So what happened?

Quote: RonC

The problem is that large business owners who hire illegals would tend to be Republicans...so Republicans do not work as hard as they can to shut down that part of the equation; the Dems want to keep the minority votes and don't want to shut down the worker part of the equation.

Both parties are dishonest in a lot of ways; you have to chose your poison!!

Read "The Next 100 Years" by George Friedman of STRATFOR. He states that we are barely 20 years from a worker shortage that will require all this illegal immigration and then some-AND that as the Mexican economy grows the same people will get pulled back there.

To me the Mexican Governement's encouragement of people coming here illegally makes me want to tell them they should just cede their border states to the USA. Said states could have a Commonwealth Status for say 50 years similar to Puerto Rico, citizens there could travel to the USA but not vote. As the areas naturalized and homogonized into the USA they could apply for statehood. No reason for Mexico to keep them the way their government has given up on them, no?

Quote: Nareed

Quote: AcesAndEights

*I say half-hearted because I probably don't agree with a lot of the capital-L Libertarians on a lot of things,

I'd be curious to know what you disagree with specifically.

I don't know much about the LP's positions, but they often strike me as dead wrong on foreign policy.

Since I haven't actually read the official Libertarian party's platform, I can't really say :p.

With respect to foreign policy, I generally favor a non-interventionist-borderline-isolationist view. But, as my original post mentioned, my worldview is based on a severe lack of information and historical context.

Quote: Nareed

So let me say again: the GOP's position on immigration is ALL WRONG.

Nareed, what would be your preferred stance for the US to take on immigration? I am honestly curious, this is not a baiting question. As a Mexican resident (I'm guessing citizen but don't know for sure) I'm sure you can provide some really good context on this situation.

Quote: AcesAndEights

Nareed, what would be your preferred stance for the US to take on immigration?

Ideally, open borders. Anyone can move in and find work, provided they are over 18 or 21, don't have acriminal record in their country of origin, are not suspected of being enemy agents (terrorists, spies, etc), and do not carry a dangerous communicable disease. Children could come only with their parents.

I say ideally, becasue as things are right now that wouldn't work. Regardless of intent, many immigrants would end up sucking off welfare money one way or another. That's an important point to consider. So for now something different should be tried.

So, for now, I would favor issuing an unlimited number of work permits for people who meet the above criteria. Such permits would allow people to seek and take any kind of job, lease or buy property as needed, set up business, etc. But they could not take welfare payments of any kind, they could not vote, they could not serve in the military (though they could work for the military in a civilian capacity). Once inside they could apply for citizenship or permanent resident status. And for this the government could demand whatever it wanted. Things like years isnide the country, a minimum earnings level, proof of having paid taxes, etc. I wouldn't mind, either, automatic deportation and permanent banishment for any work permit holder who is convicted of a felony.

Look, the fact is that millions of immigrants, legal and illegal, are able not just to find work but are sought after by business. Therefore there is a need for their services, so keeping them out with restricitive immigration policies is counterproductive. The Republicans pay a lot of lip service ot the free market, but that's all it is for them. Whenever they can regulate a market, they do. In the case of immigration, they are instituting massive regualtion de facto in labor, housing, real estate, venture capital, new businesses, etc.

BTW I wonder how many Republicans and/or Conservatives ahve any idea how bad immigration laws really are. It's very easy to say "get in line and follow the law." But if I wanted to get a work visa or an immigrant visa, it takes much more than just getting in line and filling the proper forms. I would need to either 1) be offered a job by someone in the US, who in turn has to prove she cannot find an American citizen to do that job or 2) be sponsored by a close blood relative who's already a US citizen.

Failing that, the options are: 1) special work visas for certain kinds of jobs, such as those in high-tech and research areas; 2) A fiancee visa so one can join one prospective spouse (or actual spouse) into the US, and of course this is not available to same-sex couples; 3) I don't know the right term, but an investment visa which requires making a large investment that will generate jobs in the US (I think the amounts are between 500,000 and 1,000,000 dollars).

So, sure, tell the peasant with the malnourished family to get in line and follow the law, while crops in America are spoiling for a lack of enough farm labor. Byzantine does not even begin to describe how draconian such laws are.

Quote:

As a Mexican resident (I'm guessing citizen but don't know for sure) I'm sure you can provide some really good context on this situation.

Oh, dear. I wouldn't live in Mexico if I didn't have to.

Quote: Nareed

Ideally, open borders. Anyone can move in and find work, provided they are over 18 or 21, don't have acriminal record in their country of origin, are not suspected of being enemy agents (terrorists, spies, etc), and do not carry a dangerous communicable disease. Children could come only with their parents.

I say ideally, becasue as things are right now that wouldn't work. Regardless of intent, many immigrants would end up sucking off welfare money one way or another. That's an important point to consider. So for now something different should be tried.

So, for now, I would favor issuing an unlimited number of work permits for people who meet the above criteria. Such permits would allow people to seek and take any kind of job, lease or buy property as needed, set up business, etc. But they could not take welfare payments of any kind, they could not vote, they could not serve in the military (though they could work for the military in a civilian capacity). Once inside they could apply for citizenship or permanent resident status. And for this the government could demand whatever it wanted. Things like years isnide the country, a minimum earnings level, proof of having paid taxes, etc. I wouldn't mind, either, automatic deportation and permanent banishment for any work permit holder who is convicted of a felony.

At least this one admits a desire for totally open borders.

Lets see how Mexico compares, however. Can you get a work-permit there? Nope, and they will throw you in jail if you are found working without one. Can you buy property there? Sometimes, just with very heavy restrictions and even then the Mexican Government has stolen land from Americans under various "old" claims of Mexican Indians or whatever other excuse.

Seriously, the GOP should just support totally open borders?

Quote: AZDuffman

Seriously, the GOP should just support totally open borders?

Gop doesn't want what they perceive as free loading Americans, yet also want to penalize people who want to work hard for a living who come here illegally.

Oaky dokey.

Quote: rxwine

Gop doesn't want what they perceive as free loading Americans, yet also want to penalize people who want to work hard for a living who come here illegally.

Oaky dokey.

And?

Does that make your position that you'd like those who pay taxes (which I assume includes you) to pay those who want to free load off the "Government" (the people who pay taxes) AND that you'd like to allow illegals to come here without too many restrictions to fill jobs the freeloaders won't bother to do?

I'm all for taking care of those who can't work; I want those who can work to do so.

I don't mind creating better programs for legal work entry; an open border is just not it.

Quote: rxwine

Gop doesn't want what they perceive as free loading Americans, yet also want to penalize people who want to work hard for a living who come here illegally.

That's one reason the Republican opposition to immigration appears to be xenophobic.

To be sure, there is some form of xenophobia to all or most objections. Take the typical "They're taking American jobs!!" On the other hand, if someone born in, oh, California, moves to Maryland for a job, isn't he taking a Maryland job? How about someone from Reno taking a Carson City job? How about someone from Henderson taking a Las Vegas job? At what point does this objection begin to sound ridiculous?

There's also talk that immigrants depress wages. This is undoubtedly so when the immigrants are ilelgal, and it gets worse the more the governemnt cracks down on such immigration. If an employer can or must keep his employees off the payroll, they can pay a lot less for various reasons. But consider, too, that the number of ilelgal immigrants rises when America is most prosperous, and yet unemployment stays low. Conversely, when the economy is in recession or the growth is anemic, like for the last 4 years, there are less immigrants but unemployment goes up.

Lastly, for now, America had open broders until the 1930s. Prior to that, epople just came in however they could, and unless they were criminals, carrying contagious diseases or otherwise suspicious, they were let in. Afterwards most applied for and obtained citizenship. It was the protectionist move to limit labor competition that lay at the root of closing the borders. And it remains there now.

Quote: rxwine

Gop doesn't want what they perceive as free loading Americans, yet also want to penalize people who want to work hard for a living who come here illegally.

Oaky dokey.

The Democrats have pushed welfare and food stamps for illegals along with advertising in Mexico how to come here and get food stamps. Hardly sounds like they want to "support people who want to come here to work."

GOP is happy to have LEGAL immigration. I have employed a few, they made great workers.

The original question--what happened??--is very important. The Republicans would be better off without the blame game (it was this, it was that) and with an in depth analysis of where they were beaten. I know everyone on the other side hates Karl Rove but I think something he did well with Bush--and the Republicans were soundly beaten in the past two elections--is the precinct by precinct knowledge of the voters.

The Democrats won the ground game and they are turning the same tools around to use them again in the mid-terms. They may not work quite as well there but, if the economy gets better and people think Obama is doing a better job in the second term, they could turn the balance of power towards the Democrats in the house. It is important for the GOP to be aware of this and get in the battle NOW. There is no time to lick wounds and blame people--it is time to lean into the next task at hand. They need to be in position to capitalize if the economy does not improve and the President goes into the mid-terms in a position of weakness.

Some positions need to be better defined but not "moderated" just to get votes. For example, do we really think black conservative churches are in favor of abortion on demand and children out of wedlock? No, I don't think those God-fearing folks are any different from God-fearing whites or Hispanics. There is room in the party for ALL conservative-minded people, not just white ones. You have to do a better job of getting the message to the people who need to hear it.

The outlier candidates--people who say terrible, stupid stuff--need to be called out and left hung out to dry.

The GOP will have to be twice as good at everything with the media bias that exists. You can make a case that Fox is conservative but the rest of the press pretty much leans the other way; some way past the point of leaning. This makes the battle harder. Campaigning against a candidate and the press makes it a daunting task. You need a candidate and a campaign that can handle that better.

Just look at the current race-baiting by some Democrats about questioning Ambassador Rice and her statements that were totally out of line with intelligence and the President's own statement (released later by CBS) given to 60 Minutes. She may or may not be competent for a promotion to Secretary of State but it si certainly not a "racial attack" using "code words" to question her statements at this point. that is bullshit and should be called bullshit by the media.

There is a lot to do...we'll see how much gets done!!