Political Discussions

[abcx13]

"The administration is deeply committed to building a 21st-century immigration system that meets the nation's economic and security needs through common-sense, comprehensive immigration reform," the statement of administration policy reads. "However, the administration does not support narrowly tailored proposals that do not meet the President's long-term objectives with respect to comprehensive immigration reform."


"Despite winning the election, the administration's stance is unchanged. We still prefer to pander to Latinos and play votebank politics (for the long-term benefit of the party) instead of actually retaining the most valuable and most highly educated immigrants. We believe it is much better to legalize some uneducated low wage illegals who will probably be a net drain on the taxpayer as opposed to bringing in the world's brightest who can grow the economy and keep America at the top when it comes to scientific innovation. The illegals also have higher birth rates which will benefit the party in the long run since the 3-5 kids that they will inevitably have will also owe us their allegiance."

FTFY.

I am sorry if that sounds racist, heartless or politically incorrect, but it's true.

P.S. - Sorry to make this political but good video about what Obama has said and actually does, and what people think he does.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skw-0jv9kts

[abcx13]

Q, wise words - there are obv true economic benefits, but the question is whether the politicians can put partisanship aside and do what's best for the country for once. Regardless of what the cap is, there is an opportunity cost to a DV which is what I don't like. It is inherently a suboptimal immigration system/visa.

[qesehmk]

abc - the chance that they will do is very remote. In the end it will be some sort of a compromise. So what you see here is Obama is denying republicans a small victory and using that as a bargaining chip for republicans to come to table for larger immigration reform.

Aside from the fact that - immigrants generally favor dems (2:1), republican resistance also is not all politics. Some republicans strongly believe that economic growth coming from productivity is better than economic growth coming from population. In other words they strongly believe that the focus should be more on businesses (i.e. reduce taxes, legislation etc etc) rather than bring in more heads. My personal preference aside - my naive mind reads that at least as classic divide between supply side economics vs demand side economics.


Q, wise words - there are obv true economic benefits, but the question is whether the politicians can put partisanship aside and do what's best for the country for once. Regardless of what the cap is, there is an opportunity cost to a DV which is what I don't like. It is inherently a suboptimal immigration system/visa.

[abcx13]

At the risk of getting further off-topic, even though I am economically liberal on most things, given the Earth's limited resources, I side with the Republicans in that it is better to have more growth from productivity than population growth. Krugman, who I am loath to cite, has made the argument before (one of his few valid ones) that increases in standard of living only come from productivity growth, or in other words GDP or income per capita. Makes sense once you think about it and I'm sure others have made the same point as well.

EDIT: Maybe we can move these posts to the political thread?

[qesehmk]

Obama just now asked congress to tie minimum wage to cost of living increases. I think if this accomplished will be one of the topmost Obama accomplishments.

[qesehmk]

If you were outraged at the acquittal of George Zimmerman - then please sign this petition.

http://www.change.org/petitions/change-for-trayvon-stand-your-ground-laws-must-be-reviewed?utm_campaign=new_signature&utm_medium=email&utm_source=signature_receipt#share