiator:

    The only question is whether the Tea Party People and the other dumber Republicans can be persuaded to go along with the Congressional leadership.

    No. SATSQ. If this thing passes, it will be over the objections of the Teabaggers, not with their support.

    The other fun thing is that cocky Democrats believe that they can still hang onto the Latino vote even if they allow Republicans to share some of the credit for any passed legislation on immigration reform.

    Do you really think that the only thing that’s keeping Latinos from voting Republican is immigration policy? It isn’t. For all that Latinos lean toward cultural conservatism, they are also younger and more working class than the population at large, both groups that tend to lean Democratic. Also, too, the culture they’re trying to conserve is quite different from the one the wingnuts are trying to conserve, so the Republicans’ conservative vision is not likely to win over too many Latino voters. Purge the Republican party of the racist wing, and then they might be able to win the Latino vote.

  52. 52
    Heliopause says:

    I dunno, Doug, I think there’s a pretty strong desire in the leadership of both parties to get something done on this issue with a minimum of drama. I know, that sounds crazy, but we may have stumbled onto the one issue that the GOP won’t turn into an hysterical reality show. But the Clown Caucus is still there in the House, so we’ll see.

  53. 53
    Brachiator says:

    @Roger Moore:

    RE: The only question is whether the Tea Party People and the other dumber Republicans can be persuaded to go along with the Congressional leadership.

    No. SATSQ. If this thing passes, it will be over the objections of the Teabaggers, not with their support.

    Oh, yeah, I know the Tea Party People will object; it’s a question of whether they can get enough numbers to keep the bill from passing, and whether they can make enough noise to initimidate possible GOP supporters.

    Do you really think that the only thing that’s keeping Latinos from voting Republican is immigration policy?

    No, but it is a huge impediment.

    Latinos voted for Governor Arnold in large numbers, but they otherwise largely shun the GOP in California, and the main issue is clearly immigration. Meg Whitman sounded like Pete Wilson 2.0, and got crushed at the polls. I don’t know what Latino vote for Republicans has been in Arizona, Texas, etc.

    It isn’t. For all that Latinos lean toward cultural conservatism, they are also younger and more working class than the population at large, both groups that tend to lean Democratic.

    The Democrats have to deliver. Too often, the Democrats have tried to rely on fear of the GOP, however reasonable, and dragged their feet on immigration reform.

    But even Democrats have to tread carefully here. Some of the proposals on “comprehensive immigration reform” might benefit Latinos who are already here, but not do a damn thing for people who would like to come to America, but don’t have convenient borders that they can cross.

    Purge the Republican party of the racist wing, and then they might be able to win the Latino vote.

    The racist wing overlaps, but is not quite the same as the anti-illegal immigrant wing.

    In an ideal world, we would have something like a North American Union. There are a number of Latinos who would like to be able to work in the United States, but who do not give a rat’s ass about US citizenship. And before border hysteria got whipped to a fever pitch, there was more informal border crossing for work and residential purposes.

  54. 54
    Gin & Tonic says:

    @Brachiator: Call me ageist, but I think either one has more trouble than you think against somebody young like Rubio. A President Biden would be the oldest ever elected by a substantial margin, and would be 74 at his swearing-in. A President H. Clinton would be 69 at swearing-in, just barely younger than Ronald Reagan was at the start of his first term.

    As much as I like Joe Biden, I don’t think I’m ready to vote for a guy that old for President, and I suspect I’m not alone.

  55. 55
    Roger Moore says:

    @Brachiator:

    The racist wing overlaps, but is not quite the same as the anti-illegal immigrant wing.

    Sure, but my impression is that it’s the racists in the GOP who turn off Latino voters more than it is their stance on immigration. Immigration reform isn’t going to help much with Latino voters if a substantial wing of the Republican party continues to spew racist bile whenever they talk about Latinos.

  56. 56
    schrodinger's cat says:

    @Roger Moore: So true, my husband’s ex-boss was Puerto-Rican, he is an eminent scientist in his field, and a leading national and international authority. He detests the GOP for their attacks on Latinos, I am sure there are a lot of people like him that the GOP is turning off.

  57. 57
    Brachiator says:

    @Gin & Tonic:

    Call me ageist, but I think either one has more trouble than you think against somebody young like Rubio.

    OK, I’ll call you ageist. Biden has been effective as a VP, and is empathetic and affable. Right now, I don’t see that Rubio has much besides being younger on his side.

    If Biden bows out and Clinton decided to run, she would be unbeatable. There are a number of women, both Democrat and Republican, who would want to see Hillary as the first woman president.

    RE: The racist wing overlaps, but is not quite the same as the anti-illegal immigrant wing.

    And yeah, Reagan was old. But he won.

    @Roger Moore:

    Sure, but my impression is that it’s the racists in the GOP who turn off Latino voters more than it is their stance on immigration.

    From an analysis of Latino voters:

    The hard political fact is that after 1994 [post Prop 187], California Democrats won every presidential, U.S. Senate, and gubernatorial election until 2003, when a state electricity crisis led to a recall election that ousted Democratic Gov. Gray Davis and brought in Schwarzenegger. This string of victories for the last 16 years (Schwarzenegger excepted) was no doubt due to Wilson’s backing of Proposition 187 and the long-lasting backlash it created against Republicans in the state.
    __
    The post-Proposition 187 era has witnessed an energized and ever-growing Latino voter turnout, not just in California but also in key electoral states where Latino voters can determine the outcome. It’s important to note, too, that Democrats cannot take Latinos for granted, and Republicans can win the White House with 40 percent of the Latino vote, as President George W. Bush proved to the GOP. …
    __
    Indeed, the Latino voter profile in recent elections suggests that even if immigration is not the top issue facing voters, a candidate’s position—and the level of immigrant bashing—distinguishes the good guys from the bad guys on the ballot. A survey of Latino voters in May 2009 by Bendixen & Associates showed 82 percent stating that the immigration issue is important to them and their families, and 69 percent said that they personally know someone who is undocumented.

    This is not to minimize the racism in some of the GOP nonsense, and this focuses largely on California. But I think that if the GOP backs comprehensive immigration reform, it will go far in removing some of the stink that they have covered themselves with their statements about Latinos and other groups.

    And it is easy for them in a way. They can appeal to Latinos as hard working, you know, not like the moochers, and try to peel support away from the Democrats.

    And I am not saying that this strategy will totally work. But the GOP doesn’t have much to work with.

  58. 58
    JustAnotherBob says:

    I’m late to this discussion (as usual) but hopefully some thoughtful people are still checking in…

    I understand why we would want the people who came here illegally to be able to obtain citizenship and vote.

    I understand why Republicans do not want them to get a vote.

    My first concern is for families. Aside from the desire to have more Democratic voters, why would it not be enough for those who came here illegally – as adults – to receive a permanent non-voting, non-elected office eligible resident status?

    Perhaps a status which could be withdrawn upon conviction of a serious crime?

    Put children who came here with their parents on a citizen track. Those who have been here a long time and basically have grown up here.

  59. 59
    Brachiator says:

    @JustAnotherBob:

    Aside from the desire to have more Democratic voters, why would it not be enough for those who came here illegally – as adults – to receive a permanent non-voting, non-elected office eligible resident status?

    Wouldn’t this create a permanent order of second class citizens?

  60. 60
    JustAnotherBob says:

    @Brachiator:

    Yes, it would create a class of people living in the country who would not have the full rights of citizens.

    (I’m going to have to play the devil’s advocate now.)

    They didn’t come here via the legal route. There is a legal route to citizenship that other people use.

    They would have the protection of any other person legally living in the country. Some people go through the process and live the rest of their lives with a “green card” but never become citizens.

    I would assume they would have access to Social Security, Medi-whatever, etc.

  61. 61
    JustAnotherBob says:

    Let me add (in my DA role)….

    People who are convicted felons loose their rights to vote in some cases.

  62. 62
    Brachiator says:

    @JustAnotherBob:

    They would have the protection of any other person legally living in the country. Some people go through the process and live the rest of their lives with a “green card” but never become citizens.

    It’s one thing to decide not to become a citizen. It’s another thing to be barred from being able ever to become a citizen.

    People who are convicted felons loose their rights to vote in some cases.

    Two words: Due process. Illegal immigrants have not been convicted of anything.

    And a further three words: taxation without representation.

    Would you like these people to wear a scarlet letter indicating their shadow status?

  63. 63
    JustAnotherBob says:

    @Brachiator:

    I suppose one could return to their home country and go through the normal process to become a citizen.

    When people who entered illegally sign up for permanent resident status (or whatever it would be called) they would be admitting guilt.

    “I came here illegally, have lived here for x years, and now I want permission to live here the rest of my life.”

    Now, don’t get on too high a horse with the scarlet letter stuff. Let’s have a reasoned conversation. You took one side so I automatically got assigned to the other side.

    As I wrote “permanent resident status” I remembered that some countries such as Costa Rica have exactly that sort of category.

    CR is one of the places I’ve been looking at for the last phase of my life, when I need to live someplace warmer and where older folks are held in higher esteem.

    Last time I checked I can move to CR and, if I can prove adequate income, obtain permanent resident status which gives me the rights of any citizen except voting and holding pubic office.

  64. 64
    Brachiator says:

    @JustAnotherBob:

    I suppose one could return to their home country and go through the normal process to become a citizen.

    Seems pointless and burdensome. I’d like to see what actual legislative proposals are offered.

    You took one side so I automatically got assigned to the other side.

    I don’t really have a particular side in this, but I am curious why anyone would want to enjoin people from becoming citizens? BTW, I noted in an earlier post that making acquiring citizenship even somewhat easy for people who came here illegally but who have lived here for a time is unfair to those who were turned back or who did not live in a country that gave them the ability to cross the border.

    CR is one of the places I’ve been looking at for the last phase of my life, when I need to live someplace warmer and where older folks are held in higher esteem.

    Or at least their money. Don’t know why CR has their status. Are a class of noncitizens permanently barred from becoming citizens? Are there any limitations on land or business ownership?

    It appears that in the case of CR, they are not too concerned whether you contribute to or participate in the life of the nation.

    In the side of the argument that I happily take, there is value in having people participate here, to be more than just economic units. And it would be strange to say to a person, “yeah, you have kids here, and they can be citizens, but you can never vote on issues that might affect their future.”

    I appreciate your comments and challenges. Thinking more about the issue, I don’t see permanently consigning a group of people to political limbo as good for the fabric of the country.

  65. 65
    JustAnotherBob says:

    Well, thanks for your input.

Comments are closed.