There was just one problem — the 1986 reform didn't work. The law was supposed to put a stop to illegal immigration into the United States once and for all. Instead, the exact opposite happened. The number of unauthorized immigrants living in the country soared, from an estimated 5 million in 1986 to 11.1 million today.
Yes that is what I said. Now go back and read your claim and my response and try again.This is for folks that said the 80's massive amnesty did work. Let see what WP says about that - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ion-why-didnt-it-work/?utm_term=.14e89c5bcbdf
^^^^ bryjones (last sentence)
The one thing that did work to cut illegal immigration was the housing bubble collapse. When the jobs dried up, lots of illegal immigrants packed up and went home. So we know that denying jobs to illegal immigrants is an effective method of reducing illegal immigration. Yet nailing employers' asses to the wall never quite makes it into law or policy. I wonder why that is?
I agree that it won’t happen but the reason it won’t is because these folks provide value in our economy. The problem with the current state of affairs is that the value they provide accrues to their employers while the costs of them being here is socialized. Amnesty would allow us to transfer some of these costs back on to the benefiting employers.Because it's a barrel of snakes that nobody will touch with a pole. It won't happen so why even pretend that it might?
I agree that it won’t happen but the reason it won’t is because these folks provide value in our economy. The problem with the current state of affairs is that the value they provide accrues to their employers while the costs of them being here is socialized. Amnesty would allow us to transfer some of these costs back on to the benefiting employers.
Of course. I see it in broader terms, however. It's a thing that can only be healed by forgiveness. They're not leaving & we're not throwing them out so there's no reason other than spite to keep them living in fear.
Do you think that someone who was willing to risk death getting here and deportation, exploitation, and imprisonment once they got here would be kept "living in fear" by having to pay a financial penalty to stay after breaking our immigration laws?
This is for folks that said the 80's massive amnesty did work. Let see what WP says about that - https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ion-why-didnt-it-work/?utm_term=.14e89c5bcbdf
^^^^ bryjones (last sentence supports my previous assertion)
No the last sentence does not support your assertion. You specifically said the illegal population was the largest ever now. This is false it is down several million from the peak.
Neither craven nor pathetic. It was foolish to link amnesty to spending in the first place when you are the minority party facing a critical midterm election cycle.https://www.politico.com/story/2018...eamer-demand-with-budget-deal-in-reach-366992
So it looks like the dirty Dems are caving on DACA because they don't want to shake the markets (read: piss off their donors).
Also military spending looking to increase even more than what Donnie asked for. Craven. Pathetic.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018...eamer-demand-with-budget-deal-in-reach-366992
So it looks like the dirty Dems are caving on DACA because they don't want to shake the markets (read: piss off their donors).
Also military spending looking to increase even more than what Donnie asked for. Craven. Pathetic.
I agree that it won’t happen but the reason it won’t is because these folks provide value in our economy. The problem with the current state of affairs is that the value they provide accrues to their employers while the costs of them being here is socialized. Amnesty would allow us to transfer some of these costs back on to the benefiting employers.
Do you think that someone who was willing to risk death getting here and deportation, exploitation, and imprisonment once they got here would be kept "living in fear" by having to pay a financial penalty to stay after breaking our immigration laws?
Neither craven nor pathetic. It was foolish to link amnesty to spending in the first place when you are the minority party facing a critical midterm election cycle.
Neither craven nor pathetic. It was foolish to link amnesty to spending in the first place when you are the minority party facing a critical midterm election cycle.
Obama got re-elected after doing that very thing.Do you really think it is going to help the Democrats with their base to cave on every promise the make?
Obama got re-elected after doing that very thing.
True.Obama got elected and re-elected on his youthful charisma. Democrats got slaughtered from 2010 onward.
Obama got elected and re-elected on his youthful charisma. Democrats got slaughtered from 2010 onward.
Do you really think it is going to help the Democrats with their base to cave on every promise the make?
So far it looks like no DACA agreement, no parity for military and domestic spending.
I hear your words, but the blood and guts since the ACA passed are all over the floor, the walls, and the ceiling.
The Dems have a history of caving. After four decades of dealing with the Republicans, the Dems still try to kick that football. The Dems suffer a fatal flaw in that they still believe the Republicans are decent people and will negotiate in good faith.Such "caving" is highly speculative at this point, isn't it?