Discussion On The Politics of Immigration Reform (Comprehensive Or Otherwise)

[bieber]

I don't know any article but the reason it conflicts with CIR because of 2 reasons.
A) Stricter (border control) is vague and full (border control) is unattainable. Thus either only serves as a mokey wrench in any immigration reform talk.
B) Under Obama border is much better controlled than it was under Bush. Homeland security statistics prove that. So any talk of border control is mostly political and in opposition to any immigration reform effort.

Q
It may very well be true that border control is better with this administration. But admission of unattainability defeats the purpose of whole immigration reform. It's hard for americans to believe that superpower can not control it's borders regardeless of this reform while their phone records, emails being scanned every minute. If border indeed cannot be controlled 100 or 90% then isn't it true that the country is not ready for this. I hope the this debate results into a practical and possible method to control the border and legalize who is inside already

[vizcard]

Q
It may very well be true that border control is better with this administration. But admission of unattainability defeats the purpose of whole immigration reform. It's hard for americans to believe that superpower can not control it's borders regardeless of this reform while their phone records, emails being scanned every minute. If border indeed cannot be controlled 100 or 90% then isn't it true that the country is not ready for this. I hope the this debate results into a practical and possible method to control the border and legalize who is inside already

the issue is not so much about ability but more about practicality. I'm sure you could get the border 100% secure if you throw enough money at it but the question is- is it worth it? there's the law of diminishing returns when federal funds could be used elsewhere. The GOP already has issues with govt spending and the debt ceiling.

By the way, I'm all for border security and everify and exit/entry and all that but there's got to be some common sense in the process.

[bieber]

the issue is not so much about ability but more about practicality. I'm sure you could get the border 100% secure if you throw enough money at it but the question is- is it worth it? there's the law of diminishing returns when federal funds could be used elsewhere. The GOP already has issues with govt spending and the debt ceiling.

By the way, I'm all for border security and everify and exit/entry and all that but there's got to be some common sense in the process.

Viz
It's required by constitution that borders are protected in the sovereign nation. National security is probably the only item where majority has similar views

[gs1968]

gs/others - is there a consolidated list of 'S.744-what happens in next 1-2 weeks on senate floor' information ? senate judiciary website was such place during judiciary process.
i read somewhere that they were going to vote starting tomorrow. i understand this is one of many (up/down, amendment,final bill) votes and hence the question. tx.

The cloture vote is tomorrow after which the Majority & Minority leaders will start filling up the amendment tree. Unlike the judiciary committee the amendments will be in the few dozens rather than the hundreds as seen in the Committee but the amendments will be complex and will need debate on their own.

I am confused by this news item below which contradicts my earlier "deliberate pace" news story. But this is coming from the leadership or their aides while the other story was from Rep.Goodlatte -Are they not talking to each other?

http://www.newsmax.com/politics/hous...6/10/id/509060

Another story with slightly more detail

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/pol...ill-by-summer/

[gs1968]

gs/others - is there a consolidated list of 'S.744-what happens in next 1-2 weeks on senate floor' information ? senate judiciary website was such place during judiciary process.
i read somewhere that they were going to vote starting tomorrow. i understand this is one of many (up/down, amendment,final bill) votes and hence the question. tx.

I found this link-hope this helps

http://immigrationimpact.com/2013/06...igration-bill/

[indiani]

I hate to dissappoint with my prediction but I highly suspect that House judiciary committe will kill the bill

[rupen86]

The cloture vote is tomorrow after which the Majority & Minority leaders will start filling up the amendment tree. Unlike the judiciary committee the amendments will be in the few dozens rather than the hundreds as seen in the Committee but the amendments will be complex and will need debate on their own.

I am confused by this news item below which contradicts my earlier "deliberate pace" news story. But this is coming from the leadership or their aides while the other story was from Rep.Goodlatte -Are they not talking to each other?

http://www.newsmax.com/politics/hous...6/10/id/509060

Another story with slightly more detail

http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/pol...ill-by-summer/

This is quite positive and ambitious plan that Boehner has put. I am surprised that it has not received wide coverage.

[idiotic]

"Mr. Sessions goes to Washington"

After the senate closing remarks are done(more than a hour ago), he started talking and is still talking for more than a hour. Almost reminded me of "Mr. smith goes to washington"

[qesehmk]

bieber - all of us wish that this debate results into something practical common sense and progressive actions. But i think the border control argument is there to throw the CIR off. I think all of us can figure out why total border control is unattainable - cost vs returns. Physical wall would cost $30B and will be best control. Electronic walls are already in place and are not the best control.

Now the immigrants actually come in and help in wage suppression - work hard - do jobs that most people won't do. In Arizona we can pay somebody to take care of our lawns. How many people in NY can afford that? Anyway ... the but point is - total border control is not only expensive from implementation perspective - it will also negatively affect economy. That's why no US administration (dems or reps) is going to enforce border control and neither they should (IMHO). It's stupid. It's not India Pak border where terrorists are sneaking in. These are just simple people looking for a better life. And it works better for everybody. Only politicians make a big deal about it when they sense that can get them elected.

Sorry for little speech. I respect the rights of legal folks. But I also believe that all immigration is generally good. And that border control is a legal correctness that could harm a greater good.

Q
It may very well be true that border control is better with this administration. But admission of unattainability defeats the purpose of whole immigration reform. It's hard for americans to believe that superpower can not control it's borders regardeless of this reform while their phone records, emails being scanned every minute. If border indeed cannot be controlled 100 or 90% then isn't it true that the country is not ready for this. I hope the this debate results into a practical and possible method to control the border and legalize who is inside already

[rupen86]

Good Analysis..Immigration reform back from the brink..

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...the-brink.html

[bieber]

bieber - all of us wish that this debate results into something practical common sense and progressive actions. But i think the border control argument is there to throw the CIR off. I think all of us can figure out why total border control is unattainable - cost vs returns. Physical wall would cost $30B and will be best control. Electronic walls are already in place and are not the best control.

Now the immigrants actually come in and help in wage suppression - work hard - do jobs that most people won't do. In Arizona we can pay somebody to take care of our lawns. How many people in NY can afford that? Anyway ... the but point is - total border control is not only expensive from implementation perspective - it will also negatively affect economy. That's why no US administration (dems or reps) is going to enforce border control and neither they should (IMHO). It's stupid. It's not India Pak border where terrorists are sneaking in. These are just simple people looking for a better life. And it works better for everybody. Only politicians make a big deal about it when they sense that can get them elected.

Sorry for little speech. I respect the rights of legal folks. But I also believe that all immigration is generally good. And that border control is a legal correctness that could harm a greater good.

If infact 30B number is accurate, then cost/benefit analysis is piece of cake. Current administration ran 100B+ MONTHLY deficits for last 50+ months, so that cost is nothing in big picture. Regarding Ind/Pak border type scenario, there is evidence that such crossings (with wrong intentions) are already happening from south and there are groups in that country who r helping

[gs1968]

Good Analysis..Immigration reform back from the brink..

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer...the-brink.html

Thanks for the link rupen.However Mr.Boehner's interview this morning is not very convincing with a lot of vague replies/stuttering/stammering etc.Here is the transcript and please go to pages 3/4

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trans...2#.UbdWa5wUz6N

[rupen86]

Thanks for the link rupen.However Mr.Boehner's interview this morning is not very convincing with a lot of vague replies/stuttering/stammering etc.Here is the transcript and please go to pages 3/4

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trans...2#.UbdWa5wUz6N

I went through the link. Yes, answers are vague. But they are supposed to be. Questions were well pointed and direct. But he did not want to answer them in direct way. He did not want to say that he would bring a bill to the floor even if majority of republicans are opposed to it. The positive thing is he did not promise that he would not do that. He again said he expected some bill by end of the month which again is a good thing.

[indiani]

I went through the link. Yes, answers are vague. But they are supposed to be. Questions were well pointed and direct. But he did not want to answer them in direct way. He did not want to say that he would bring a bill to the floor even if majority of republicans are opposed to it. The positive thing is he did not promise that he would not do that. He again said he expected some bill by end of the month which again is a good thing.

Paul Ryan will be key in putting some pressure to bring the bill to vote in house as he wants to be in the race for 2016.

If the bill is brought to vote in house it will pass.

1. points to consider how soon the house bill will pass.
2. how different will it be from senate bill.

No one knows answer to these two

[girish989]

Paul Ryan will be key in putting some pressure to bring the bill to vote in house as he wants to be in the race for 2016.

If the bill is brought to vote in house it will pass.

1. points to consider how soon the house bill will pass.
2. how different will it be from senate bill.

No one knows answer to these two

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...est-92586.html

[indiani]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...est-92586.html

almost everyone agrees that it will pass senate latest by July.

Margin is what everyone is counting on.

simple majority will embolden house leadership to delay and hope to kill eventually.

70+ will keep immense pressure to bring it to vote.

Today's vote is just an OK to proceed to debate and bring to vote in 3-4 weeks ( not necessarily an approval of bill by everyone who voted yea )

[seahawks2012]

"But i think the border control argument is there to throw the CIR off. I think all of us can figure out why total border control is unattainable - cost vs returns."

I most certainly disagree with that perspective.
If you start with the perspective of "border control is unattainable" then you have to agree "eradication of illegal immigration" is also "unattainable".
If it is not totally possible to stop future illegal immigration, then US would have to file for Amnesty bills every other decade to solve the issues being talked about in the CIR.

From a common sense point of view, if you are talking about total amnesty then you need to stop/stem the flow that generates the illegal immigration.
I do not know enough about border control measures to give a stronger perspective about cost/benefit & practical/ideal for different measures.
But, I find it hard to believe that there is not good set of stronger border control measures that cannot be added to stem the future illegal immigration flow.

[idiotic]

almost everyone agrees that it will pass senate latest by July.

Ted Cruz (one who sponsered 5 poison pill amendments in committee) announced on senate floor just now that the bill has enough precooked votes to pass the senate at the end of this month.

He said it will crash and burn in the house and asked house members to take a look at this amendments

Game is clear now as it is affirmed by an insider.

[rupen86]

I went through the link. Yes, answers are vague. But they are supposed to be. Questions were well pointed and direct. But he did not want to answer them in direct way. He did not want to say that he would bring a bill to the floor even if majority of republicans are opposed to it. The positive thing is he did not promise that he would not do that. He again said he expected some bill by end of the month which again is a good thing.

This link confirms this analysis that interview was actually positive.

http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/...0#.Ubd6QdiWS-U

[rupen86]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...est-92586.html

The negative thing here was that Sen. Mark Kirk voted against it who was considered moderate to vote in favor of the bill.

[gs1968]

Sen Leahy is not giving up

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ent-92612.html

[qesehmk]

That's ok. When you will reach a position of power whatever field you are working - you will realize that even if you are the topmost guy - you just can never have 100% control over anything. It's always a compromise.

Same goes with immigration, crime, childbirth-deaths, rapes and what not. If you have a 100% control over something then that thing can't be important enough for the world.

So the moment anybody talks about 100% border control as a precondition to CIR - that person/organization is opposed to CIR - just that they dont' want to say so publicly.

I most certainly disagree with that perspective.
If you start with the perspective of "border control is unattainable" then you have to agree "eradication of illegal immigration" is also "unattainable".
If it is not totally possible to stop future illegal immigration, then US would have to file for Amnesty bills every other decade to solve the issues being talked about in the CIR.

From a common sense point of view, if you are talking about total amnesty then you need to stop/stem the flow that generates the illegal immigration.
I do not know enough about border control measures to give a stronger perspective about cost/benefit & practical/ideal for different measures.
But, I find it hard to believe that there is not good set of stronger border control measures that cannot be added to stem the future illegal immigration flow.

[qesehmk]

LoL!! Watch out he is acting anti-CIR. GLBT is such a minor issue in the grand scheme ... but a sure shot no no for republicans.

Sen Leahy is not giving up

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ent-92612.html

[indiani]

That's ok. When you will reach a position of power whatever field you are working - you will realize that even if you are the topmost guy - you just can never have 100% control over anything. It's always a compromise.

Same goes with immigration, crime, childbirth-deaths, rapes and what not. If you have a 100% control over something then that thing can't be important enough for the world.

So the moment anybody talks about 100% border control as a precondition to CIR - that person/organization is opposed to CIR - just that they dont' want to say so publicly.

Q,
you made very good point. anytime we strive to do something we have to access what degree of success we want to achieve at what expense.

Republicans are saying stuff to appease their base at the same time didn't want to sound anti-immigrant.

No matter how much technology is advanced and how much money is spent , there never can be 100% success rate in something as complex as illegal immigration.

But I also want to add that republicans ( voters ) do not trust that WH will implement any serious border control measures , so republican voters like congress to have control over it.

[indiani]

Q,

I disagree with you, just like we get frustrated when people think few tens of thousands of indians discrimiated and suffering for decades is not being taken seriously, gays will feel the same.

Leahy has done the right thing but almost everyone knows that the amendment will be defeated even by democrats.
( even Leahy knows that )

It is just symbolic on his part.