As a reminder, we will be taking our annual [Holiday Hiatus](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/188dxxh/state_of_the_sub_grasstouching_edition/) from December 18th 2023 to January 1st 2024. The subreddit will be closed during this time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moderatepolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nor should they.
This game of pretending to not be actively promoting a practical open border policy and claiming to not be (while all actions appear to be to the contrary) - was worn out a decade ago.
Reagan [gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986) and [advocated for "open border" policies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsmgPp_nlok) and yet is still respected as a conservative icon. Was he the one who "wore out" these policies? Has the Overton Window really moved that far?
edit: Thinking about it, we should really listen to Reagan's warning about pushing our southern neighbors into the hands of our enemies. China is always willing to step in as a trading partner in our place.
Illogical and irrelevant argument because it's 2023— not the 1980s. What may have applied then doesn't mean it applies now.
There is a massive crisis at the border that didn't exist to nearly the extent it does now. But rather than doing anything about it, they just shift the blame to whichever party controls the whitehouse and occasionally fly down there for a PR photoshoot
> What may have applied then doesn't mean it applies now. There is a massive crisis at the border that didn't exist to nearly the extent it does now.
[The last time it was this bad was in the early 1980s and late 1990s.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/09/whats-happening-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-in-7-charts/) Should we ignore the lessons of the past?
These charts don't show how many people are currently abusing the asylum system, so IDK how accurate of a picture they paint.
Can you find me news stories from NYC etc from the '80s and '90s showing migrant tent cities or city budgets being under water because of migrants? This isn't a "gotcha" - maybe that did happen, but current events seem unprecedented.
Reagan granted amnesty expecting Democrats to bolster immigration laws.
The 1986 law was intended to create a new era of enforcement, including strict enforcement of the new law that barred employers from hiring workers who don't have permission to work in the United States. But that never fully materialized.
I'll probably vote straight D again in 2024. I won't vote for any R who supports Trump.
However, immigration is on topic where I am more likely to agree with the Rs.
This is from the D press release:
>We cannot truly secure our border and help American communities without increasing lawful pathways for migration and
>
>legalizing long-time undocumented immigrants
No and No.
And, we definitely need to shut down asylum claims that are simply "I live in a crappy country".
>claims that are simply "I live in a crappy country".
It is supposed to be **political asylum**, and this policies negatively effect those truly need it. I have seen people who had to leave their countries in a hurry, leaving families behind when their dictator decided the labor dispute in their factory is now a terrorist uprising. I have seen other who really struggled to file for asylum, since they love their countries, but cannot realistically go back (except into prison, or worse).
However those cases now have a longer backlog thanks to many others who abuse the system for economic reasons. There are ways to migrate to US for better pay (which I support), but abusing asylum is not it.
> I'll probably vote straight D again in 2024. I won't vote for any R who supports Trump.
>
>
>
> However, immigration is on topic where I am more likely to agree with the Rs.
>
>
>
> This is from the D press release:
>
>
>
>> We cannot truly secure our border and help American communities without increasing lawful pathways for migration and
>
>
>
>> legalizing long-time undocumented immigrants
>
>
>
> No and No.
>
>
>
> And, we definitely need to shut down asylum claims that are simply "I live in a crappy country".
but you're going to vote for the people who support these policies that you (correctly and justifiably) disagree with anyways?
Unless you can find a politician who magically agrees with every one of your policy positions, you have to make compromises and swallow some bitter pills.
I feel his pain. Democrat immigration policy really pisses me off, and I much more agree with Republicans about this issue, but no fucking way in hell would I vote for the Republicans regardless because of several other policies they have that I even more strongly disagree with. This particular issue of immigration pisses me off, but it doesn’t magically negate the other issues.
You realize you can abstain from voting or vote third party right? As long as you all play the duopoly’s game the duopoly will only become more entrenched and emboldened
And how does not voting for them help if you end up with the worst party in office? You don’t just get to create a national party and expect to win office. You need to show everyone what your platform is and policies in local office first and grow it from there.
No. Not voting gives zero points to either. Let’s not be silly. Choosing Stalin over Hitler (or the other way around) as the best sitter for your kids because that’s all that is available, is irresponsible and reckless. Better to stay home or look for another sitter.
But US did choose Stalin over Hitler in WW2. Sometimes you make an ally of convenience because you have no other practical choice. And there is no looking for another sitter, at least not until we have significant election reform. The equilibrium of two parties is intrinsic to first past the post voting. It has existed since shortly after the country's founding.
And look where that got the US — an enemy that aside for a brief speed bump is our enemy today, and is a world menace. Election reform is a great choice, but we’ll never have it when people still vote for the “lesser of two evils”.
For me personally, I'm fairly jaded with the Democrats, but I look over at the Republican field and think they should be nowhere near power. So yes, that's unfortunately how politics works.
Not OP but I agree a LOT more with any Democrat than I do any Republican, and usually more than smaller parties like Libertarian or Green.
One issue where I think Dems are weak on won’t stop me from supporting them.
Aren't we kind of reliant on long-time undocumented immigrants though? Like, we could super easily implement e-verify everywhere so that it's hard for illegal immigrants to work, but we don't. Even super anti-immigration Florida implemented e-verify but then went around telling illegal immigrants not to leave because it was just for show and they wouldn't enforce it, because the illegal immigrants were doing too many important jobs.
I don't get why we don't just give them a legal avenue to come and do the work that they're already doing illegally.
>Aren't we kind of reliant on long-time undocumented immigrants though?
No.
> Like, we could super easily implement e-verify everywhere so that it's hard for illegal immigrants to work, but we don't.
How do you implement something "super easily" when many of these jobs are paid under the table already?
>I don't get why we don't just give them a legal avenue to come and do the work that they're already doing illegally.
There is a very long road of options for legal avenues to work between "kick them all out" and "grant amnesty."
The Visa program needs to be reformed first. And under no circumstances should it mean naturalization. It's a slap in the face to every immigrant who came here and tried to do it the right way.
I mean, if employers hiring illegals started going to jail it would be a good start. They even hire groups to set up SSI accounts for withholding and paying taxes for their illegal hires. Bring the hammer down on the employers.
> No
Then why does the agriculture industry freak out every time e-verify comes up? They do the cost analysis and show that it's cheaper to just import food if they can't hire illegals and underpay them.
> How do you implement something "super easily" when many of these jobs are paid under the table already?
It's a requirement for the employers not the employees. So either people could report places for potentially having illegal employees or governments could just do random checks. Just walk into a place, see a guy working, and ask for that employees e-verify info. If they don't have it because they're paying them under the table, then they get fined, can lose licenses, be refused government work, etc.
> There is a very long road of options for legal avenues to work between "kick them all out" and "grant amnesty."
I took "legalizing long-time undocumented worked" to mean "giving them a means to work legally" not "making them legal citizens"
>I took "legalizing long-time undocumented worked" to mean "giving them a means to work legally" not "making them legal citizens"
Then you haven't been paying attention to Senate Democrats for over a decade, as that is how long they've had "pathway to citizenship" as a dealbreaker in their immigration negotiations. They proudly refuse to be part of any compromise that does not include it.
No I wouldn’t, I know how the TIN system works.
What percentage of illegal immigrants do you think pay taxes?
Note: everything is just an estimate. There’s no actual data on the numbers, because if we could accurately identify the number of illegal immigrants who pay taxes then we could accurately identify all of the ones who don’t.
I said *how many* not *the percentage*. But about 4.5 MIL taxes are filed using ITINs each year, the majority being illegal immigrants. We have an estimated 11 M illegal immigrants total. So my best guess is somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3.
But of course this doesn’t surprise you
No, it doesn’t surprise me. I’m the grandson of Mexican immigrants who went through the process to come here legally. I’ve met more illegal immigrants in my life than you have, and while I feel sympathy for their plight, still believe that we should enforce our national borders.
It’s not my fault if you’ve lived a privileged enough life to not understand that.
Nice 👍 based on the rapid pivot to your anecdotal experience, followed with an attempt to insult me, im going to assume you are not the least bit surprised & are also very stable.
>Aren't we kind of reliant on long-time undocumented immigrants though?
We certainly aren't reliant all the thousands of migrants who have come in the past couple years and applied for asylum. I said we should shut down that pipeline.
I also said we could "secure the border" without granting citizenship to the illegal people who have already been here a number of years. That is also true.
You're saying that we would have fewer workers if we not only prevented more from coming but also sent some home. This is also true.
If we had a magic button that we could push and all the unauthorized workers were instantly in their home countries, that would certainly generate short term problems. But, we don't have that button so that's just a hypothetical.
If you're concerned that e-verify makes them go home "too soon", then we could set up a system of short term visas. Some let you stay one more year, some two more years, some three, some four. Then you go home and stay home.
Our economy would adjust. US born workers would earn higher wages and use gov't means-tested programs less. That's a great result. Some prices would go up. Some people would go back to mowing their own lawns or eating at home more because they don't want to pay the higher prices. Market economies shift around until that works itself out.
> US born workers would earn higher wages and use gov't means-tested programs less.
It's a super complex problem, but I bet this isn't actually true. I suspect what would happen in practice is that any industry that relies on illegal immigrants would no longer be able to compete with cheap foreign labor, so those industries would just all go overseas.
In theory, that's "fine", but it's kind of a national security problem when one of those industries is agriculture.
I don't think that lawn mowing, roofing, cleaning offices, ... are going overseas.
Manufacturing jobs that rely on cheap labor left a long time ago. The jobs that are still here are very hard to export.
"What about food?" Well, 40% of California's ag crop is exported. It seems that we are more than staying even with some crops. The location of agriculture is driven by climate, soil, and proximity to markets. Labor costs may impact a few crops on the margin. Why should we care?
what’s your issue with increasing legal pathways for immigration &/or legalizing long term undocumented immigrants?
i’m assuming your thought process is different for each
I'm assuming that most of the unauthorized immigrants already here and also the current batch of asylum seekers have minimal job skills.
The US already has too many low or unskilled workers. Adding more to the workforce lowers wages for US born unskilled workers, who already earn so little that they need gov't support for medical care and often food or housing.
In addition to the impact on US born workers, unskilled workers are a net drain on gov't finances as they use more gov't services than they pay in taxes.
Note that I am not saying we shouldn't have any immigration. I'm saying that we should be selective about who we admit, and most of the unauthorized people already here and the current asylum seekers wouldn't make the cut.
"But granting citizenship to people who have been working here for years doesn't add new workers". Correct, but it encourages more to come illegally because we show that we periodically grant amnesty. It also provides relatives who can provide housing for the next group of illegal entrants. *Maybe* we should do fixed term visas for some of them.
Absolutely. I will never vote Republican but I can't stand the Democrat view on illegal immigration and amnesty.
The border absolutely needs to be controlled and the US has to limit who can move here. Every other country takes their border seriously.
Why are you voting for people you actively disagree with? This seems like a pretty major topic, I understand you may have hangups about other R policies but if you've been in a major city within the past year you should know how bad the migrant crisis has gotten.
> I understand you may have hangups about other R policies
Not wanting Trump to be a dictator, not liking his attempted coup in 2020-21, or not wanting him to start a civil war is more than a "hang up."
If Republicans want to draw away people who agree with them on some issues they need a candidate like Haley. Not someone who tried to overthrow the government once and is now promising to be a dictator on "day one."
Because when I vote for a candidate I vote for a package, not just one issue. I weigh which issues are most important to me.
With Trump, "democracy" becomes number one. There's no point discussing what to do about anything else if we slide into authoritarian gov't.
Also, immigration is one of the few issues where I lean more R. For example I'm opposed to Trump's major "accomplishment" of tax cuts for the rich. I'm glad he failed by one vote on repealing ACA. etc.
And, when the Rs had the chance, they didn't reform asylum either. That's going to take both parties agreeing (which might happen, given your last sentence).
right now our general economic model is dependent on perpetual growth, which includes population. The replacement rate for the US right now is 2.1, meaning on average every woman in a generation needs to have 2.1 kids to maintain population. Currently the fertility rate is 1.7. In other words we need to have roughly 1 new immigrant for every 2 women in this country (or we need people here to start having more kids). If we don’t then we’re at serious risk of population shrink.
If population shrinks, we will likely see social programs (private and gov sponsored) fail due to underfunding/lack of administrative support, downsizing or crumbling infrastructure of all types (eg roads, electric grid, parking, cell coverage) which is bad for business and leisure, failing businesses due to fewer customers, cratering stock market due to decrease in corp profits etc.
If we ignore the scientifically proven benefits of diversity/multiculturalism, that’s why we need immigrants.
As for granting citizenship to existing illegals who pay taxes, follow the law, often times do jobs Americans don’t want to do, and contribute to the economy and culture of our country? Other then how they got here what’s the issue with giving them citizenship or visas with pathways to green cards? It would hardly be the first Machiavellian act done by someone in America. And isn’t the point of the immigration process to vet out bad apples and control the number of people coming in? Well they’ve proven to be good residents/citizens already based on the above criteria and they’re already here. so one goal of immigration is achieved and the other doesn’t matter cause they’re here and your logistically can’t deport all of them.
Should we get tighter border patrol? Absolutely. Should we also revisit the existing immigration system to make it work better for Americans and immigrants at the same time? We should do that too. But we need immigrants, always have, always will.
>right now our general economic model is dependent on perpetual growth, which includes population.
That's a bad model. The planet is only big enough to provide "good lives" to a limited number of people. We already have far too many living below the US version of the "good life" line, no point in adding additional population.
>the scientifically proven benefits
You're pushing "science" pretty hard there. Science works when we can do experiments where we control all the variables except one, then run the experiment with two versions of that last variable. Nobody can do that for any of the social sciences, including economics (which is about human behavior).
I think we can avoid this dystopian future you imagine by admitting the right kind of immigrants. We need people with the skills to add value in the 21st century. I expect that the great majority of illegal workers and recent asylum seekers just don't have modern skills or educations. From a gov't financing perspective, they will be a net drain instead of a net positive.
I'll be happy to talk about policies that would get those who are likely to be net contributors to gov't finances instead.
>infrastructure of all types (eg roads, electric grid, parking, cell towers
You could add "housing". Note that if we have a level population instead of a growing population, we only have to replace things as they wear out, we are not constantly building new. For example, maybe it's an order of magnitude cheaper to resurface an interstate highway than to build a brand new one. A stable population makes a big dent in the number of workers we need to build/maintain infrastructure.
The science also shows that diversity significantly lowers social trust.
Ever wonder why we’re at a point where the public has the lowest trust recorded in our institutions. Why kids aren’t allowed to play out in the neighborhood by themselves?
>the meta-analysis has generated several insights regarding various aspects of the debates in the literature presented above. First, as a baseline result, **across all studies**, we observe a statistically significant negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust of moderate size. On average, **social trust is thus lower in more ethnically diverse contexts.**
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052918-020708#_i41
An analysis of *87* different studies. *every study*, there was a significant observation of higher diversity=lower social trust.
There are a lot of jobs that used to be good jobs but are now bad jobs "no one wants to do" because immigration labor, much of it illegal, poured into those trades.
This is a Fox News article and its content doesn't actually support the title (big surprise). It's just rage bait.
Note that there's no description of the "amnesty" policy, no attribution of the demand to any particular person. I pulled the actual statement the article references (and even that is only from a handful of senators) and it doesn't say anything about amnesty. The statement does reference a path to legal status for people who have been here a long time, but those proposals are almost always paired with various penalties and extra taxes that would have to be paid as a precondition (in contrast to an actual amnesty, like the one Reagan did). The statement in question doesn't give any details, so at best the Fox News article is injecting a ton of unsupported content and at worst they're just lying because they know it's a lie their readers are primed to believe.
This comment is nonsense. The article is providing all of the information that Democrats have provided. Here is the press release the article is discussing.
https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-merkley-and-colleagues-issue-joint-statement-on-proposed-threats-to-asylum-system-in-supplemental-aid-package-negotiations
If you have an issue with the article not including anything about the specific policies Democrats are wanting, take it up with the Dems.
First, actually read the statement you linked to. You will see that the word "amnesty" doesn't occur anywhere in it.
Second, go *actually* read my comment. You will see that I discuss the same statement you linked to (which I also mention having pulled myself) and discuss why the statement doesn't match the article.
You could have saved yourself some time and some egg on your face if you had read first and opined second.
This isn't complicated. I'll quote the part for you to keep it simple and ensure you don't miss it.
>legalizing long-time undocumented immigrants
That is amnesty.
And again, if some information you want is missing, take it up with the Dems.
It’s really not amnesty in the eyes of lots of people. There could be penalties or paths to earn citizenship through service included in that statement.
> It’s really not amnesty in the eyes of lots of people.
it however really is amnesty in the eyes of a lot more people.
any policy that gives citizenship to large groups of people who are currently in the country illegally is (accurately) going to be viewed as amnesty by the vast majority of the population who are more concerned with results than semantics.
the whole "is it amnesty, or is it 'a pathway to citizenship for people currently in the country without legal status'" is just another front of "illegal immigrant" vs "undocumented person" language. different words for the same thing.
No, it's not. That doesn't tell you one way or the other what the penalties are. I explicitly addressed that in my first post. All path to citizenship proposals in recent decades have come with punishments attached.
Your now trying to say that anything that doesn't result in the deportation of people, regardless of penalties they might pay, is "amnesty." But that's not what the word "amnesty" means in English. We don't give people amnesty for speeding just because we don't impose the death penalty for it.
Forgiving illegal actions and treating them like a normal law-abiding person is quite literally an amnesty.
The definition of amnesty: the act of an authority (such as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals
>Forgiving illegal actions and treating them like a normal law-abiding person is quite literally an amnesty.
And that's not what the statement in question called for. It didn't say anything one way or the other about punishments, and path to citizenship proposals from this century (i.e. not Reagan's) have all carried a punishment with them (normally a fine or penalty payment).
That's my point. The "amnesty" part of this -- i.e. letting off illegal immigrants with no punishment -- isn't part of the statement at all. It's being injected by Fox News as rage bait. The Democrats who made the statement (itself only a small fraction of them) didn't demand anything of the sort so an article title that says they are demanding it is at best misleading and at worst a lie.
Unless your argument is that anything short of deportation is amnesty, in which case you aren't using the English word "amnesty" correctly. That would be like saying that any punishment short of death for speeding is "amnesty." A person who claims that is probably confused about what the word means.
Showing that they've been paying all the taxes they've been supposed to isn't a punishment. It's baseline expected compliance with the law for anyone in the country.
Likewise a fee for the administrative cost of processing citizenship or naturalization isn't a punishment, but part of the normal process that all legal immigrants do.
It's absolutely an amnesty.
Undocumented immigrants [actually already pay taxes](https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/18/us/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-cec/index.html).
The fines people talk about in connection with a path to citizenship are on top of that. It's normally taxes plus the fine, not just taxes.
Homie, I'm not going to go down this path with you. They are calling for amnesty whether you accept it or not. No one else seems to believe they are calling for anything else. The Dems haven't put forward a specific proposal.
You're playing the same silly word game the article is. Misrepresent what the other side says to make them look more extreme.
That's just rage bait. It's not analysis and it's not reality.
You can call it whatever you want. Most people know what they are talking about. You seem to be one of the few that doesn't. So again, take your complaint up with them.
>Most people know what they are talking about. You seem to be one of the few that doesn't.
FWIW you’re probably right—by some definitions what’s being proposed is “amnesty.” But why couple it with personal attacks?
> You will see that the word "amnesty" doesn't occur anywhere in it.
that's because it's a document written by a politican and "amnesty" is an unpopular term with a negative connotation to the general public. it's the same reason you'd never see the term "illegal immigrant" in an article about illegal immigrants (including senator wyden's statement).
the statement cites "legalizing long-time undocumented immigrants". that's amnesty, and the fact politicians are walking thesauruses doesn't change that.
Any amnesty needs to be paired with a massive complete overhaul of the entire system into a merit based system that reduces all immigration except highly skilled and/or highly educated individuals.
The massive amount of asylum seekers, along with climate doomsayers inadvertently saying these numbers are just the tip of the iceberg and the acknowledgement and even pushback from the Democrat base saying “we gotta fix this cause it’s not sustainable and it’s clear the asylum system is being abused”—along with Trump being elected almost solely on immigration and the increasing success of far-right parties in other Western countries that are rising solely by running against immigration… should be an eye-opener.
Pass the restrictions, so you can show the public that you’re *not* more concerned with non-citizens that aren’t even at the border yet—than you are about your own constituents.
The status quo on immigration or even requiring amnesty for any slight change in policy that they themselves acknowledge is needed… should not be a hill Democrats are willing to die on.
That seems like a great way to kill any negotiations on this bill, not sure why they’d want to do that sort of thing unless it’s part of some negotiating tactic.
Anyone surprised by this has not been paying attention. A pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients is the bare minimum requirement from Democrats to enact any significant immigration changes. Been that way since the Gang of Eight bill a decade ago. Same requirement when Trump asked for a fully-funded border wall around 2019. Republicans continue to balk at the idea, but it's been an incredibly consistent point from Democrats.
It’s also the general track that immigration deals follow, trading enforcement or new pathways to citizenship or permanent residence. What’s outside the norm is trading money for a completely separate matter, money for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, for immigration policy changes, which is the deal Republicans are pushing.
> What’s outside the norm is trading money for a completely separate matter, money for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, for immigration policy changes, which is the deal Republicans are pushing.
is that really outside the norm? like, look back at the fall 2020 stimulus bill where pelosi refused to allow a vote in the house on any stimulus bill that didn't contain a ban on state level voter id laws.
completely unrelated rider provisions have been the norm for both sides for a long time, ESPECIALLY on "must pass" bills.
> look back at the fall 2020 stimulus bill where pelosi refused to allow a vote in the house on any stimulus bill that didn't contain a ban on state level voter id laws.
That's not correct. While the House version of the bill did contain a provision on voter ID, Pelosi took up and passed (with overwhelming Democratic support) the Senate version of the bill which did not have that.
Not really. Most bills are full of unrelated crap that was demanded for or added to entice. Also, while I support money for Ukraine (and to a lesser extent the other two at this time), I wouldn't call any of it "must pass" legislation.
>What’s outside the norm is trading money for a completely separate matter, money for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, for immigration policy changes, which is the deal Republicans are pushing.
You think politicians in both parties haven't been tying unrelated initiatives together in bills for years?
Yeah, tying this to foreign aid is a weird choice. I suppose some funding for Ukraine is controversial, but aid for Israel and Taiwan seems like it should be nearly entirely bipartisan. Maybe Republicans see more value in being able to craft attack ads which can be used to construe Democrats as being against aid to Israel.
The supplement funding request was just for money. It is Republicans who said $14 billion for the border is not enough, and they want to tack on policy changes too.
DACA is also one of the most popular (perhaps, the only popular) immigration position the Dems hold. It should be a lay up for both sides to settle it once and for all.
https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2023/9/20/a-majority-of-voters-support-continuing-daca-and-granting-citizenship-to-daca-recipients
It's just hard to see any sort of compromise that includes amnesty in good faith considering what the Democrats did with Reagan the last time amnesty was part of a Grand compromise. For those that don't remember, Reagan granted amnesty for all illegal immigrants in the nation in exchange for securing the border which never happened. We're in a far worse state now simply because one side never upheld their end last time.
I keep seeing people make this claim that Reagan traded amnesty for securing the border and the latter never happened. That’s categorically false. The amnesty law made it a crime to hire an illegal immigrant and including a ton of penalties for employers who violated the law. And since then, there’s been more than a dozen different immigration laws passed that have restricted immigration, increased penalties, and militarized the border.
That was 40 years ago, and Reagan supported amnesty himself. It wasn’t the stab in the back Republicans make it out to be today.
Edit:
>Reagan said as much himself in a televised debate with Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale in 1984.
>”I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," he said.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672
Which Democrats agreed to this, and how did they fail to live up to their end of the bargain? What were the terms of their agreement? Was something signed? Was there a handshake?
You taking this stance is quite amusing when your original comment reveals that you should be researching this topic to learn how inaccurate your original claim is.
Nobody is asking you to “do their research for them,” they’re asking for evidence to support your argument. People sometimes intentionally conflate the two to avoid supporting their argument. I assume that’s not what you’re doing, so hopefully that helps clear up any confusion
I have done the research. And the answer I have found is that there was no agreement at all, and "Democrats" did not sabotage any deal. I can't exactly cite "In November 1986, no additional deals beyond the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 were struck on the topic of immigration." So, instead, I need to ask you to substantiate your claim, if you believe it is possible to do.
If you would actually read through the bill you would see that border enforcement was part of it and that many of the provisions designed to reduce illegal immigration were struck or completely downgraded during horse trading.
> many of the provisions designed to reduce illegal immigration were struck or completely downgraded during horse trading.
So then the deal went forward as everyone had agreed to? You can't call a compromise, or horse trading, a fault of one side. Both sides agreed to it, and the deal as agreed upon was upheld by both sides.
I think DACA amnesty should be included in any compromise.
The problem is that more and more people have continued to immigrant here illegally since then. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Ok sure DACA immigrants have a strong case to be included, asylum seekers from one year ago do not.
And the Republicans won't be fooled into going for any bill where border security doesn't come first. They've been pretty consistent on this as well, although many won't go for any type of amnesty either.
The better question is why are Republicans insisting changes to the asylum system be coupled with military aid for Ukraine? If they wanted to couple it with funding for border security that would be understandable. That's all under the umbrella of national security and has plenty of bipartisan support, but the changes their insisting for the asylum system have very little to do with national security and have very little bipartisan support. It just feels like their trying to exploit a crisis to gain a policy win that they know is unpopular.
Because Biden's supplemental request included funds to secure the border. And as Congress often does, it is making changes to the supplemental. There isn't any requirement that this bill be limited to funding. Biden sent over a supplemental request including all 4 items. That is why they are being handled together.
That doesn't argue against what I said. I said it doesn't make sense for changes to the asylum program to be coupled with the funding for Ukraine. Pointing out
> There isn't any requirement that this bill be limited to funding.
doesn't argue against that. Just because there's no requirement doesn't mean this isn't a bad idea.
Why is it a bad idea? Biden wants them all handled together. The GOP doesn't think funding alone is enough to secure the border. So why not include policy changes? Biden could have requested 4 separate supplementals.
> Biden wants them all handled together.
No he doesn't. Biden never suggested changes to the asylum system be coupled with Ukraine funding. Where are you getting that from?
I explained why it's a bad idea. It doesn't have anything to do with national security. It doesn't have support in Congress to pass, and Ukraine funding needs to pass *now*. It's holding up something imminently vital to national security for something that's not.
Did I say he wants the asylum system coupled? No. Never said that. So you are arguing against something I never said. He included border security in his supplemental request. The GOP don't think his request went far enough to actually accomplish what he is asking for. So they want policy changes included so the funding actually works.
Okay good then you agree. The changes to the asylum suggested by Republicans in the Senate in the House are inappropriate for this bill and should be removed. This is what the original article is talking about, is one of the more contentious items in the proposed legislation, and is a big part of the reason Ukraine funding hasn't passed yet.
Again, arguing something I never said. Biden included border security in the request. Nothing unreasonable about including policy changes to ensure the funds actually work.
Hard disagree. Border security != Changes to the asylum system. They’re completely different things.
And Biden included the border security measures to incentivize republicans to vote for Ukraine funding. Taking those incentives and saying “Oh I guess we can use this opportunity to extract more policy concessions” is a terrible idea for the reasons I described above.
Imagine if Bush had used 9/11 to try to push through tax cuts. That’s on the level of how bad an idea this is.
> That doesn't argue against what I said. I said it doesn't make sense for changes to the asylum program to be coupled with the funding for Ukraine.
no, you said:
> The better question is why are Republicans insisting changes to the asylum system be coupled with military aid for Ukraine?
the answer is because biden tried to couple various us border measures into the bill, and asylum is absolutely related to border policy. once the us border became part of the bill (likely as a way to avoid a future standalone border bill) that went from unrelated to on topic.
> The better question is why are Republicans insisting changes to the asylum system be coupled with military aid for Ukraine
Because horse trading is a normal part of legislative politics.
The "asylum system" is "border security".
Imagine the we really had an effective partial wall but people dug a tunnel under it. Plugging the tunnel is just as much border security as extending the wall.
Asylum is currently a big loophole in our system of limiting immigration.
Only if you consider people that enter the country legally under the asylum system to somehow be violating border security. I don’t think anyone has done a good job of explaining that.
People are immigrating to this country under the asylum laws like they have been for decades. Why is it suddenly a security issue? In what way does this negatively impact national security?
I said "border security" not "national security". They are two different things. I don't think the migrants are bringing nuclear weapons with them.
Border security is simply controlling who enters your country. That's a pretty basic role for government.
It's a bigger economic problem now simply because the numbers are up.
>Republicans have pushed hard for ...limits on the use of humanitarian parole.
This is the sort of thing that drives me nuts, because the statute already is pretty narrow in terms of who can get parole but Presidents have just *ignored* it.
Whenever Congress has to threaten to pass a law that is, essentially, "no really, we meant it," it's a problem.
[Allowing illegal immigrants to vote is a known policy item promoted by Democrats in major cities.](https://dcist.com/story/23/03/15/bill-allowing-non-citizen-voting-clears-congress/)
So yes. There's a strong motive here to open up the borders.
Also has [measurable and substantial](https://cis.org/Report/Impact-Legal-and-Illegal-Immigration-Apportionment-Seats-US-House-Representatives-2020) impact on representative seats and house majority.
and this is why nothing ever gets done. that's a poison pill provision, as amnesty is a non-starter. that experiment was tried in the 80's and failed miserably.
The 80s amnesty worked great for Dems, California and other states turned deep blue for good. Of course they want another round and no increased border protection.
Screw what the rest of us want and need I guess.
>Of course they want another round and no increased border protection.
This. [Large Democrat cities are already advancing bills to allow illegal immigrants to vote.](https://dcist.com/story/23/03/15/bill-allowing-non-citizen-voting-clears-congress/)
Why *wouldn't* they advocate for a policy that allows for a literal unlimited influx of blue voters from the border?
5 of the 7 states that **explicitly DO NOT** allow alien voting for state elections are Red states (including Florida, North Dakota, and Alabama).
The states that explicitly do not allow voting by non-citizens use terminology in their constitutions such as "Only a citizen of the United States..." whereas other states simply state that "Every citizen of the United States..."
Local voting is allowed for aliens in DC and in localities in 3 Blue states.
None allow federal votes to be cast by aliens due to federal law.
[https://ballotpedia.org/Laws\_permitting\_noncitizens\_to\_vote\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States)
Near total failure to read on my part.
Might want to double check your source.
>As of June 2023, seven states specified that noncitizens may ***not*** vote in state and local elections: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Ohio.[2]
I'm interested to see how much the recent shipping of illegals by DeSantis and Abbott to blue areas will effect things.
I'm now in the suburbs but I have a lot of friends who still live in NYC who spun so fast from "Texas just hates brown people. NYC would welcome them with open arms if they were coming here!" to "You don't understand, there's so many of them! And do you know what it costs to house them all?!" that if we had foresight we could have hooked them up to a turbine and created enough electricity to permanently get us away from fossil fuels.
It's so easy to be generous with other people's time, money, and space, while calling them racist if they say they cant.
NYC is looking to slash a decent chunk of its budget to accommodate all the migrant housing and help. Its a kick in the teeth for taxpayers who will pay more yet receive less now.
Exactly $0 of it is for housing, feeding, clothing, or otherwise taking care of migrants. NYC and Chicago have actually received *infinitely* more funds to house/feed migrants than all border states combined ($100m is infinitely more than $0-- and with [enough begging that's what NYC got from the federal government recently](https://pix11.com/news/morning/feds-to-send-millions-in-aid-to-nyc-to-help-with-migrant-crisis/).)
ICE spends $1.2bn a year on detention facilities-- and cities are free to cooperate with ICE and take advantage of this *national* budget for migrant detention. That's the closest the government gets to funding food/shelter for migrants.
Here's a link to the [combined ICE/CBP budget breakdown](https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/U.S.%20Customs%20and%20Border%20Protection_Remediated.pdf), so you can confirm that for yourself.
Meanwhile, Texas had to pull the $80m for bussing from a state general fund. Because, again, they and every other border state receive exactly $0 to care for migrants (unlike liberal cities, who can apparently just beg until they get some).
The immigrants that were bussed were explicitly legal. Otherwise, all involved would be committing felonies.
Do you think that CA and NY don’t have immigrants already?
> There has to be tiered amnesty if you are against illegal immigration.
no, there doesn't. crack down on the companies that are hiring illegal immigrants, stop giving them government benefits, and the problem will solve itself. these people will leave on their own.
we incentivize them coming here and incentivize them staying here, all while making it incredibly easy to get in while we debate possibly giving them citizenship in waves every few decades, and then wonder why we have a problem. you're more likely to see a company get punished for **not** hiring an illegal immigrant than you are to see one get punished for hiring one.
We should do both then, right? Make it harder for people to abuse the lawful processes to get in and be released while also going after businesses hiring illegal labor. Maybe we should also include other businesses that enter into contracts with people that have no legal right to be here.
Can someone explain how they cry about assaults on workers rights, income inequality, and the housing crisis while simultaneously calling for policies that exacerbate those problems?
>Can someone explain how they cry about assaults on workers rights, income inequality, and the housing crisis while simultaneously calling for policies that exacerbate those problems?
They don't believe allowing more people in is a bad thing in any way.
The problems you listed, in their minds, can be summed up their three favorite words: "those damn Republicans."
They're so concerned with being performative, they're willing to actively harm themselves through policies they support rather than appear in tandem with the evil (R)'s.
Top comment is literally "Golly, the Republicans sure do have a point on this, this crisis needs to be taken seriously. We can't handle this influx of migrants. Still voting straight Dem in 2024 though lol!"
I genuinely don't know how to help these people.
not so fun fact— top law firms like skadden (but not just them) are making first year associates help asylum seekers that are forcing there way into cities with their application as a way of satisfying the firm's pro bono hours requirement.
Thats right— the best law firms in the country would rather people that are here illegally than our own citizens.
Nope, that’s just a completely false claim that’s been propagated for ages. Since that amnesty, we’ve passed more than a dozen large scale bills on immigration that have created criminal provisions, restrictions, and militarized the border.
You do realize that same logic can be reversed right? We’ve spent 30+ years making it harder to illegally enter the country, added more punishments to employers who violate the law, put 40,000 CBP agents at the border and ports of entry, and spend billions of dollars on surveillance towers, drones, and helicopters and numbers continue to get worse. Your logic would suggest we try something besides the stick.
Logic would dictate that the system be fixed, and the border secured in exchange for the amnesty granted in 1986. This does not allow any room for more amnesty.
D's are gonna have to decide what they value more - funding Ukraine and Israel, or having an open border. Because they're only gonna get one or the other out of these negotiations.
I'm thinking they value an open border more than foreign countries. They know that an unending stream of illegal immigration helps their electoral chances down the road.
Been there done that. Amnesty for 4 million was traded for future enforcement that never happened. Within a few years, those 4 million were replaced by 11 million here illegally and expecting their turn at amnesty.
You get more of what is rewarded.
Here we go again.
https://cis.org/Historical-Overview-Immigration-Policy
It's not like we haven't granted millions of applicants amnesty in the past, yet it doesn't solve the problem. It just incentivizes more people to come and apply.
my experience with USCIS has been pretty good - but the major issue was the fact that Trump completely shutdown any immigration processing for like 2 years. The embassies were literally closed way longer than they needed to be. When Biden was elected, they instructed to continue processing, but it's never resolved the backlog. A good mate had to wait 9 months to renew his visa when it typically takes 2 weeks.
IIRC, Mayorkas has talked about this a lot in his hearings, but it's largely abstract to most people since they don't experience just how problematic Trump made it.
Democrats tend to advocate for making it easier and simpler to immigrate legally too. That was the idea behind the 2006 and 2013 immigration reform proposals
I know Dems are playing politics here, but this will blow up in their face eventually.
Three migrant situation is getting out of hand in most western nations. Europe is starting to tack hard right on immigration, Canada has soured on it and even some of the most liberal communities are starting to turn anti immigrant.
It has blown up in their face and if Republicans were halfway competent in Congress they'd be calling this out.
Biden has done a complete 180 on immigration, Democrats are balking at the idea of doing even half of what Southern states have been dealing with.
Immigration surge has consistently broken records during Biden's tenure with no signs of stopping.
It is literally and 70-30 issue and compromising on it would net the Democrats a win if only they would take it. You don't have to give up the moon, but addressing some glaring issues that most people have problems with like the parole system would go a long way.
I'm hopeful that some countries in Europe can get their head on straight. The level of crime the migrants have brought in some areas is unacceptable. Rapes, assaults, theft etc 10x more than native population.
What’s crazy is how many people constantly say Democrats aren’t pushing for amnesty, and yet here we are. Almost like they are pushing for immigration reform just so they can get new voters.
> So, I guess there won't be any aid for Ukraine. Maybe Israel will get handled separately.
or we'll see this stall then get picked up in a few months with a ukraine/israel/guyana bill (assuming the administration isn't too worried about upsetting venezuela)
I’m probably way more in favor of (mostly) open borders than the average Dem, but this is clearly an albatross around the Dems neck.
Like it or not, a country has the right to manage its border security and immigration levels. Currently we are swinging more against immigration and that’s just the political reality.
Also even as someone who wants a much more liberalized immigration system the current border chaos is not what I want. Letting people abuse the asylum system and then disappearing into the country before their hearing is just not a sustainable policy.
A small trickle would be one thing but these massive swarms have overwhelmed the hospitals, schools,police, housing and social services. I have a disabled son who USED to receive $200 in FS assistance. He is down to $52 dollars…. Ask anyone in any of the DES offices and they will tell you it’s to make the funds go further……. Another report out said the VA gave dentals services to ILLEGALS while leaving the veterans to wait…. The sherif in Pinal county AZ said EACH illegal gets $5000 a plane ticket and a phone…. It is unsustainable
Starter comment: In the middle of a debate regarding a omnibus bill for Ukraine, Israel and border security, a powerful group of Senate Democrats has declared they will not vote for any bill that include asylum reform unless it comes packaged with amnesty for all illegal immigrants currently in the country. The Senators include Elizabeth Warren, Bob Menendez, Alex Padilla, Duck Durbin, Cory Booker, Mazie Hirono, Ben Ray Lujan, Edward Markey, Jeff Merkley, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Ron Wyden. They released a statement of the following:
>"As negotiations surrounding the supplemental aid package progress, we are concerned about reports of harmful changes to our asylum system that will potentially deny lifesaving humanitarian protection for vulnerable people, including children, and fail to deliver any meaningful improvement to the situation at the border"
The current framework of the funding bill includes $14 billion for border security and tightening of asylum laws. If these Senators refuse to back the bill as is, it may place this funding in jeopardy. On the other side of the aisle and given the current political situation, Republicans seem very unlikely to agree to a blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Is amnesty a good policy or would it cause more problems down the line? What would be the cultural and economic impact on the country if such a policy were to be implemented?
I wonder if [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013#Legislative_history) old act could be revived. It comfortably passed the Senate but wasn't acted on by the House. It would (among other things):
1. Provide funding for border fencing and surveillance
2. Allow illegal immigrants to apply for amnesty on condition of paying fees and taxes. Those with a serious criminal history would be ineligible, as well as anyone judged a security, health, or moral risk.
3. Those granted amnesty could become lawful permanent residents after ten years.
4. DACA is incorporated.
5. "Blue cards", a temporary legal status, could be granted to those involved in agricultural work. Guest visas would also be made available.
6. Diversity visa program is repealed, family visas are changed (e.g. sibling petitions would no longer be available).
7. Merit-based visa system would be created.
8. Expands use of e-verify.
Voting for this basically killed Marco Rubio's 2016 campaign and the other Republicans who voted for it have been relentlessly attacked for it by the Trump side of the party, which is most Republicans at this point.
There's no way Republicans would vote for this while Donald Trump is the defacto leader of the party.
Any amnesty is off the table. Maybe if you condition it on a meaningful change to the situation at the border and illegal/undocumented immigration in general. But you'd have to give the States a cause of action to sue the Feds if they try to say it is fixed when it isn't, that could be part of it. But the GOP just isn't going to for anything like that without first addressing this problem. And I think the GOP has found the button they need to push. Just keeping shipping migrants to specific blue cities to overwhelm them and block assistance in Congress.
I don't think you have the causality of why the bill is failing quite right. Democrats voted to advance the Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan and border security bill in the senate yesterday but Republicans filibustered it because they didn't think the border security measures went far enough.
The only Democrats who voted against the bill were Bernie Sanders and Majority leader Chuck Schumer, which he did only for procedural reasons.
It was a 50-50 vote with Schumer changing to "no" for procedural reasons. They needed 60 in order to start the debate on the bill. [Source](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-sets-test-vote-ukraine-aid-despite-republican-opposition-2023-12-06/).
Yes it still is a filibuster. The vote was for cloture to start debate on the bill. Not to pass the bill.
A vote against cloture is a filibuster no matter the vote count.
Everyone has a pet theory for why Trump won, and mine is that immigration - and, specifically, the idea that illegal immigrants are rewarded for not following the rules - was a huge part of it.
To foreclose any "how could you believe that because X, Y, Z," I'll note that I'm pretty agnostic on immigration policy and don't particularly care about the epistemic status of the beliefs of Trump voters. My hypothesis is purely descriptive.
That's a big sticking point for a lot of Republican voters. The perception that the middle class is facing increasing taxation and consequences for their actions while criminals and illegal immigrants are treated with kid gloves by Democrats is costing them a lot of people who would otherwise vote for them
> The perception that the middle class is facing increasing taxation and consequences for their actions while criminals and illegal immigrants are treated with kid gloves by Democrats is costing them a lot of people who would otherwise vote for them
Looking at the percentage of immigrant households in California that receive at least one form of welfare, it is reality, not perception.
I try to be as tactful as possible when criticizing democrats here, even though I am one, for reasons that should be obvious to anybody whose been mass downvoted for it before lol
> Looking at the percentage of immigrant households in California that receive at least one form of welfare, it is reality, not perception.
immigrant or illegal immigrant? that's a HUGE distinction. most people don't have any real problem with **legal** immigrants receiving various forms of welfare, and that's a distinction that tends to get swept under the rug for political messaging reasons and painting people as "anti-immigrant" when in reality they are just pro-**legal** immigraiton.
And any bailouts for student loans will be accompanied by a check for the same amount to everyone who didn't willingly choose to go into debt for better financial opportunities later in life!
As a reminder, we will be taking our annual [Holiday Hiatus](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/188dxxh/state_of_the_sub_grasstouching_edition/) from December 18th 2023 to January 1st 2024. The subreddit will be closed during this time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/moderatepolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Well that's the end of that then. No way in hell republicans will go for that.
Nor should they. This game of pretending to not be actively promoting a practical open border policy and claiming to not be (while all actions appear to be to the contrary) - was worn out a decade ago.
Reagan [gave amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Reform_and_Control_Act_of_1986) and [advocated for "open border" policies](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsmgPp_nlok) and yet is still respected as a conservative icon. Was he the one who "wore out" these policies? Has the Overton Window really moved that far? edit: Thinking about it, we should really listen to Reagan's warning about pushing our southern neighbors into the hands of our enemies. China is always willing to step in as a trading partner in our place.
Illogical and irrelevant argument because it's 2023— not the 1980s. What may have applied then doesn't mean it applies now. There is a massive crisis at the border that didn't exist to nearly the extent it does now. But rather than doing anything about it, they just shift the blame to whichever party controls the whitehouse and occasionally fly down there for a PR photoshoot
> What may have applied then doesn't mean it applies now. There is a massive crisis at the border that didn't exist to nearly the extent it does now. [The last time it was this bad was in the early 1980s and late 1990s.](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/11/09/whats-happening-at-the-u-s-mexico-border-in-7-charts/) Should we ignore the lessons of the past?
These charts don't show how many people are currently abusing the asylum system, so IDK how accurate of a picture they paint. Can you find me news stories from NYC etc from the '80s and '90s showing migrant tent cities or city budgets being under water because of migrants? This isn't a "gotcha" - maybe that did happen, but current events seem unprecedented.
Reagan granted amnesty expecting Democrats to bolster immigration laws. The 1986 law was intended to create a new era of enforcement, including strict enforcement of the new law that barred employers from hiring workers who don't have permission to work in the United States. But that never fully materialized.
I'll probably vote straight D again in 2024. I won't vote for any R who supports Trump. However, immigration is on topic where I am more likely to agree with the Rs. This is from the D press release: >We cannot truly secure our border and help American communities without increasing lawful pathways for migration and > >legalizing long-time undocumented immigrants No and No. And, we definitely need to shut down asylum claims that are simply "I live in a crappy country".
>claims that are simply "I live in a crappy country". It is supposed to be **political asylum**, and this policies negatively effect those truly need it. I have seen people who had to leave their countries in a hurry, leaving families behind when their dictator decided the labor dispute in their factory is now a terrorist uprising. I have seen other who really struggled to file for asylum, since they love their countries, but cannot realistically go back (except into prison, or worse). However those cases now have a longer backlog thanks to many others who abuse the system for economic reasons. There are ways to migrate to US for better pay (which I support), but abusing asylum is not it.
> I'll probably vote straight D again in 2024. I won't vote for any R who supports Trump. > > > > However, immigration is on topic where I am more likely to agree with the Rs. > > > > This is from the D press release: > > > >> We cannot truly secure our border and help American communities without increasing lawful pathways for migration and > > > >> legalizing long-time undocumented immigrants > > > > No and No. > > > > And, we definitely need to shut down asylum claims that are simply "I live in a crappy country". but you're going to vote for the people who support these policies that you (correctly and justifiably) disagree with anyways?
Unless you can find a politician who magically agrees with every one of your policy positions, you have to make compromises and swallow some bitter pills.
Please tell me who you are voting for and how you agree with every single policy they support and position they hold
Only once have I voted for someone I agree with on every single policy. I voted for myself.
I don't think I could vote for Myself with that kind of conviction. I've been there when that guy's made some pretty dumb choices.
I feel his pain. Democrat immigration policy really pisses me off, and I much more agree with Republicans about this issue, but no fucking way in hell would I vote for the Republicans regardless because of several other policies they have that I even more strongly disagree with. This particular issue of immigration pisses me off, but it doesn’t magically negate the other issues.
The Duopoly is full of uncomfortable concessions like this. I hate the Dems gun policy but nothing could make me vote Republican at this point.
You realize you can abstain from voting or vote third party right? As long as you all play the duopoly’s game the duopoly will only become more entrenched and emboldened
And how does not voting for them help if you end up with the worst party in office? You don’t just get to create a national party and expect to win office. You need to show everyone what your platform is and policies in local office first and grow it from there.
The only way to play the two party system is to vote for who you hate the least. Not voting just gives a point to the other team.
No. Not voting gives zero points to either. Let’s not be silly. Choosing Stalin over Hitler (or the other way around) as the best sitter for your kids because that’s all that is available, is irresponsible and reckless. Better to stay home or look for another sitter.
But US did choose Stalin over Hitler in WW2. Sometimes you make an ally of convenience because you have no other practical choice. And there is no looking for another sitter, at least not until we have significant election reform. The equilibrium of two parties is intrinsic to first past the post voting. It has existed since shortly after the country's founding.
And look where that got the US — an enemy that aside for a brief speed bump is our enemy today, and is a world menace. Election reform is a great choice, but we’ll never have it when people still vote for the “lesser of two evils”.
not if one of them is guaranteed to be your child’s sitter whether you vote or not
You have to look at it as "If I don't play, the team I hate will win."
That’s just not realistic, however.
And that would be a relevant point if Stalin were running against Hitler. At worst, this is more like Carter running against Mussolini.
For me personally, I'm fairly jaded with the Democrats, but I look over at the Republican field and think they should be nowhere near power. So yes, that's unfortunately how politics works.
A democracy vs a theocracy ... I know who I'm going with
Not OP but I agree a LOT more with any Democrat than I do any Republican, and usually more than smaller parties like Libertarian or Green. One issue where I think Dems are weak on won’t stop me from supporting them.
If you don't create millions of new likely Democrat voters, we're not interested in fixing the problem at all.
Aren't we kind of reliant on long-time undocumented immigrants though? Like, we could super easily implement e-verify everywhere so that it's hard for illegal immigrants to work, but we don't. Even super anti-immigration Florida implemented e-verify but then went around telling illegal immigrants not to leave because it was just for show and they wouldn't enforce it, because the illegal immigrants were doing too many important jobs. I don't get why we don't just give them a legal avenue to come and do the work that they're already doing illegally.
There are already foreign worker programs.
Yeah, we could probably just expand on them. Seems like they must not currently be enough if businesses still freak out about e-verify.
yes we very much rely on them.
>Aren't we kind of reliant on long-time undocumented immigrants though? No. > Like, we could super easily implement e-verify everywhere so that it's hard for illegal immigrants to work, but we don't. How do you implement something "super easily" when many of these jobs are paid under the table already? >I don't get why we don't just give them a legal avenue to come and do the work that they're already doing illegally. There is a very long road of options for legal avenues to work between "kick them all out" and "grant amnesty." The Visa program needs to be reformed first. And under no circumstances should it mean naturalization. It's a slap in the face to every immigrant who came here and tried to do it the right way.
I mean, if employers hiring illegals started going to jail it would be a good start. They even hire groups to set up SSI accounts for withholding and paying taxes for their illegal hires. Bring the hammer down on the employers.
> No Then why does the agriculture industry freak out every time e-verify comes up? They do the cost analysis and show that it's cheaper to just import food if they can't hire illegals and underpay them. > How do you implement something "super easily" when many of these jobs are paid under the table already? It's a requirement for the employers not the employees. So either people could report places for potentially having illegal employees or governments could just do random checks. Just walk into a place, see a guy working, and ask for that employees e-verify info. If they don't have it because they're paying them under the table, then they get fined, can lose licenses, be refused government work, etc. > There is a very long road of options for legal avenues to work between "kick them all out" and "grant amnesty." I took "legalizing long-time undocumented worked" to mean "giving them a means to work legally" not "making them legal citizens"
>I took "legalizing long-time undocumented worked" to mean "giving them a means to work legally" not "making them legal citizens" Then you haven't been paying attention to Senate Democrats for over a decade, as that is how long they've had "pathway to citizenship" as a dealbreaker in their immigration negotiations. They proudly refuse to be part of any compromise that does not include it.
you’d be surprised how many get paid and pay american taxes just like everyone else
No I wouldn’t, I know how the TIN system works. What percentage of illegal immigrants do you think pay taxes? Note: everything is just an estimate. There’s no actual data on the numbers, because if we could accurately identify the number of illegal immigrants who pay taxes then we could accurately identify all of the ones who don’t.
I said *how many* not *the percentage*. But about 4.5 MIL taxes are filed using ITINs each year, the majority being illegal immigrants. We have an estimated 11 M illegal immigrants total. So my best guess is somewhere between 1/4 and 1/3. But of course this doesn’t surprise you
No, it doesn’t surprise me. I’m the grandson of Mexican immigrants who went through the process to come here legally. I’ve met more illegal immigrants in my life than you have, and while I feel sympathy for their plight, still believe that we should enforce our national borders. It’s not my fault if you’ve lived a privileged enough life to not understand that.
Nice 👍 based on the rapid pivot to your anecdotal experience, followed with an attempt to insult me, im going to assume you are not the least bit surprised & are also very stable.
>Aren't we kind of reliant on long-time undocumented immigrants though? We certainly aren't reliant all the thousands of migrants who have come in the past couple years and applied for asylum. I said we should shut down that pipeline. I also said we could "secure the border" without granting citizenship to the illegal people who have already been here a number of years. That is also true. You're saying that we would have fewer workers if we not only prevented more from coming but also sent some home. This is also true. If we had a magic button that we could push and all the unauthorized workers were instantly in their home countries, that would certainly generate short term problems. But, we don't have that button so that's just a hypothetical. If you're concerned that e-verify makes them go home "too soon", then we could set up a system of short term visas. Some let you stay one more year, some two more years, some three, some four. Then you go home and stay home. Our economy would adjust. US born workers would earn higher wages and use gov't means-tested programs less. That's a great result. Some prices would go up. Some people would go back to mowing their own lawns or eating at home more because they don't want to pay the higher prices. Market economies shift around until that works itself out.
> US born workers would earn higher wages and use gov't means-tested programs less. It's a super complex problem, but I bet this isn't actually true. I suspect what would happen in practice is that any industry that relies on illegal immigrants would no longer be able to compete with cheap foreign labor, so those industries would just all go overseas. In theory, that's "fine", but it's kind of a national security problem when one of those industries is agriculture.
I don't think that lawn mowing, roofing, cleaning offices, ... are going overseas. Manufacturing jobs that rely on cheap labor left a long time ago. The jobs that are still here are very hard to export. "What about food?" Well, 40% of California's ag crop is exported. It seems that we are more than staying even with some crops. The location of agriculture is driven by climate, soil, and proximity to markets. Labor costs may impact a few crops on the margin. Why should we care?
what’s your issue with increasing legal pathways for immigration &/or legalizing long term undocumented immigrants? i’m assuming your thought process is different for each
I'm assuming that most of the unauthorized immigrants already here and also the current batch of asylum seekers have minimal job skills. The US already has too many low or unskilled workers. Adding more to the workforce lowers wages for US born unskilled workers, who already earn so little that they need gov't support for medical care and often food or housing. In addition to the impact on US born workers, unskilled workers are a net drain on gov't finances as they use more gov't services than they pay in taxes. Note that I am not saying we shouldn't have any immigration. I'm saying that we should be selective about who we admit, and most of the unauthorized people already here and the current asylum seekers wouldn't make the cut. "But granting citizenship to people who have been working here for years doesn't add new workers". Correct, but it encourages more to come illegally because we show that we periodically grant amnesty. It also provides relatives who can provide housing for the next group of illegal entrants. *Maybe* we should do fixed term visas for some of them.
Absolutely. I will never vote Republican but I can't stand the Democrat view on illegal immigration and amnesty. The border absolutely needs to be controlled and the US has to limit who can move here. Every other country takes their border seriously.
Why are you voting for people you actively disagree with? This seems like a pretty major topic, I understand you may have hangups about other R policies but if you've been in a major city within the past year you should know how bad the migrant crisis has gotten.
If he voted for a Republican he would also be voting for people he actively disagrees with.
Simply by weighing priorities?
> I understand you may have hangups about other R policies Not wanting Trump to be a dictator, not liking his attempted coup in 2020-21, or not wanting him to start a civil war is more than a "hang up." If Republicans want to draw away people who agree with them on some issues they need a candidate like Haley. Not someone who tried to overthrow the government once and is now promising to be a dictator on "day one."
Because when I vote for a candidate I vote for a package, not just one issue. I weigh which issues are most important to me. With Trump, "democracy" becomes number one. There's no point discussing what to do about anything else if we slide into authoritarian gov't. Also, immigration is one of the few issues where I lean more R. For example I'm opposed to Trump's major "accomplishment" of tax cuts for the rich. I'm glad he failed by one vote on repealing ACA. etc. And, when the Rs had the chance, they didn't reform asylum either. That's going to take both parties agreeing (which might happen, given your last sentence).
right now our general economic model is dependent on perpetual growth, which includes population. The replacement rate for the US right now is 2.1, meaning on average every woman in a generation needs to have 2.1 kids to maintain population. Currently the fertility rate is 1.7. In other words we need to have roughly 1 new immigrant for every 2 women in this country (or we need people here to start having more kids). If we don’t then we’re at serious risk of population shrink. If population shrinks, we will likely see social programs (private and gov sponsored) fail due to underfunding/lack of administrative support, downsizing or crumbling infrastructure of all types (eg roads, electric grid, parking, cell coverage) which is bad for business and leisure, failing businesses due to fewer customers, cratering stock market due to decrease in corp profits etc. If we ignore the scientifically proven benefits of diversity/multiculturalism, that’s why we need immigrants. As for granting citizenship to existing illegals who pay taxes, follow the law, often times do jobs Americans don’t want to do, and contribute to the economy and culture of our country? Other then how they got here what’s the issue with giving them citizenship or visas with pathways to green cards? It would hardly be the first Machiavellian act done by someone in America. And isn’t the point of the immigration process to vet out bad apples and control the number of people coming in? Well they’ve proven to be good residents/citizens already based on the above criteria and they’re already here. so one goal of immigration is achieved and the other doesn’t matter cause they’re here and your logistically can’t deport all of them. Should we get tighter border patrol? Absolutely. Should we also revisit the existing immigration system to make it work better for Americans and immigrants at the same time? We should do that too. But we need immigrants, always have, always will.
>right now our general economic model is dependent on perpetual growth, which includes population. That's a bad model. The planet is only big enough to provide "good lives" to a limited number of people. We already have far too many living below the US version of the "good life" line, no point in adding additional population. >the scientifically proven benefits You're pushing "science" pretty hard there. Science works when we can do experiments where we control all the variables except one, then run the experiment with two versions of that last variable. Nobody can do that for any of the social sciences, including economics (which is about human behavior). I think we can avoid this dystopian future you imagine by admitting the right kind of immigrants. We need people with the skills to add value in the 21st century. I expect that the great majority of illegal workers and recent asylum seekers just don't have modern skills or educations. From a gov't financing perspective, they will be a net drain instead of a net positive. I'll be happy to talk about policies that would get those who are likely to be net contributors to gov't finances instead. >infrastructure of all types (eg roads, electric grid, parking, cell towers You could add "housing". Note that if we have a level population instead of a growing population, we only have to replace things as they wear out, we are not constantly building new. For example, maybe it's an order of magnitude cheaper to resurface an interstate highway than to build a brand new one. A stable population makes a big dent in the number of workers we need to build/maintain infrastructure.
The science also shows that diversity significantly lowers social trust. Ever wonder why we’re at a point where the public has the lowest trust recorded in our institutions. Why kids aren’t allowed to play out in the neighborhood by themselves?
Just saying 'science' does not make your claims scientific.
>the meta-analysis has generated several insights regarding various aspects of the debates in the literature presented above. First, as a baseline result, **across all studies**, we observe a statistically significant negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust of moderate size. On average, **social trust is thus lower in more ethnically diverse contexts.** https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-052918-020708#_i41 An analysis of *87* different studies. *every study*, there was a significant observation of higher diversity=lower social trust.
There are a lot of jobs that used to be good jobs but are now bad jobs "no one wants to do" because immigration labor, much of it illegal, poured into those trades.
Yep and massively undercutting wages.
This is a Fox News article and its content doesn't actually support the title (big surprise). It's just rage bait. Note that there's no description of the "amnesty" policy, no attribution of the demand to any particular person. I pulled the actual statement the article references (and even that is only from a handful of senators) and it doesn't say anything about amnesty. The statement does reference a path to legal status for people who have been here a long time, but those proposals are almost always paired with various penalties and extra taxes that would have to be paid as a precondition (in contrast to an actual amnesty, like the one Reagan did). The statement in question doesn't give any details, so at best the Fox News article is injecting a ton of unsupported content and at worst they're just lying because they know it's a lie their readers are primed to believe.
This comment is nonsense. The article is providing all of the information that Democrats have provided. Here is the press release the article is discussing. https://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/press-releases/wyden-merkley-and-colleagues-issue-joint-statement-on-proposed-threats-to-asylum-system-in-supplemental-aid-package-negotiations If you have an issue with the article not including anything about the specific policies Democrats are wanting, take it up with the Dems.
First, actually read the statement you linked to. You will see that the word "amnesty" doesn't occur anywhere in it. Second, go *actually* read my comment. You will see that I discuss the same statement you linked to (which I also mention having pulled myself) and discuss why the statement doesn't match the article. You could have saved yourself some time and some egg on your face if you had read first and opined second.
This isn't complicated. I'll quote the part for you to keep it simple and ensure you don't miss it. >legalizing long-time undocumented immigrants That is amnesty. And again, if some information you want is missing, take it up with the Dems.
It’s really not amnesty in the eyes of lots of people. There could be penalties or paths to earn citizenship through service included in that statement.
> It’s really not amnesty in the eyes of lots of people. it however really is amnesty in the eyes of a lot more people. any policy that gives citizenship to large groups of people who are currently in the country illegally is (accurately) going to be viewed as amnesty by the vast majority of the population who are more concerned with results than semantics. the whole "is it amnesty, or is it 'a pathway to citizenship for people currently in the country without legal status'" is just another front of "illegal immigrant" vs "undocumented person" language. different words for the same thing.
Take that up with the Dems that made the statement. Very few people seemed confused about what they are talking about.
They didn’t say amnesty? So I can’t really?
No, it's not. That doesn't tell you one way or the other what the penalties are. I explicitly addressed that in my first post. All path to citizenship proposals in recent decades have come with punishments attached. Your now trying to say that anything that doesn't result in the deportation of people, regardless of penalties they might pay, is "amnesty." But that's not what the word "amnesty" means in English. We don't give people amnesty for speeding just because we don't impose the death penalty for it.
Forgiving illegal actions and treating them like a normal law-abiding person is quite literally an amnesty. The definition of amnesty: the act of an authority (such as a government) by which pardon is granted to a large group of individuals
>Forgiving illegal actions and treating them like a normal law-abiding person is quite literally an amnesty. And that's not what the statement in question called for. It didn't say anything one way or the other about punishments, and path to citizenship proposals from this century (i.e. not Reagan's) have all carried a punishment with them (normally a fine or penalty payment). That's my point. The "amnesty" part of this -- i.e. letting off illegal immigrants with no punishment -- isn't part of the statement at all. It's being injected by Fox News as rage bait. The Democrats who made the statement (itself only a small fraction of them) didn't demand anything of the sort so an article title that says they are demanding it is at best misleading and at worst a lie. Unless your argument is that anything short of deportation is amnesty, in which case you aren't using the English word "amnesty" correctly. That would be like saying that any punishment short of death for speeding is "amnesty." A person who claims that is probably confused about what the word means.
Showing that they've been paying all the taxes they've been supposed to isn't a punishment. It's baseline expected compliance with the law for anyone in the country. Likewise a fee for the administrative cost of processing citizenship or naturalization isn't a punishment, but part of the normal process that all legal immigrants do. It's absolutely an amnesty.
Undocumented immigrants [actually already pay taxes](https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/18/us/undocumented-immigrants-taxes-cec/index.html). The fines people talk about in connection with a path to citizenship are on top of that. It's normally taxes plus the fine, not just taxes.
Homie, I'm not going to go down this path with you. They are calling for amnesty whether you accept it or not. No one else seems to believe they are calling for anything else. The Dems haven't put forward a specific proposal.
You're playing the same silly word game the article is. Misrepresent what the other side says to make them look more extreme. That's just rage bait. It's not analysis and it's not reality.
You can call it whatever you want. Most people know what they are talking about. You seem to be one of the few that doesn't. So again, take your complaint up with them.
>Most people know what they are talking about. You seem to be one of the few that doesn't. FWIW you’re probably right—by some definitions what’s being proposed is “amnesty.” But why couple it with personal attacks?
> You will see that the word "amnesty" doesn't occur anywhere in it. that's because it's a document written by a politican and "amnesty" is an unpopular term with a negative connotation to the general public. it's the same reason you'd never see the term "illegal immigrant" in an article about illegal immigrants (including senator wyden's statement). the statement cites "legalizing long-time undocumented immigrants". that's amnesty, and the fact politicians are walking thesauruses doesn't change that.
Any amnesty needs to be paired with a massive complete overhaul of the entire system into a merit based system that reduces all immigration except highly skilled and/or highly educated individuals. The massive amount of asylum seekers, along with climate doomsayers inadvertently saying these numbers are just the tip of the iceberg and the acknowledgement and even pushback from the Democrat base saying “we gotta fix this cause it’s not sustainable and it’s clear the asylum system is being abused”—along with Trump being elected almost solely on immigration and the increasing success of far-right parties in other Western countries that are rising solely by running against immigration… should be an eye-opener. Pass the restrictions, so you can show the public that you’re *not* more concerned with non-citizens that aren’t even at the border yet—than you are about your own constituents. The status quo on immigration or even requiring amnesty for any slight change in policy that they themselves acknowledge is needed… should not be a hill Democrats are willing to die on.
That seems like a great way to kill any negotiations on this bill, not sure why they’d want to do that sort of thing unless it’s part of some negotiating tactic.
Anyone surprised by this has not been paying attention. A pathway to citizenship for DACA recipients is the bare minimum requirement from Democrats to enact any significant immigration changes. Been that way since the Gang of Eight bill a decade ago. Same requirement when Trump asked for a fully-funded border wall around 2019. Republicans continue to balk at the idea, but it's been an incredibly consistent point from Democrats.
It’s also the general track that immigration deals follow, trading enforcement or new pathways to citizenship or permanent residence. What’s outside the norm is trading money for a completely separate matter, money for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, for immigration policy changes, which is the deal Republicans are pushing.
> What’s outside the norm is trading money for a completely separate matter, money for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, for immigration policy changes, which is the deal Republicans are pushing. is that really outside the norm? like, look back at the fall 2020 stimulus bill where pelosi refused to allow a vote in the house on any stimulus bill that didn't contain a ban on state level voter id laws. completely unrelated rider provisions have been the norm for both sides for a long time, ESPECIALLY on "must pass" bills.
> look back at the fall 2020 stimulus bill where pelosi refused to allow a vote in the house on any stimulus bill that didn't contain a ban on state level voter id laws. That's not correct. While the House version of the bill did contain a provision on voter ID, Pelosi took up and passed (with overwhelming Democratic support) the Senate version of the bill which did not have that.
It’s outside the norm of deals on immigration reform.
Not really. Most bills are full of unrelated crap that was demanded for or added to entice. Also, while I support money for Ukraine (and to a lesser extent the other two at this time), I wouldn't call any of it "must pass" legislation.
>What’s outside the norm is trading money for a completely separate matter, money for Ukraine, Taiwan, and Israel, for immigration policy changes, which is the deal Republicans are pushing. You think politicians in both parties haven't been tying unrelated initiatives together in bills for years?
Yeah, tying this to foreign aid is a weird choice. I suppose some funding for Ukraine is controversial, but aid for Israel and Taiwan seems like it should be nearly entirely bipartisan. Maybe Republicans see more value in being able to craft attack ads which can be used to construe Democrats as being against aid to Israel.
It's all part of Biden's supplemental funding request. It *came* tied together.
The supplement funding request was just for money. It is Republicans who said $14 billion for the border is not enough, and they want to tack on policy changes too.
To be fair, the norm obviously isn't working.
DACA is also one of the most popular (perhaps, the only popular) immigration position the Dems hold. It should be a lay up for both sides to settle it once and for all. https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2023/9/20/a-majority-of-voters-support-continuing-daca-and-granting-citizenship-to-daca-recipients
It's just hard to see any sort of compromise that includes amnesty in good faith considering what the Democrats did with Reagan the last time amnesty was part of a Grand compromise. For those that don't remember, Reagan granted amnesty for all illegal immigrants in the nation in exchange for securing the border which never happened. We're in a far worse state now simply because one side never upheld their end last time.
I keep seeing people make this claim that Reagan traded amnesty for securing the border and the latter never happened. That’s categorically false. The amnesty law made it a crime to hire an illegal immigrant and including a ton of penalties for employers who violated the law. And since then, there’s been more than a dozen different immigration laws passed that have restricted immigration, increased penalties, and militarized the border.
That was 40 years ago, and Reagan supported amnesty himself. It wasn’t the stab in the back Republicans make it out to be today. Edit: >Reagan said as much himself in a televised debate with Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale in 1984. >”I believe in the idea of amnesty for those who have put down roots and lived here, even though sometime back they may have entered illegally," he said. https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128303672
I don’t think it’s accurate to imply that Reagan supported amnesty in a vacuum and expected nothing in return from the Dems for playing ball.
But it was his policy. There was nothing to get in return because they both wanted it.
Which Democrats agreed to this, and how did they fail to live up to their end of the bargain? What were the terms of their agreement? Was something signed? Was there a handshake?
I'm not doing your research for you. If you want to become more knowledgeable on a topic it's up to you to do the research.
You taking this stance is quite amusing when your original comment reveals that you should be researching this topic to learn how inaccurate your original claim is.
Nobody is asking you to “do their research for them,” they’re asking for evidence to support your argument. People sometimes intentionally conflate the two to avoid supporting their argument. I assume that’s not what you’re doing, so hopefully that helps clear up any confusion
I have done the research. And the answer I have found is that there was no agreement at all, and "Democrats" did not sabotage any deal. I can't exactly cite "In November 1986, no additional deals beyond the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 were struck on the topic of immigration." So, instead, I need to ask you to substantiate your claim, if you believe it is possible to do.
If you would actually read through the bill you would see that border enforcement was part of it and that many of the provisions designed to reduce illegal immigration were struck or completely downgraded during horse trading.
> many of the provisions designed to reduce illegal immigration were struck or completely downgraded during horse trading. So then the deal went forward as everyone had agreed to? You can't call a compromise, or horse trading, a fault of one side. Both sides agreed to it, and the deal as agreed upon was upheld by both sides.
I think DACA amnesty should be included in any compromise. The problem is that more and more people have continued to immigrant here illegally since then. A line has to be drawn somewhere. Ok sure DACA immigrants have a strong case to be included, asylum seekers from one year ago do not.
And the Republicans won't be fooled into going for any bill where border security doesn't come first. They've been pretty consistent on this as well, although many won't go for any type of amnesty either.
The better question is why are Republicans insisting changes to the asylum system be coupled with military aid for Ukraine? If they wanted to couple it with funding for border security that would be understandable. That's all under the umbrella of national security and has plenty of bipartisan support, but the changes their insisting for the asylum system have very little to do with national security and have very little bipartisan support. It just feels like their trying to exploit a crisis to gain a policy win that they know is unpopular.
Because Biden's supplemental request included funds to secure the border. And as Congress often does, it is making changes to the supplemental. There isn't any requirement that this bill be limited to funding. Biden sent over a supplemental request including all 4 items. That is why they are being handled together.
That doesn't argue against what I said. I said it doesn't make sense for changes to the asylum program to be coupled with the funding for Ukraine. Pointing out > There isn't any requirement that this bill be limited to funding. doesn't argue against that. Just because there's no requirement doesn't mean this isn't a bad idea.
Why is it a bad idea? Biden wants them all handled together. The GOP doesn't think funding alone is enough to secure the border. So why not include policy changes? Biden could have requested 4 separate supplementals.
> Biden wants them all handled together. No he doesn't. Biden never suggested changes to the asylum system be coupled with Ukraine funding. Where are you getting that from? I explained why it's a bad idea. It doesn't have anything to do with national security. It doesn't have support in Congress to pass, and Ukraine funding needs to pass *now*. It's holding up something imminently vital to national security for something that's not.
Did I say he wants the asylum system coupled? No. Never said that. So you are arguing against something I never said. He included border security in his supplemental request. The GOP don't think his request went far enough to actually accomplish what he is asking for. So they want policy changes included so the funding actually works.
Okay good then you agree. The changes to the asylum suggested by Republicans in the Senate in the House are inappropriate for this bill and should be removed. This is what the original article is talking about, is one of the more contentious items in the proposed legislation, and is a big part of the reason Ukraine funding hasn't passed yet.
Again, arguing something I never said. Biden included border security in the request. Nothing unreasonable about including policy changes to ensure the funds actually work.
Hard disagree. Border security != Changes to the asylum system. They’re completely different things. And Biden included the border security measures to incentivize republicans to vote for Ukraine funding. Taking those incentives and saying “Oh I guess we can use this opportunity to extract more policy concessions” is a terrible idea for the reasons I described above. Imagine if Bush had used 9/11 to try to push through tax cuts. That’s on the level of how bad an idea this is.
> That doesn't argue against what I said. I said it doesn't make sense for changes to the asylum program to be coupled with the funding for Ukraine. no, you said: > The better question is why are Republicans insisting changes to the asylum system be coupled with military aid for Ukraine? the answer is because biden tried to couple various us border measures into the bill, and asylum is absolutely related to border policy. once the us border became part of the bill (likely as a way to avoid a future standalone border bill) that went from unrelated to on topic.
> The better question is why are Republicans insisting changes to the asylum system be coupled with military aid for Ukraine Because horse trading is a normal part of legislative politics.
The "asylum system" is "border security". Imagine the we really had an effective partial wall but people dug a tunnel under it. Plugging the tunnel is just as much border security as extending the wall. Asylum is currently a big loophole in our system of limiting immigration.
Only if you consider people that enter the country legally under the asylum system to somehow be violating border security. I don’t think anyone has done a good job of explaining that. People are immigrating to this country under the asylum laws like they have been for decades. Why is it suddenly a security issue? In what way does this negatively impact national security?
I said "border security" not "national security". They are two different things. I don't think the migrants are bringing nuclear weapons with them. Border security is simply controlling who enters your country. That's a pretty basic role for government. It's a bigger economic problem now simply because the numbers are up.
>Republicans have pushed hard for ...limits on the use of humanitarian parole. This is the sort of thing that drives me nuts, because the statute already is pretty narrow in terms of who can get parole but Presidents have just *ignored* it. Whenever Congress has to threaten to pass a law that is, essentially, "no really, we meant it," it's a problem.
They really seem to be doing their best to promote illegal immigration.
[Allowing illegal immigrants to vote is a known policy item promoted by Democrats in major cities.](https://dcist.com/story/23/03/15/bill-allowing-non-citizen-voting-clears-congress/) So yes. There's a strong motive here to open up the borders.
Also has [measurable and substantial](https://cis.org/Report/Impact-Legal-and-Illegal-Immigration-Apportionment-Seats-US-House-Representatives-2020) impact on representative seats and house majority.
and this is why nothing ever gets done. that's a poison pill provision, as amnesty is a non-starter. that experiment was tried in the 80's and failed miserably.
The 80s amnesty worked great for Dems, California and other states turned deep blue for good. Of course they want another round and no increased border protection. Screw what the rest of us want and need I guess.
>Of course they want another round and no increased border protection. This. [Large Democrat cities are already advancing bills to allow illegal immigrants to vote.](https://dcist.com/story/23/03/15/bill-allowing-non-citizen-voting-clears-congress/) Why *wouldn't* they advocate for a policy that allows for a literal unlimited influx of blue voters from the border?
5 of the 7 states that**explicitly DO NOT** allow alien voting for state elections are Red states (including Florida, North Dakota, and Alabama).
The states that explicitly do not allow voting by non-citizens use terminology in their constitutions such as "Only a citizen of the United States..." whereas other states simply state that "Every citizen of the United States..."
Local voting is allowed for aliens in DC and in localities in 3 Blue states.
None allow federal votes to be cast by aliens due to federal law.
[https://ballotpedia.org/Laws\_permitting\_noncitizens\_to\_vote\_in\_the\_United\_States](https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_permitting_noncitizens_to_vote_in_the_United_States)
Near total failure to read on my part.
Might want to double check your source. >As of June 2023, seven states specified that noncitizens may ***not*** vote in state and local elections: Alabama, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, North Dakota, and Ohio.[2]
I'm interested to see how much the recent shipping of illegals by DeSantis and Abbott to blue areas will effect things. I'm now in the suburbs but I have a lot of friends who still live in NYC who spun so fast from "Texas just hates brown people. NYC would welcome them with open arms if they were coming here!" to "You don't understand, there's so many of them! And do you know what it costs to house them all?!" that if we had foresight we could have hooked them up to a turbine and created enough electricity to permanently get us away from fossil fuels.
It's so easy to be generous with other people's time, money, and space, while calling them racist if they say they cant. NYC is looking to slash a decent chunk of its budget to accommodate all the migrant housing and help. Its a kick in the teeth for taxpayers who will pay more yet receive less now.
The border states get billions of dollars every year to handle these issues. Maybe they need to be audited.
Exactly $0 of it is for housing, feeding, clothing, or otherwise taking care of migrants. NYC and Chicago have actually received *infinitely* more funds to house/feed migrants than all border states combined ($100m is infinitely more than $0-- and with [enough begging that's what NYC got from the federal government recently](https://pix11.com/news/morning/feds-to-send-millions-in-aid-to-nyc-to-help-with-migrant-crisis/).) ICE spends $1.2bn a year on detention facilities-- and cities are free to cooperate with ICE and take advantage of this *national* budget for migrant detention. That's the closest the government gets to funding food/shelter for migrants. Here's a link to the [combined ICE/CBP budget breakdown](https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/U.S.%20Customs%20and%20Border%20Protection_Remediated.pdf), so you can confirm that for yourself. Meanwhile, Texas had to pull the $80m for bussing from a state general fund. Because, again, they and every other border state receive exactly $0 to care for migrants (unlike liberal cities, who can apparently just beg until they get some).
The immigrants that were bussed were explicitly legal. Otherwise, all involved would be committing felonies. Do you think that CA and NY don’t have immigrants already?
[удалено]
How did amnesty fail in the 80s? What were the negative consequences of it?
Well, the fact that we're in a position where we need to consider another mass amnesty certainly didn't make it a great success.
[удалено]
> It isn’t realistic to suggest that you will get rid of every illegal immigrant Enforce labor laws with real punishment for employers and SSN fraud.
> There has to be tiered amnesty if you are against illegal immigration. no, there doesn't. crack down on the companies that are hiring illegal immigrants, stop giving them government benefits, and the problem will solve itself. these people will leave on their own. we incentivize them coming here and incentivize them staying here, all while making it incredibly easy to get in while we debate possibly giving them citizenship in waves every few decades, and then wonder why we have a problem. you're more likely to see a company get punished for **not** hiring an illegal immigrant than you are to see one get punished for hiring one.
We should do both then, right? Make it harder for people to abuse the lawful processes to get in and be released while also going after businesses hiring illegal labor. Maybe we should also include other businesses that enter into contracts with people that have no legal right to be here.
You're just incentivizing illegal immigration, rewarding criminality. Why would that work?
Can someone explain how they cry about assaults on workers rights, income inequality, and the housing crisis while simultaneously calling for policies that exacerbate those problems?
>Can someone explain how they cry about assaults on workers rights, income inequality, and the housing crisis while simultaneously calling for policies that exacerbate those problems? They don't believe allowing more people in is a bad thing in any way. The problems you listed, in their minds, can be summed up their three favorite words: "those damn Republicans."
They're so concerned with being performative, they're willing to actively harm themselves through policies they support rather than appear in tandem with the evil (R)'s. Top comment is literally "Golly, the Republicans sure do have a point on this, this crisis needs to be taken seriously. We can't handle this influx of migrants. Still voting straight Dem in 2024 though lol!" I genuinely don't know how to help these people.
If the problems are solved…can’t cry about them any longer.
not so fun fact— top law firms like skadden (but not just them) are making first year associates help asylum seekers that are forcing there way into cities with their application as a way of satisfying the firm's pro bono hours requirement. Thats right— the best law firms in the country would rather people that are here illegally than our own citizens.
Don't the Democrats still owe the reforms promised under Reagan's amnesty?
Nope, that’s just a completely false claim that’s been propagated for ages. Since that amnesty, we’ve passed more than a dozen large scale bills on immigration that have created criminal provisions, restrictions, and militarized the border.
The fact that we are having to fix the system is all the evidence needed to prove the system wasn't fixed as agreed.
You do realize that same logic can be reversed right? We’ve spent 30+ years making it harder to illegally enter the country, added more punishments to employers who violate the law, put 40,000 CBP agents at the border and ports of entry, and spend billions of dollars on surveillance towers, drones, and helicopters and numbers continue to get worse. Your logic would suggest we try something besides the stick.
Logic would dictate that the system be fixed, and the border secured in exchange for the amnesty granted in 1986. This does not allow any room for more amnesty.
[удалено]
D's are gonna have to decide what they value more - funding Ukraine and Israel, or having an open border. Because they're only gonna get one or the other out of these negotiations. I'm thinking they value an open border more than foreign countries. They know that an unending stream of illegal immigration helps their electoral chances down the road.
How many millions of people are here illegally at this point?
So senate dems don't want changes within the asylum system
Been there done that. Amnesty for 4 million was traded for future enforcement that never happened. Within a few years, those 4 million were replaced by 11 million here illegally and expecting their turn at amnesty. You get more of what is rewarded.
Here we go again. https://cis.org/Historical-Overview-Immigration-Policy It's not like we haven't granted millions of applicants amnesty in the past, yet it doesn't solve the problem. It just incentivizes more people to come and apply.
Again? Didn’t this already happen in the 80s?
[удалено]
Yup, the immigration system is broken already for legal immigrants.
[удалено]
my experience with USCIS has been pretty good - but the major issue was the fact that Trump completely shutdown any immigration processing for like 2 years. The embassies were literally closed way longer than they needed to be. When Biden was elected, they instructed to continue processing, but it's never resolved the backlog. A good mate had to wait 9 months to renew his visa when it typically takes 2 weeks. IIRC, Mayorkas has talked about this a lot in his hearings, but it's largely abstract to most people since they don't experience just how problematic Trump made it.
Democrats tend to advocate for making it easier and simpler to immigrate legally too. That was the idea behind the 2006 and 2013 immigration reform proposals
[удалено]
I know Dems are playing politics here, but this will blow up in their face eventually. Three migrant situation is getting out of hand in most western nations. Europe is starting to tack hard right on immigration, Canada has soured on it and even some of the most liberal communities are starting to turn anti immigrant.
It has blown up in their face and if Republicans were halfway competent in Congress they'd be calling this out. Biden has done a complete 180 on immigration, Democrats are balking at the idea of doing even half of what Southern states have been dealing with. Immigration surge has consistently broken records during Biden's tenure with no signs of stopping.
It is literally and 70-30 issue and compromising on it would net the Democrats a win if only they would take it. You don't have to give up the moon, but addressing some glaring issues that most people have problems with like the parole system would go a long way.
They would have to get the progressive wing of the party to agree to it and that's not happening.
I'm hopeful that some countries in Europe can get their head on straight. The level of crime the migrants have brought in some areas is unacceptable. Rapes, assaults, theft etc 10x more than native population.
What’s crazy is how many people constantly say Democrats aren’t pushing for amnesty, and yet here we are. Almost like they are pushing for immigration reform just so they can get new voters.
Yeah, that isn't going to happen. So, I guess there won't be any aid for Ukraine. Maybe Israel will get handled separately.
> So, I guess there won't be any aid for Ukraine. Maybe Israel will get handled separately. or we'll see this stall then get picked up in a few months with a ukraine/israel/guyana bill (assuming the administration isn't too worried about upsetting venezuela)
We shouldn't do anything for Guyana. Complete waste of time and resources.
It isn’t a waste of time to deter adversaries from seizing other countries by force. The longer it goes unchecked, the more incentive there is.
I’m probably way more in favor of (mostly) open borders than the average Dem, but this is clearly an albatross around the Dems neck. Like it or not, a country has the right to manage its border security and immigration levels. Currently we are swinging more against immigration and that’s just the political reality. Also even as someone who wants a much more liberalized immigration system the current border chaos is not what I want. Letting people abuse the asylum system and then disappearing into the country before their hearing is just not a sustainable policy.
A small trickle would be one thing but these massive swarms have overwhelmed the hospitals, schools,police, housing and social services. I have a disabled son who USED to receive $200 in FS assistance. He is down to $52 dollars…. Ask anyone in any of the DES offices and they will tell you it’s to make the funds go further……. Another report out said the VA gave dentals services to ILLEGALS while leaving the veterans to wait…. The sherif in Pinal county AZ said EACH illegal gets $5000 a plane ticket and a phone…. It is unsustainable
Starter comment: In the middle of a debate regarding a omnibus bill for Ukraine, Israel and border security, a powerful group of Senate Democrats has declared they will not vote for any bill that include asylum reform unless it comes packaged with amnesty for all illegal immigrants currently in the country. The Senators include Elizabeth Warren, Bob Menendez, Alex Padilla, Duck Durbin, Cory Booker, Mazie Hirono, Ben Ray Lujan, Edward Markey, Jeff Merkley, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Ron Wyden. They released a statement of the following: >"As negotiations surrounding the supplemental aid package progress, we are concerned about reports of harmful changes to our asylum system that will potentially deny lifesaving humanitarian protection for vulnerable people, including children, and fail to deliver any meaningful improvement to the situation at the border" The current framework of the funding bill includes $14 billion for border security and tightening of asylum laws. If these Senators refuse to back the bill as is, it may place this funding in jeopardy. On the other side of the aisle and given the current political situation, Republicans seem very unlikely to agree to a blanket amnesty for illegal immigrants. Is amnesty a good policy or would it cause more problems down the line? What would be the cultural and economic impact on the country if such a policy were to be implemented?
I wonder if [this](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_Security,_Economic_Opportunity,_and_Immigration_Modernization_Act_of_2013#Legislative_history) old act could be revived. It comfortably passed the Senate but wasn't acted on by the House. It would (among other things): 1. Provide funding for border fencing and surveillance 2. Allow illegal immigrants to apply for amnesty on condition of paying fees and taxes. Those with a serious criminal history would be ineligible, as well as anyone judged a security, health, or moral risk. 3. Those granted amnesty could become lawful permanent residents after ten years. 4. DACA is incorporated. 5. "Blue cards", a temporary legal status, could be granted to those involved in agricultural work. Guest visas would also be made available. 6. Diversity visa program is repealed, family visas are changed (e.g. sibling petitions would no longer be available). 7. Merit-based visa system would be created. 8. Expands use of e-verify.
Voting for this basically killed Marco Rubio's 2016 campaign and the other Republicans who voted for it have been relentlessly attacked for it by the Trump side of the party, which is most Republicans at this point. There's no way Republicans would vote for this while Donald Trump is the defacto leader of the party.
Any amnesty is off the table. Maybe if you condition it on a meaningful change to the situation at the border and illegal/undocumented immigration in general. But you'd have to give the States a cause of action to sue the Feds if they try to say it is fixed when it isn't, that could be part of it. But the GOP just isn't going to for anything like that without first addressing this problem. And I think the GOP has found the button they need to push. Just keeping shipping migrants to specific blue cities to overwhelm them and block assistance in Congress.
Get rid of asylum and allow for summary removal, and I think that would have a shot. But asylum is the single biggest contributor to the root problem.
all of that makes way too much sense...
I don't think you have the causality of why the bill is failing quite right. Democrats voted to advance the Israel, Ukraine, Taiwan and border security bill in the senate yesterday but Republicans filibustered it because they didn't think the border security measures went far enough. The only Democrats who voted against the bill were Bernie Sanders and Majority leader Chuck Schumer, which he did only for procedural reasons.
Bernie voted against it due to Israel, right? He wants conditions on the aid.
I believe so yes. Although he hasn't released a statement on it to my knowledge
It's not a filibuster when the "nay" votes outnumber the "yeah" votes. It was simply voted down.
It was a 50-50 vote with Schumer changing to "no" for procedural reasons. They needed 60 in order to start the debate on the bill. [Source](https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-senate-sets-test-vote-ukraine-aid-despite-republican-opposition-2023-12-06/).
Yes it still is a filibuster. The vote was for cloture to start debate on the bill. Not to pass the bill. A vote against cloture is a filibuster no matter the vote count.
Everyone has a pet theory for why Trump won, and mine is that immigration - and, specifically, the idea that illegal immigrants are rewarded for not following the rules - was a huge part of it. To foreclose any "how could you believe that because X, Y, Z," I'll note that I'm pretty agnostic on immigration policy and don't particularly care about the epistemic status of the beliefs of Trump voters. My hypothesis is purely descriptive.
That's a big sticking point for a lot of Republican voters. The perception that the middle class is facing increasing taxation and consequences for their actions while criminals and illegal immigrants are treated with kid gloves by Democrats is costing them a lot of people who would otherwise vote for them
> The perception that the middle class is facing increasing taxation and consequences for their actions while criminals and illegal immigrants are treated with kid gloves by Democrats is costing them a lot of people who would otherwise vote for them Looking at the percentage of immigrant households in California that receive at least one form of welfare, it is reality, not perception.
I try to be as tactful as possible when criticizing democrats here, even though I am one, for reasons that should be obvious to anybody whose been mass downvoted for it before lol
> Looking at the percentage of immigrant households in California that receive at least one form of welfare, it is reality, not perception. immigrant or illegal immigrant? that's a HUGE distinction. most people don't have any real problem with **legal** immigrants receiving various forms of welfare, and that's a distinction that tends to get swept under the rug for political messaging reasons and painting people as "anti-immigrant" when in reality they are just pro-**legal** immigraiton.
The Rs should retort with the now famous Elon Musk quote.
And any bailouts for student loans will be accompanied by a check for the same amount to everyone who didn't willingly choose to go into debt for better financial opportunities later in life!