It’s actually possible that Republican gains in the House will lessen the impact of the TP, in that Boehner will have a bigger majority to work with and be less beholden to sub-groups.
“Mak[ing] more middle class and wealthy” people of any sort is a primary goal of all political systems and is obviously a lot easier said than done as a general rule, and it’s even harder with people who start off at rock bottom and speak a different language than the majority. In addition, the welfare state makes it a lot harder as well, as once people get sucked into a dependent lifestyle it can be hard to get out of it.
Gay marriage is happening by court fiat.
Question is once that’s done with are there going to be any more gay-related hot button issues, or are we done?
The wall is a detail, as is biometric whatever at airports. How we keep illegals out is not important, it’s that we do it, or at least make it so that it’s not a problem we measure in the millions. There are so many things, already authorized and fully funded by law, that we can be doing but just aren’t.
“Real border security” is a pipe dream, for purely practical reasons. Physical interdiction at the border will always cost far more than it can be ‘worth.’ Those who really want to stop illegal immigration would be far better served to drop the fantasy and focus exclusively on internal enforcement. Of course that would be politically difficult, as it would require prosecuting American business owners for illegal hirings.
THe government doesn’t “make” people rich or middle class, of course, but Republicans can tie themselves to policies which encourage prosperity and thus as Latinos naturally become more prosperous, they vote more and more Republican.
The welfare issue was mostly addressed with the 1996 welfare reform bill. I’m not too concerned about that anymore.
One of the issues where Republicans can’t compromise is on religious freedom. That may make things continue to be an open sore even after Republicans have accepted gay marriage, but there’s nothing to be done for that. We just have to hope that American values enshrined in the Bill of Rights will always have the support of the majority, and Republicans will always be seen as the party of the Bill of Rights. Democrats seem happy to concede that to us lately, which to me seems like ideological suicide, but we’ll see.
They didn’t have the votes to stop a compromise before and they still did. Using your newly elected senate majority to pass absolutely any kind of immigration reform would be seen as a huge betrayal by the Republican base. This is what you have to deal with from now on.
Border security is actually stronger now than it’s been in awhile. That’s actually been the low hanging fruit and the Obama administration has done a pretty good job. Where they’ve shown a reluctance to act is in internal enforcement. People overstaying their visas, illegals pulled over for traffic offenses, illegals arrested for crimes, illegally working with fraudulent paperwork… If we deported all of the people in those categories, people where we already know where they are or have them in custody, internal enforcement would be more than adequate. Instead, we just let them go most of the time.
Feds and state can also cooperate more. They cooperate on drug enforcement and all manner of federal enforcement, but the federal government specifically chooses to reject state cooperation in enforcing immigration laws, while demanding it in other areas. Cops pull over illegals all the time and can’t do anything. That should change.
The Tea Party didn’t stop immigration reform, the Hastert Rule did. Plus as Fotheringay pointed out, the GOP expanded its House majority. They are less reliant on Tea Party votes than they were before.
The Hastert rule is easily ignored when it is convenient for Republicans, if Boehner had not been afraid of a revolt from the tea party wing we would have reform already.
If you cannot win without them, you are dependent upon them. What are you going to give them? You can play dodgeball with me, I don’t have your nuts in my pocket. They do. At the very least, they think they do, and they want to get paid.
You are going to offer them sensible compromises? Did you forget that they are batshit?
It wasn’t really about that. What he was afraid of was revolt from the entire GOP base. The Senate Republicans were well-meaning, but way too trusting, probably because McCain and Graham were sweet-talking them. I love those two for their mavericky ways, but sometimes they can be too trusting.
The bill that passed allowed the President way too many outs on enforcement while giving him nearly everything he wanted on legalization and a path to citizenship. Senate Republicans completely missed this the first time around, and when the ensuing backlash from the base came, they furiously backpedalled. THe HOuse stuck to the Hastert rule for that bill because it would pass only because Senate Republicans had lost their minds briefly. And oh, BTW, had failed to consult with House Republicans adequately, just assuming that the big Senate majority for the bill would create momentum.
If Boehner, McConnell, and Obama sit at a table and make a deal, it’s a totally different situation. Everyone will know what they are getting with eyes wide open.
The base rejected the compromise because it was immigration reform, not because it was “sneaky”. They will reject absolutely anything short of “rounding up the illegals and busing them across the border” and will take McConnell and Boehner sitting at a table with Obama as a complete betrayal of what they were elected to do.
I think you misjudge the GOP base and polls of actual voters show that even Republicans are fine with amnesty and a path to citizenship. But enforcement has to be real. We can’t just do an amnesty every 30 years. Or if you are, at least be honest that it’s what you’re doing. Democrats and pro-business Republicans are trying to play the same game they played in 1986, where they promise better enforcement later for amnesty today. This time we do it the other way around.
Republicans want enforcement and they will give everything else to Democrats that they want in exchange for it. Obama’s threat to issue an executive amnesty is actually brilliant in one respect: it forces Republicans to the table. If that’s his intent, I do think we will see a deal.
The rolls are down and you can’t make it a lifelong “career”. I am concerned about how much the Democrats expanded eligibility for some programs, but I don’t think it’s done much to undo welfare reform.
The base rejected the compromise because it was immigration reform, not because it was “sneaky”. They will reject absolutely anything short of “rounding up the illegals and busing them across the border” and will take McConnell and Boehner sitting at a table with Obama as a complete betrayal of what they were elected to do.
It seems that it’s the loaded term “amnesty” that Republicans don’t like. Although it’s an accurate description if illegals are automaticlally forgiven any felonies they might have committed in order to stay here.