Skip to main content

As I indicated in a recent Open Thread, I am going to attempt a semi-periodic analysis on what was going on at RedState.  I even picked out a title RedState Banned Me.  While, I am not really surprised at being banned for "commenting while liberal" (a kin to driving while black), but Moe Lane practically dared me to say something.  So I just did.  :)

In my opinion RedState isn't too bad and is sometimes worth reading.  I strongly suspect several people at DailyKos read it regularly.  Hopefully, we can come out of the closet and admit it and have a fun time discussing the good, bad and horrible of RedState posts and comments.  If not, oh well.

Such as it is, this is my introduction and, unfortunately, I have to run but will add more below the orange crescent roll later tonight.

Meanwhile, you might want to entertain yourselves by reading through the Immigration discussion that is happening on RedState right now.

Update - finished diary (see below)...

I do apologize for posting and running.  However, this was my first diary and I wasn't sure how it was going to work.  I felt this was better than just posting "test".

Anyway, to the situation at hand.

Erick Erickson posted under the title I Don’t Like Marco Rubio’s Plan...

Immigration is an issue that keeps hispanic voters from trusting the GOP. Many call it a “gateway” issue. I get that. But pandering in the name of a solution does not actually fix the problem. This is just another policy debate the Democrats can use to get the GOP to fight itself. The GOP should pivot to actually fixing the immigration problem, not just addressing the here and now.
This was followed up by a lengthy post by Rubio Marco which included...
First, let me identify the problem we face. We have a legal immigration system that doesn’t work, we don’t have an effective system to enforce our immigration laws, and we have by some estimates as many as 11 million human beings living in the United States without the proper immigration documents in a state of de facto amnesty. It’s a problem that has both political and economic ramifications on our nation.

On the political front, a growing number of voters of Asian and Hispanic descent have been convinced by the left that conservative opposition to immigration reform equates to being anti-immigrant. This is unfair, and it is untrue. But they have pulled it off and, as a result, our ability to convince these fast-growing communities that the principles of limited government and free enterprise are better for them than big government and collectivism has been impaired.

The economic ramifications, however, are even more serious. For example, our technology sector creates roughly 120,000 computer engineering jobs a year, but our universities only graduate about 40,000 students a year in that field. The long term answer, of course, is to get more American students to graduate in this field. But the immediate problem is that, in the absence of an immigration system where these workers can be brought here, these jobs are sent overseas to them.

To which Daniel Horowitz responded with this...
...if we are going to do this for political reasons, does Senator Rubio have any evidence to show that the new amnestied immigrants will not vote at least 80/20 Democrat?  Is there any evidence that we will enjoy a net gain with the current Latino voting population?  Remember, Democrats have signed onto this plan precisely because they believe it will create a permanent Democrat majority.  Yes, we need to articulate our message for limited government to all people.  But let’s not full ourselves, it’s an uphill battle fighting through the allure of the dependency state.  Let’s deal with those we already have, instead of granting voting rights to millions more low-skilled immigrants, who are strongly predisposition to vote Democrat, irrespective of how enthusiastically we embrace a path to citizenship.
...and...
Why do the legal immigration reforms have to be held hostage for a “comprehensive” amnesty bill?  Let’s first pass the things we all agree upon.
I suggest this is a reasonable exchange for people with their worldview.

It is times like this, I am glad I am not a Republican.  Personally, I bristle at the thought of saying an American is a more valued human being than a Mexican or a Frenchman or a Italian or, etc.  Of course such thoughts make me a bleeding heart liberal.

The question I would like to propose.  What if we tried to lessen the political advantage by taking citizenship off the table?

Undocumented immigrants who wish to stay can be granted legal status on the condition they will never become full citizens with voting rights.  Their children born here, yes, but not them.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wdrath, chuco35

    "If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." - Asimov

    by dfcord on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 01:47:17 PM PST

  •  I plan to write a diary . . . ? ? ? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Thinking Fella, RichM, Gooserock
  •  Why don't you write a new diary... (0+ / 0-)

    When you actually have some content?

    'Guns don't kill people, video games do - paraphrased from Lamar Alexander (Sen-R-TN)'

    by RichM on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 02:13:56 PM PST

  •  Really? (3+ / 0-)

    Shorter dfcord:

    I plan on trolling y'all later when I get more time, but feel free to amuse yourself in this essentially open (vacuous?) thread till then.

    Where exactly is Bob Johnson when you need him.  

    Do Pavlov's dogs chase Schroedinger's cat?

    by corwin on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 02:31:36 PM PST

  •  Our technology is more up to date than this. (0+ / 0-)
  •  redstate's interesting to check in on (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, dfcord, Trotskyrepublican

    ...to see what kind of things the right is crapping their pants about...

    ...another interesting thing on Red State earlier today was  a poll they were conducting. They asked people whether they support public financing of campaigns to reduce the influence of special interests. Interestingly, about 28 percent strongly supported it, another 13 percent supported the idea somewhat 11 percent were neutral...meaning about 53 percent of the people on a right-wing website online poll were at least somewhat receptive to the idea...very surprising to me...only 38 percent were strongly against and the rest were somewhat against.

    ...if 41 percent of readers of an online website indicate support for public campaign financing...perhaps there's more support for that around the country than people think.

    Oh...and you're right...the "rebuttal" to all of the points that Marco Rubio has made for immigration reform...is quite interesting, as well.

    •  Thanks wdrath (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wdrath

      I am glad a least one other person found the exchange "interesting".

      I missed the poll you mentioned.

      Somehow, I think opinions might have been different if all that Republican money had done them some good in 2012.

      Unfortunately I fear we would need a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizen's United.

      "If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." - Asimov

      by dfcord on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 04:11:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  the poll was only up for a while... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Trotskyrepublican

        ...and then, after going back to check to see if the results had changed...it was gone (they must change polls throughout the day, or...perhaps...they didn't like what they were seeing?)

        Yes...Citizens United is an abomination, at best...and unless we can get a replacement on the court for one of the five bozos that foisted that in-kind-contribution to the Republican Party on the rest of us (Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy or Roberts)...it will take nothing less than a Constitutional Amendment to overturn it.

        My hope is that one of those five retires over the next few years, allowing the President to appoint a replacement...and for the court to revisit this.

        As far as Rubio...it's great to see the right going on the attack against...their own Republican darling Senator.

    •  Polls on Redstate are meaningless (0+ / 0-)

      They switched to a system that allows anyone to uprate or downrate a comment (anyone, even liberals trolling the site) and I believe it also allows anyone to participate in their online polls.  Thus, you'll see some spamming from our side just for kicks, making some of the poll results more "moderate" looking than should be the case on a "conservative" site.  

  •  Gotta Grant A Path To Citizenship. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dfcord, Trotskyrepublican

    Otherwise you perpetuate an underclass of persons smack in the middle of our society, an underclass denied the rights of citizens, voting being but only one of those rights.

    “I’m able to fly, do what I want, essentially. I guess that’s what freedom is — no limits.” Marybeth Onyeukwu -- Brooklyn DREAMer.

    by chuco35 on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 04:53:47 PM PST

    •  Thanks for commenting (0+ / 0-)

      Please See my response to FloridaGeorge

      "If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." - Asimov

      by dfcord on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:06:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Different argument. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        dfcord

        You responded to a politically based argument -- why take 11 million votes off the table. My argument is based on policy (as well as morals and godliness). Not ever granting citizenship to people who have earned a stake in our society is bad policy even if they have the right to be here (and work or study), but no other constitutional rights of citizenship (like being treated equally, holding certain government and other jobs, serving on juries, receiving government benefits, not being kicked out of the country if you don't behave). You know, a subclass.

        The 11 million votes is mere icing on sound humane policy.

        “I’m able to fly, do what I want, essentially. I guess that’s what freedom is — no limits.” Marybeth Onyeukwu -- Brooklyn DREAMer.

        by chuco35 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 11:21:39 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Good Argument (0+ / 0-)

          I can see your point of view has merit.  In fact, it would generally be my first reaction too.

          They're here, they're working hard, they're paying taxes - why shouldn't they get a say?

          There is also merit in arguing based on the rule-of-law.  I understand based on current immigration law, wait times are around 10 years and longer.

          Are we just going to ignore those who have been following the rules in favor of those who broke the rules in hopes of getting squatters rights?

          This isn't an easy situation and it could cause more harm than good to significantly change the rules, especially when it looks like political motives may be at play.

          Maybe something like an "Orange Card" to act like a Green Card except that the Orange Card does not automatically lead to citizenship.

          We can keep the Green Card process in place for those who are already following the process.  And it would also be available to Orange Card carriers if they wish to pursue it.

          "If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." - Asimov

          by dfcord on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 02:00:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  What process? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            dfcord

            Oh, you mean the visa process set up in 1984, the last time the Immigration laws were amended. There's no rule of law broken if we change the laws. Your argument would, for example, prevent us from changing our drug laws, as we did in CO and WA, because it would not be fair to those imprisoned under the old laws, and because it would be an affront to the rule of law to allow smoking dope (despite changing the law) since it used to be illegal to do so.

            Besides, why are you so gung-ho on creating a sub-class of "near-citizens" for the mere expediency of politcal appearances?

            .

            “I’m able to fly, do what I want, essentially. I guess that’s what freedom is — no limits.” Marybeth Onyeukwu -- Brooklyn DREAMer.

            by chuco35 on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 06:17:47 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Not "gung-ho" (0+ / 0-)

              As I have tried to indicate, my general reaction would be to make it much easier for all immigrants to become U.S. citizens.

              What I am doing here is trying to understand a point of view which is different than mine.

              Your example about the drug laws changing brings up an interesting parallel.  People arrested but not convicted of violating the law prior to it changing will still end being tried and probably punished (e.g. fined).

              People who violated the immigration laws have violated the law.  Changing the law does not erase that violation.

              I argue my suggestion isn't punishing anyone, it just isn't rewarding people who tried to bypass the old laws.

              If the immigration process gets fixed, then immigrants who are here can choose to apply then same as those who aren't here.  Both starting on square one.

              However, I agree some accommodation is warranted to those who have been here for a while.  For this, we provide an alternative.  Yes, this alternative is a compromise, but I feel it might be warranted.

              For many people, this is about more than "political appearances".  Why wouldn't Republicans feel justified in changing laws at the state level to balance out what they perceive as "unfair" tactics at the federal level?

              I'm sorry, but I can't help thinking most immigrants would be thrilled to become permanent, legal residents free to work, drive and even protest without fear of being deported.  I also see it as a big bonus their children would be guaranteed the right to healthcare, education and citizenship.

              Again, I'm not suggesting undocumented immigrants be denied a path to citizenship. They could always choose to go through the normal immigration application process which, hopefully, will be much more streamlined.

              "If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." - Asimov

              by dfcord on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 08:18:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

  •  Be very careful of Rubio (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OleHippieChick

    His parents were Castro supporters for awhile.

    Then they were Mormons.

    Now he represents "Hispanic vote" to Republicans.

    Socially, he's as far right as he can be.

    He's really a chameleon.

    Hispanics realize that Cubans are not Mexicans are not Guatamalans or Costa Ricans. But yahoos think everyone who speaks "Latin American" are the same.

    He's doing a Romney-esque Etch-a-sketch. Watch him carefully. Do as many caches as you can of his positions. He loves immigration reform unless the Hispanics can eventually vote.

    •  Rubio isn't Mexican (0+ / 0-)

      I'm stating the obvious, but it is probably worth noting when in the future Rubio starts sounding like he is speaking for Mexican immigrants.

      I haven't been paying enough attention to Rubio to see how inconsistent he is or is not.  I will probably keep an eye out for this as the immigration debate unfolds.

      "If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." - Asimov

      by dfcord on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:10:19 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Why? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dfcord, OleHippieChick

    "The question I would like to propose.  What if we tried to lessen the political advantage by taking citizenship off the table?

    Undocumented immigrants who wish to stay can be granted legal status on the condition they will never become full citizens with voting rights.  Their children born here, yes, but not them."

    Why would we try to lessen the political advantage by taking citizenship off the table?  What would possibly be the upside?  So that the right-wing has an easier time swallowing reform?  That would be incredibly foolish.  As was (correctly) posited in that initial post, the Democrats are in the driver's seat, because the Immigration debate will have the effect that Republicans will be fighting with Republicans about how to do accomplish it, with the likely result being again that the Senate will vote for a comprehensive Immigration Reform while the House will hem and haw, Republicans will make themselves look petty and stupid again, and at the end it will come down whether Boehner allows an up or down vote in the House.  

    NO WAY should we take Citizenship off the table.  It must be on the table, and we must make the path easier than is currently envisioned by GOP leadership.      

    •  Good Politics or Good Policy (0+ / 0-)

      FloridaGeorge,

      Do you think it would be good policy to immediately grant U.S. Citizenship to any and all who apply?

      I am not talking about just Hispanics, but anybody from anywhere in the world.

      There are good policy reasons to take reasonable steps to protect the common good of this country.

      Unless I am mistaken, there is no constitutional requirement for the U.S. to accept immigrants.

      If the only reason you want to accept immigrants to gain a political advantage, then the Republicans are fully justified in doing whatever it takes to stop you.

      For example, the Electoral College and the state's right to choose it's electors IS in the constitution.

      If you ignore the Republican's complaint about your "unfair" tactic of diluting the voting pool, then how can you be justified in complaining about how Republicans choose to counter this maneuver?

      The "upside" is getting as large of a percentage of Americans as possible to view the resulting immigration laws as good policy, not just good politics.

      "If knowledge can create problems, it is not through ignorance that we can solve them." - Asimov

      by dfcord on Wed Jan 30, 2013 at 08:43:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Of course not "immediately" (0+ / 0-)

        Those who come here legally and receive Green Cards have to wait at least 5 years before they can apply for Citizenship.   People who have been here without the proper documents should be given the ability to apply for Citizenship if they have been here for at least that many years (or, make it more, say, 10 years.)  As long as they have been good "citizens", committed no felonies, paid any taxes they were asked to, what would be your possible reasoning behind not supporting it?  They are already here, they are already productive, the alternative would be to continue letting them live in the shadows, pay no income taxes, but also don't qualify for SS, which makes little sense long term.  Not for 11 Million people.  

        You appear to be advancing the conservative argument here:  "They came illegally, they need to be treated like criminals."   Am I misreading your intent?  

  •  If Republicans (0+ / 0-)

    don't want to be seen as anti-immigrant, then perhaps they should not position themselves as anti-immigration.

    There are exactly three reason Rubio is out front on this issue;
    1. his latin sounding name and
    2. his olive skin tone and
    3. Romney support got fucking murdered at the voting booth in 2012 for Republican Anti-Immigration statements.

    If Republicans had gotten more support from non-white people, they would not have made this U-turn on policy.

    We've been spelling it wrong all these years. It's actually: PRO-GOP-ANDA

    by Patriot4peace on Thu Jan 31, 2013 at 04:54:05 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site