No, you claimed it was the Tea Party, which is nowhere near a majority of Americans. They can’t be, since we’re about half Republican and half Democrat, and the Tea Party is a subset of the Republicans.
And have you again forgotten that you said you would only talk about financial issues because they were the only ones with which you had any expertise?
I think if you look deep into the souls of America as a whole, skepticism of immigration is motivated by the same fears that create skepticism of free trade. After all, they are exactly the same thing: free movement of labor across borders.
Yet the chances of being deported are still ridiculously low. Also, the deportations were part of the political strategy to build support for immigration reform:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/25/AR2010072501790.html
When the first attempt at immigration reform failed(the DREAM act), the President announced that he simply wasn’t going to enforce the law anymore except against immigrants who committed crimes.
Then he just implemented the Dream act by executive fiat.
So there’s a trust gap here, justifiably so.
But even if there wasn’t, most administrations, Republican or Democrat, are soft on enforcement. So if we’re going to have immigration reform, the gap between what the law says and what is actually done has to be closed.
I’m actually inclined to let everyone who wants to come to this country, come to this country, provided they don’t have a criminal record, don’t have an contagious disease, and are not eligible for welfare benefits. But I also believe in rule of law. Whatever the law says about who is eligible to come here and who is not, those who are not must be efficiently removed from this country.
In this case, public opinion is much closer to the Tea Party than to the Gang of Eight.
Immigration is a commerce issue more than anything else.
**adaher **your points are like the ones from Fry of Futurama when he told about the the bad things a post apocalyptic LA was,
Changing the dialogue a bit:
“Fry: But the Tea Partiers show no sign of civilization whatsoever!”
“Bender [To Leela]: He just won’t stop with the social commentary.”
The point is that if you think you are helping Rubio and not helping me point at how irrational and inhumane the Tea Partiers are you really can not stop with the social commentary that makes the Tea Partiers and Rubio look worse at every “defence” you are pointing at.
I do not have any problem with that effort or “help” you think you are giving them.
Most Americans favor amnesty. But they also favor enforcement and if asked, favor enforcement first.
An amnesty with no real enforcement would be another betrayal of the public.
Nonsense, enforcement is not frowned upon even by Hispanics like me but we are not fooled when seeing that red herring of enforcement first, (once again it should happen at the same time), once again, the point here is that the Hispanics will never forget this, and once again thank you for making many in the community to become more aware of what the current crop of Republicans follow.
[To other dopers:]
He just won’t stop with the social commentary…
Once again, I got amnesty thanks to “Saint Reagan”, the current bill is not giving amnesty.
The problem is that the bill allows the administration to waive the back taxes and fines. There’s just no reason to give the President that power, unless you intend for the enforcement to be waived.
And enforcement first isn’t a red herring. We’re not doing this a third time. The bill even requires that the border be secure before current illegals can achieve anything more than provisional legal status.
The law as written gives us conservatives everything we want. the problem is the power to waive the requirements or elide them. That’s what has to be tightened up. Once that happens, the bill will sail through Congress.
Ok so now you are dumping on Rubio, you still think that I have a problem with your points? The best letters to the editor or relatives warning them about what the Republicans really think are very easy to make now.
The most likely reason is that there will humanitarian and law enforcement issues that the executive will have to have available, so unless you are willing to say now that Rubio is lying, the most likely implication is that you are mistaken on the levels the administration will use that waiver.
A waiver is not necessary for criminal background checks, or back taxes. The fines I can see a reason for a waiver. But paying back taxes should be non-negotiable. As should not having committed crimes.
See, there’s plenty of room for compromise here. Just no funny business. We already did that in 1986. and as 2007 showed, we don’t even have to do this a second time, much less a third time. Conservatives can easily scuttle the whole endeavour, and if you think the voters won’t side with us, you’re nuts.
He just won’t stop with the social commentary… 
I know that you are just looking for the so called imagined “Tea party majority” but I’m referring to the Hispanics, so once again, the more examples of silliness and intransigent points the better.
Not what you mentioned early, you said that bit of waivers as it was an absolute and it was just a ridiculous exaggeration.
And indeed Rubio does see that it is for exceptional situations that waivers are there:
http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/press-releases?ID=a495e814-5409-4d27-8393-05065d838d6c
The law itself can include such contingencies. That’s why we have a disability system, rather than just a pot of money that the President can hand out for “exceptional circumstances”.
Yes, there are examples I can think of where waivers would be useful. However, most of them can already be written into the law. The example Rubio came up with is an extremely easy one to just write into the bill.
Once again, your point told all that the waivers would be abused, or just applicable to the fines; in reality many are already mentioned in the law, and many do not apply to the fines, even when waivers could be used to avoid deportation that does not remove the fines and once again, the point that this was an amnesty was a very dumb one.
And Rubio is even referring to ones that are already included, once again, the more examples of silly and intransigent points coming from the tea party opponents, the better for the points that I will use in my communications to other Hispanics.
It is an amnesty. When taxpayers are required to pay their taxes to avoid criminal sanctions, it’s an amnesty. It’s a tough amnesty, but it’s still an amnesty.
The only real issue of disagreement is whether the amnesty should be tough, or whether it should be more like 1986.
Repeating that (and by moving the goal posts) will not make it so, it is still a very dumb point to make, and you are dumping on Rubio. Somehow you still think that your points are useful, well they are, just not for the ones you think of.
Okay, so if I’ve been hiding money in Switzerland, and I agree to pay the taxes owed in exchange for avoiding prosecution, that’s not an amnesty?
No, that was a plea bargain, and once again paying what the government decided was what you owned is not an amnesty. Forgiveness and not having to pay is amnesty.
In the 80’s I did not pay anything when I got my residency thanks to the NACARA and other laws (in practice I still had to pay legal fees), and then I did not had to do much to eventually get my citizenship, the current immigrants will not have an amnesty,
And indeed it is the opposite of an amnesty when they have to jump to a lot of hoops and pay a penalty.
So if you want to continue this silliness you will have to explain why that forgiveness I got in the past was **not **an amnesty because that is what you are implying. And then you have to explain what is the magical thought process that has made the definitions change in tea party world.
This is really a semantics issue, but in regards to Swiss bank accounts, the government engaged in what it called an amnesty:
Many tax lawyers had been skeptical that the I.R.S. amnesty program, which imposes stringent penalties, would be enough to lure tax evaders out of hiding. In addition to requiring that taxpayers repay as much as eight years of back taxes, the I.R.S. also added a penalty equal to 25 percent of the highest balance of the overseas account from 2003 to 2010. But Mr. Shulman said that the number of people who came forward exceeded the agency’s expectations.
They called that an amnesty. So while we can disagree on whether making illegal immigrants jump through hoops is amnesty, the term is certainly broad enough that my use of it is not out of line.
It is out of line. The forgiveness there is referring to amnesty to criminal charges, they still have to pay the taxes. For the illegal immigrants the penalty imposed for being here illegally is not forgiven.
So, one more silly opposition point to report to other Hispanics.
The primary penalty imposed is forgiven: deportation.
That is still in the books, and you seem to have trouble understanding that many will still get deported and if the law passes it means that not paying the fine leads to… deportation.
Bender: “He just won’t stop with the social commentary…”
Heh, no problem, it makes good copy for other Hispanics.