Obama Fought The Law..

[Benton]

(05-27-2015, 12:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: There is a large immigrant worker population in this area. They can't get insurance without a DL.  It is crazy to make them drive without insurance instead of allowing them to get a license.

In fact the State of Tennessee assigns a DL number to any person who is caught driving without a license to keep track of multiple offenses.

Here, too. And here it's most ag workers, who are occasionally having to drive some sort of equipment — tractor, loaders, skidsteers, track cats, whatever.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-27-2015, 02:00 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Honestly, I can completely understand being bugged by this. But the problem is how difficult it is to take care of the situation with the budget situation. All of ICE consists of 0.15% of the federal budget, about 9% of the total DHS budget. Of course, they are also customs enforcement, not just immigration. Considering the borders are a part of our defense of this country it is interesting to think about that in comparison to the 14-17% (depending on figures used) that the DoD gets of the federal budget.

If we really want to handle the immigration problem it will cost money, money they just aren't putting into the department and the agency.

That goes back to SSF's contention that nobody wants to fix it. Until you can stop the flow across the border, nothing else matters. If someone told me that we could make every illegal here into a legal resident, (no citizenship if you came here as an adult) and also assure me that statistically speaking we would have no more people coming in illegally, I'd jump all over it.

I'd also be for making the immigration system faster and easier so people aren't waiting years to come here, and I'd fast track the citizenship any legal immigrant who joins the military.

[GMDino]

For giggles:

Quote:The Great Wall of China has been measured at 13,173 miles, about 6.7 times the size of the fence that would be required to seal the U.S. Mexican border, which is 1,969 miles long.

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/03/12/great-wall-china-times-length-usmexican-border/

Quote:According to the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the length of the International Boundary line of the U.S.-Canadian border, excluding Alaska, is approximately 3,987 miles, while the length of the U.S.-Mexican border is estimated at 1,933 miles. The length of the Alaska-Canada border alone is 1,538 miles. Nov 9, 2006

All the borders (have to be really safe, ya know) = approx 7458 miles.

So what would it cost to build a wall like China?


(admittedly old data...I'm sure costs have risen in the last 7 years)
http://www.quora.com/How-much-money-would-it-cost-today-to-build-something-like-the-Great-Wall-of-China-in-the-U-S

Quote:Regarding cost:

"DHS's U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) contractor, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), had completed about 73 miles of primary SBI fencing costing approximately $198 million as of September 30, 2007, and about 215 miles of fencing costing about $625 million as of October 31, 2008. Seventy-one of the miles completed as of September 30, 2007, were pedestrian fencing completed at costs ranging from $400,000 to $4.8 million per mile and averaging $2.8 million per mile. CBP had also finished about 2 miles of vehicle fencing at a cost of $2.8 million. Pedestrian fencing accounted for 140 of the miles that CBP had completed as of October 31, 2008, with costs ranging from $400,000 to $15.1 million per mile for an average of $3.9 million per mile. Seventy-five of the miles were vehicle fencing and costs ranged from $200,000 to $1.8 million per mile, averaging $1.0 million per mile. The per mile costs to build the fencing varied considerably because of the type of fencing, topography, materials used, land acquisition costs, and labor costs, among other things."
(source: US-Mexico Border Fence / Great Wall of Mexico)

The costs vary greatly but it's safe to say the per mile cost is somewhere between 1 - 5 million dollars / mile.

That applied to the entire length of the Chinese Wall:
13,170 miles x 1 million dollars = $13 billion to $65 billion.

The individual income tax paid in the US is 2012 was a total of 1,359 billion dollars. (source: 2013 United States federal budget). So if you put 5 cents out of every dollar income tax paid in 2012 toward that ambitious goal, you could erect an up-to-date defensive wall of the same length as the Chinese Great Wall in the US (assuming you already own the 13,170 miles strip of land of course).

Better cut the food stamp program...again.

[Bengalzona]

Meh.

I suspect that the admin either knew or suspected the Circuit Court would rule this way. The executive action itself is just political showmanship. The Obama Admin wants to force Congress to revamp immigration. This is a legacy issue for Obama (although I am sure he is getting some pressure from the Party as well). On the other side of the Floor, the GOP also wants to revamp immigration. It would seem, with both Parties wanting the same thing, that some sort of bipartisan plan would be imminent. But, alas, that is not how politics typically work. Benton was correct, this issue has lasted for 3 decades and will continue.

The problem is that both sides want to be seen as "The Party of the Latinos" and cash in on the "Latino Dividend" in votes. While Latinos have tended to vote Democrat in the past (mainly because they live in poor areas and feel the Dems have tried to address their immediate economic situations), the future is not set in stone. As St. Lucie mentioned, many of the Latino community's core values are echoed by the Right. The Repubs see immigration reform as a way to tap the "Latino Market" voters, so to speak. And they seriously want to do this. But, they can't have a Dem POTUS forcing them to take action. They can't take credit for it that way. The Admin knows this, which is part of the reason why immigration reform has been on the back burner for 7 years. Not really a Mexican Stand-off, but politics as usual in Washington.

BTW- Only a portion of illegal immigrants are from Mexico. Many come from Central American countries, from the Caribbean, and from South America. Mexico just happens to be the main point of entry. This is why we tend to use the term 'Latino' today. The current situation can be a little confusing because, in the 70's and 80's, there was massive illegal immigration of Mexicans due to a huge population boom in Mexico in the 60's and 70's. The population growth in Mexico has slowed since that time and their economy has improved quite a bit.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-27-2015, 02:41 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: Meh.

I suspect that the admin either knew or suspected the Circuit Court would rule this way. The executive action itself is just political showmanship. The Obama Admin wants to force Congress to revamp immigration. This is a legacy issue for Obama (although I am sure he is getting some pressure from the Party as well). On the other side of the Floor, the GOP also wants to revamp immigration. It would seem, with both Parties wanting the same thing, that some sort of bipartisan plan would be imminent. But, alas, that is not how politics typically work. Benton was correct, this issue has lasted for 3 decades and will continue.

The problem is that both sides want to be seen as "The Party of the Latinos" and cash in on the "Latino Dividend" in votes. While Latinos have tended to vote Democrat in the past (mainly because they live in poor areas and feel the Dems have tried to address their immediate economic situations), the future is not set in stone. As St. Lucie mentioned, many of the Latino community's core values are echoed by the Right. The Repubs see immigration reform as a way to tap the "Latino Market" voters, so to speak. And they seriously want to do this. But, they can't have a Dem POTUS forcing them to take action. They can't take credit for it that way. The Admin knows this, which is part of the reason why immigration reform has been on the back burner for 7 years. Not really a Mexican Stand-off, but politics as usual in Washington.

BTW- Only a portion of illegal immigrants are from Mexico. Many come from Central American countries, from the Caribbean, and from South America. Mexico just happens to be the main point of entry. This is why we tend to use the term 'Latino' today. The current situation can be a little confusing because, in the 70's and 80's, there was massive illegal immigration of Mexicans due to a huge population boom in Mexico in the 60's and 70's. The population growth in Mexico has slowed since that time and their economy has improved quite a bit.

You know I'm really surprised the Repubs have been so slow to grasp this. They have a huge block of voters that share their core beliefs and would vote for them if they were to change their stance on immigration. Latinos are notoriously conservative and religious.

[Bengalzona]

(05-27-2015, 03:25 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: You know I'm really surprised the Repubs have been so slow to grasp this.  They have a huge block of voters that share their core beliefs and would vote for them if they were to change their stance on immigration.  Latinos are notoriously conservative and religious.

They have been trying to capitalize on it for a couple of decades. But it is problematic for them. W Bush spent a lot of time working to gain Latino votes. Some parts of the GOP have gone away from that now.

One thing is the socio-economic situation new immigrants find themselves in when they come here. Now, to be sure, there are a LOT of immigrants who come to America from other countries to try their hand at the unbridled capitalism and to try and get rich. That is our biggest draw to the world. "They comin' to America"... to get rich. And most of those people identify right away with the neo-conservative values of the Republican Party. But a lot of folks coming from the Latino nations don't have that level of greed. Their ambitions are more middle class.

A second problem is the "close the border" mentality of many on the Right. I'm not being critical of this mentality (personally, I'm for stricter border controls, but only when combined with a reformed immigration/work visa program). I'm only pointing out that to many Latinos, this is viewed as a personal or even racial attack. Many on here may not agree with that assessment. But we are all mostly white males who don't have much experience as minorities. It is common thought in the Latino minority communities, particularly when combined with the "English only" campaigns, bills like SB70 here in AZ, concerns about racial profiling (see Sheriff Joe), and just general comments heard occasionally by Latino American citizens ("wetback", "go home to Mexico", "you're stealing our jobs", etc.) which they generally see as coming from the Right.

The Republican Party has a balancing act: keeping their base happy while trying to reach out to Latinos. Those two interests collide a lot. When they collide, the GOP has almost always sought to keep their base happy first and foremost.

[*bfine32*]

(05-27-2015, 02:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: For giggles:

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/03/12/great-wall-china-times-length-usmexican-border/


All the borders (have to be really safe, ya know) = approx 7458 miles.

So what would it cost to build a wall like China?


(admittedly old data...I'm sure costs have risen in the last 7 years)
http://www.quora.com/How-much-money-would-it-cost-today-to-build-something-like-the-Great-Wall-of-China-in-the-U-S


Better cut the food stamp program...again.

Couldn't we just hire the Mexicans to build it at a discount?

[GMDino]

(05-27-2015, 06:25 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Couldn't we just hire the Mexicans to build it at a discount?

[mallorian69]

(05-27-2015, 12:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This.

A DL does not give them any benefits at all.  It just allows us to hold them responsible under the law.  Don't know why anyone would be against this.

Yeah cause holding illegals accountable to the law is something that our government does real Well. I mean there are ONLY 13 million of them here breaking the law.

[fredtoast]

(05-27-2015, 02:40 PM)GMDino Wrote: For giggles:

http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2013/03/12/great-wall-china-times-length-usmexican-border/


All the borders (have to be really safe, ya know) = approx 7458 miles.

So what would it cost to build a wall like China?


(admittedly old data...I'm sure costs have risen in the last 7 years)
http://www.quora.com/How-much-money-would-it-cost-today-to-build-something-like-the-Great-Wall-of-China-in-the-U-S


Better cut the food stamp program...again.

I may be wrong, but I think they have ladders in Mexico.

[Vas Deferens]

(05-27-2015, 12:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This.

A DL does not give them any benefits at all.  It just allows us to hold them responsible under the law.  Don't know why anyone would be against this.

(05-27-2015, 12:46 PM)Benton Wrote: There's a lot of opposition. It's pretty common when someone gets in a collision with an non-resident without a driver's license, they blame it on immigration controls, rationalizing it that 'this never would have happened if that person had stayed in their country.'

Of course — if we let them get DL's and required them to learn how to drive, instead of just supporting a system that encourages people to do it illegally — that should cut down. But upset people, especially those who have lost a loved one in a crash with an illegal alien, don't always think rationally.

Can't get insurance w/out a DL. Thats all I care about. Let them get insurance and all our premiums go down immediately.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-27-2015, 06:19 PM)Bengalzona Wrote: They have been trying to capitalize on it for a couple of decades. But it is problematic for them. W Bush spent a lot of time working to gain Latino votes. Some parts of the GOP have gone away from that now.

One thing is the socio-economic situation new immigrants find themselves in when they come here. Now, to be sure, there are a LOT of immigrants who come to America from other countries to try their hand at the unbridled capitalism and to try and get rich. That is our biggest draw to the world. "They comin' to America"... to get rich. And most of those people identify right away with the neo-conservative values of the Republican Party. But a lot of folks coming from the Latino nations don't have that level of greed. Their ambitions are more middle class.

A second problem is the "close the border" mentality of many on the Right. I'm not being critical of this mentality (personally, I'm for stricter border controls, but only when combined with a reformed immigration/work visa program). I'm only pointing out that to many Latinos, this is viewed as a personal or even racial attack. Many on here may not agree with that assessment. But we are all mostly white males who don't have much experience as minorities. It is common thought in the Latino minority communities, particularly when combined with the "English only" campaigns, bills like SB70 here in AZ, concerns about racial profiling (see Sheriff Joe), and just general comments heard occasionally by Latino American citizens ("wetback", "go home to Mexico", "you're stealing our jobs", etc.) which they generally see as coming from the Right.

The Republican Party has a balancing act: keeping their base happy while trying to reach out to Latinos. Those two interests collide a lot. When they collide, the GOP has almost always sought to keep their base happy first and foremost.

I pretty much agree with everything you've posted here.  To me it's crazy that they keep pandering to the ultra religious right, when in the end it would seem that's what keeps them from getting elected in general elections.  I guess what I'm seeing is that the country as a whole is becoming a lot more moderate - liberal on a lot of topics.  It's why gay marriage has mad so much head way in recent years.