Immigration reform ideas.

[Mandalore]

Firstly, I don't think all right wing people are racist, it's just that what WD wrote seemed very racist indeed. As for my own political persuasions, I'm not really a party partisan. For the legislatures I vote for democrats usually but for the executive branch I prefer true libertarians. Not that new Republican off shoot [poo] but the real deal. I voted for Gary Johnson for president. In such a bloated political system I think that libertarians do better to curb the excesses. While I'm a huge centrist and feel that's the long term solution given the political realities I feel that libertarian executives are currently the best option. The only ideology I truly follow in politics is Realpolitik.

Kren, I'm not sure how much of my post you read or if you were agreeing with me more than I thought. Was out quite late night so I'm sure I'm not firing on all cylinders.

* The amount of unauthorised immigrants who are in the UK.
* Population increase due to immigrants (authorised/unauthorised). For authorised housing, benefits, education, jobs are all a factor.
In all first world, Western nations increase population is actually very beneficial. Our "native' population continues to grow older and given the nature of our social systems in both nations a younger population is good. They are needed in order to support the social programs that support the elderly who are no longer in the workforce. Given the fact that in both nations the retirement age hasn't kept pace with the increased life expectancy this is needed quite urgently. Social Security in the US is sleighted to become insolvent in 2016.
* Immigrants who are here legally but are claiming benefits (health, housing, social security, tax credits) as is a drain on the economy.
In the case of illegal immigrants, they are a drain and have no mechanism for paying back into the system. However, in the case of the United States, immigrants are generally younger than the native population and are therefore less likely to become a drain on a system. Given the age demographics I cited in the first Pew study there are roughly 7-9 million people in the work force who aren't contributing to social programs in the prime of their life.
* Deportation issues, i.e. the cost of deportation for unauthorised immigrants.
* The cost of detention facilities for unauthorised immigrants.
This is especially an issue for the United States. We have more people imprisoned here than any other nation on the face of the Earth. As stated before, to me (from an economic point of view) this makes no sense since they haven't really done anything morally wrong. All they've done is break a law that is arguably detrimental to the health of our nation. In America there is a long history of civil disobedience as well as just straight up ignoring the law when it doesn't suit them. I.E. prohibition, the entire history of the black equality movement (in regard to civil disobedience), as well as the millions upon millions of Americans who smoke Marijuana. People who act like there aren't people pushing for reform and/or amnesty on this issue are just silly.
* Border security costs.
And it's not only the cost, but the efficiency. Frankly, while I find the budgets of our border security organizations to be a little bit high, I don't necessarily find them obscene. However, I feel that they could do a much better job of keeping out the truly dangerous people out of our country if they weren't chasing down and then processing A. people just trying for a better life and B. People smuggling marijuana In practical terms, there's no way to effectively guard such a long border and the more people you have crossing it the worse it is for people trying to secure it.
* The influx of immigrants from Europe into the UK.
I feel that in both countries this is given to sensationalism. 11 million illegals in comparison to a nation of 310+ million just isn't that significant a part of the population.
* The cost of reforming immigration laws.
Economically, in the long run it is hugely beneficial to legalize immigrants due to the increased tax revenues as well as the fact they would now be paying into social services. In my opinion, it is this love erection for short term thinking that has gotten democracies all over the world into such a bind. Long term thinking should always take precedence but given the nature of election cycles it is very rarely a priority.
* The length of time to reform laws.
Ain't got nothing but time. That's like a CEO sitting there musing to himself, "Man, we have this huge issue in accounting with 5% of our accounts not paying us...but it would take so long to get that changed, better not!"

Frankly, I don't think you can successfully reform immigration without also reforming several other areas such as education (there needs to be a much larger stress on financial acumen rather than art and music pussy [poo]), college education costs (it's ridiculous rise in cost over the past twenty years is obscene), legalization of marijuana (in order to kill off black markets supplied with foreign mary jane and decrease drug smuggling), and social services (retirement age should be increased to around 72-74 but I don't see it being raised beyond 70 if at all during the next few years also an increase use of documentation+drug testing for aid)

[Duel of Fates]

I just spit my coffee all over the kitchen table. That is by far the stupidest and most uninformed observation I have ever had the misfortune to read. If you really believe that, you are completely off your nut. Come on Crater, there is nothing Right when you look at Obama. He is by far the most far Left progressive liberal ever since Wilson or Roosevelt. Possibly the most radical left president in history. And you are comparing him to one of the most conservative presidents in history? You are basing this ignorant and clearly false conclusion based on political compromises of thirty plus years ago? Thought you were better than that.

I was completely serious. Further examples. During the 2012 debates, Obama and Romney were indistinguishable on foreign policy. Obama literally took his healthcare plan from Romney's Massachusetts and from the Heritage Foundation. Obama does not dispute the idea of cutting government spending, but merely which programs it should come from.

Reagan's support for the Brady Bill was not a "political compromise." Nor was his support for amnesty, which he argued for in a 1984 debate with Mondale and put into action in a bill in 1986.

Please provide evidence for your claim that Obama might be the "most radical left president in history."

Well then, you are the most misguided nitpicking moron there is. Taking a couple of examples out of all of the policies he endorsed and coming up with your statement that Obama is to the Right of Reagan is ludicrous. And I am sure I could comb through the internet, and come up with hundreds of examples for that claim, but suffice to say, I am too tired of talking to you about it. I will put Obamacare as the top piece of [poo] legislation and his continued efforts to take money from those that earn a living, and giving it to those who do not. Socialist. Radical Left.

Tell me how this guy, is more liberal than Barrack Obama?

No problem Duel, it's not an easy thing wading through the information so good luck with it. I've been working since 7am this morning and just finished at 6pm, been a long day however I cannot say it's been that bad or taxing based upon incentives awarded for me working upon this public holiday (bank holiday).

Kren.

No, it was a good read for my early morning wake up. Got the brain fluids flowing.

[Mandalore]

As for Reagan, I think Crater was being a bit hyperbolic. But during his administration he certainly doesn't fit the ideals of the current GOP very well. (http://www.nationalmemo.com/5-reasons-r ... odays-gop/). Fun fact- he amnestied three million illegals when he signed in the 1986 immigration reform act apparently.

[Duel of Fates]

As for Reagan, I think Crater was being a bit hyperbolic. But during his administration he certainly doesn't fit the ideals of the current GOP very well. (http://www.nationalmemo.com/5-reasons-r ... odays-gop/). Fun fact- he amnestied three million illegals when he signed in the 1986 immigration reform act apparently.

You do realize that Reagan was hated by the GOP. He entered the presidential race of '76 and '80 as an outsider. He was a true conservative. And if you are basing today's GOP as Right wing, take a look back through the years and see how much they have moved to the Left, giving ground in the name of being Progressive.

[Darth Crater]

Mandalore is right that it's at least partially hyperbole. However, my point is that a great many positions considered conservative or right-wing in Reagan's day have now been adopted by the Democratic party. This seems to indicate that American politics as a whole have shifted right, not left.

You do realize that Reagan was hated by the GOP. He entered the presidential race of '76 and '80 as an outsider. He was a true conservative. And if you are basing today's GOP as Right wing, take a look back through the years and see how much they have moved to the Left, giving ground in the name of being Progressive.

At this point I think there's a complete disconnect in what we are thinking of as right- and left-wing policies and positions. Is there a definition you prefer to use, so that we may be on the same page?

I will put Obamacare as the top piece of [poo] legislation and his continued efforts to take money from those that earn a living, and giving it to those who do not. Socialist. Radical Left.

As I mentioned earlier, Obamacare was literally created by the conservative Heritage Foundation. And I can tell you that from an actual left-wing perspective, Obama and his policies aren't at all socialist. Obamacare isn't even a single payer system. I can't name a single major industry that he's nationalized (though I wish he'd start with internet providers). Wealth disparity and poverty are still massive problems. Again, I think we have a fundamental conflict of definitions here.

[Duel of Fates]

Mandalore is right that it's at least partially hyperbole. However, my point is that a great many positions considered conservative or right-wing in Reagan's day have now been adopted by the Democratic party. This seems to indicate that American politics as a whole have shifted right, not left.

You are friggin out of your mind if you are going to sell that with a straight face. This country has been sliding left in the media, in the schools, in the politics for a long time. Reagan pulled it back a bit. But Obama took the speed brakes off and its been full speed ahead for the left.

You do realize that Reagan was hated by the GOP. He entered the presidential race of '76 and '80 as an outsider. He was a true conservative. And if you are basing today's GOP as Right wing, take a look back through the years and see how much they have moved to the Left, giving ground in the name of being Progressive.

At this point I think there's a complete disconnect in what we are thinking of as right- and left-wing policies and positions. Is there a definition you prefer to use, so that we may be on the same page?

Really? You didn't understand what I was talking about? Mr. Crater with all the knowledge of Solomon? Look it up. Reagan was hated by the GOP because they thought he killed Ford's chance at a second term in '76. And if you look at the Republican establishment then and now, they truly do not want conservatives mucking up their chances of winning. That is why you have Repubs like Mitch McConnel and John Boehner piling it on the conservatives and tea party members. They don't want to cut spending or shrink government. They like having the tea parties vote them in, but they don't want to hear what the tea parties want. Therefore the GOP and the ranking Repubs of both houses, that have been there for years, are not true conservatives.

I will put Obamacare as the top piece of [poo] legislation and his continued efforts to take money from those that earn a living, and giving it to those who do not. Socialist. Radical Left.

As I mentioned earlier, Obamacare was literally created by the conservative Heritage Foundation. And I can tell you that from an actual left-wing perspective, Obama and his policies aren't at all socialist. Obamacare isn't even a single payer system. I can't name a single major industry that he's nationalized (though I wish he'd start with internet providers). Wealth disparity and poverty are still massive problems. Again, I think we have a fundamental conflict of definitions here.

Wow. I am done. No point arguing. Oh, wait. Socialism.

so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]


noun

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.


3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


Hmm. Sounds like Obama don't it?

[WD-40]

Firstly, I don't think all right wing people are racist, it's just that what WD wrote seemed very racist indeed.

Hey, Mexican chicks dig me! I cannot be racist on that fact alone. I also love Mexican food too! I'm in Malaysia right now and will need to read thru when I get a chance. I don't care what 'race' a person/family is that lives here wanting a better life for themselves and their families, so long as they are here 'Legally'. Nuff said. So hang up the racist assumptions.

[Darth Crater]

You are friggin out of your mind if you are going to sell that with a straight face. This country has been sliding left in the media, in the schools, in the politics for a long time. Reagan pulled it back a bit. But Obama took the speed brakes off and its been full speed ahead for the left.

I'm interested to hear the evidence for this. I've already made my case - the "left-wing" party is adopting more right-wing ideas. There's even a reasonable explanation for why. The Republican party overall moves right (drawn by Reagan, by neocons, by the Tea Party - pick your favorite). By Hotelling's Law, the Democrats' optimal strategy is then to move rightward and pick up more moderate voters.

I don't see how the opposite has occurred, unless you're mixing non-political factors like the worldwide rise of globalism and secularism into your definition of "left." I'm sure your opinion is based on evidence, even though all I've gotten so far are talk-show soundbites, so I could really use some examples. What formerly-leftist positions do you think the right wing has adopted?

Really? You didn't understand what I was talking about? Mr. Crater with all the knowledge of Solomon? Look it up. Reagan was hated by the GOP because they thought he killed Ford's chance at a second term in '76. And if you look at the Republican establishment then and now, they truly do not want conservatives mucking up their chances of winning. That is why you have Repubs like Mitch McConnel and John Boehner piling it on the conservatives and tea party members. They don't want to cut spending or shrink government. They like having the tea parties vote them in, but they don't want to hear what the tea parties want. Therefore the GOP and the ranking Repubs of both houses, that have been there for years, are not true conservatives.

Okay. See, most definitions of "conservative" I've seen don't exclude the leading figures of the Republican Party. They do make a distinction between the "old guard" and "Tea Party" groups, but the latter often gets descriptors like "far-right" or "radical." Thank you for clarifying that your scale is centered much farther right. I'll try to apply this shift in the future.

Wow. I am done. No point arguing. Oh, wait. Socialism.

so·cial·ism [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]


noun

1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.


2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.


3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


Hmm. Sounds like Obama don't it?

... No? Thank you for settling on a definition. However, I don't understand why you believe President Obama fits into it. I just said that I don't think he is engaging in collectivist or socialist practices. In fact, that is one of my biggest complaints about his presidency - that he's not making any of the real, permanent change he promised in '08. (Not that I thought he actually could do it even then.)

EDIT: Did WD seriously just use the "I have a black friend" defense? Or am I misreading?

[Duel of Fates]

Crater, who are you going to go through for student loans? The government, under Obama, has taken total control of this. If you need a student loan, you will be dealing with the government. That sounds like a nationalized industry.

Obamacare is not healthcare reform, it is a nationalizing the health insurance industry and affects 1/6 of the economy. I didnt say it was single payer, but a major step towards that end. Most of the liberals over the years have been pushing for single payer though, so . . .

The bank bailouts, auto makers bailouts, subsidizing "green energy" companies.

Pushing the narrative that capitalism is a failure, and then implementing policies that make it nearly impossible for businesses to grow, and in some cases to simply survive.

If it quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, and walks like a duck . . .

[NiteRunner81]

And look at Common Core... another train wreck that the left is pushing!!!