ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

"

faerwin wrote:

Political affiliation should NEVER even be considered by the power in place when it comes to immigration.

Why would Republicans ignore the FACT that they will lose power in the country if they declare amnesty? Of course it should be considered.

Republicans control the White house, Senate, House AND almost all the States as well: in Governors, state house/senate.

Why on earth would they do something, on purpose, to give away control of the country to Democrats? The whole point of politics is to win, not lose on purpose.

"

Kamchatka wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

Political affiliation should NEVER even be considered by the power in place when it comes to immigration.

Why would Republicans ignore the FACT that they will lose power in the country if they declare amnesty? Of course it should be considered.

Republicans control the White house, Senate, House AND almost all the States as well: in Governors, state house/senate.

Why on earth would they do something, on purpose, to give away control of the country to Democrats? The whole point of politics is to win, not lose on purpose.

And here I thought the point of politics was to lead one's town/state/country and try to make it a better place to live.

Silent Gods, no wonder all my political notions my whole life have been wrong. Here I was thinking that government was supposed to be in place to help people, but all it's really there for is so people can have something else to win at. It's like the most boring professional sports league in Creation.

If only I'd known.

"

1453R wrote:

And here I thought the point of politics was to lead one's town/state/country and try to make it a better place to live.


Silent Gods, no wonder all my political notions my whole life have been wrong. Here I was thinking that government was supposed to be in place to help people, but all it's really there for is so people can have something else to win at. It's like the most boring professional sports league in Creation.

If only I'd known.

Elections/politics have been a competition for votes since day 1 in the USA. Anyone who thinks otherwise lives in some fantasy land.

you cannot: "lead one's town/state/country and try to make it a better place to live." without winning, obviously.

"

1453R wrote:

"

Kamchatka wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

Political affiliation should NEVER even be considered by the power in place when it comes to immigration.

Why would Republicans ignore the FACT that they will lose power in the country if they declare amnesty? Of course it should be considered.

Republicans control the White house, Senate, House AND almost all the States as well: in Governors, state house/senate.

Why on earth would they do something, on purpose, to give away control of the country to Democrats? The whole point of politics is to win, not lose on purpose.

And here I thought the point of politics was to lead one's town/state/country and try to make it a better place to live.

Silent Gods, no wonder all my political notions my whole life have been wrong. Here I was thinking that government was supposed to be in place to help people, but all it's really there for is so people can have something else to win at. It's like the most boring professional sports league in Creation.

If only I'd known.

Unfortunately, the US does not have viable third parties, only a right-party and a left-party (both of which are mostly co-opted by corporatist anti-populists). As I've said before, the forced dichotomy validates Whataboutism: anything anti-Republican is automatically, but not inherently, pro-Democrat.

Therefore, until we escape the forced dichotomy of the two-party system or force Overton Window shifts within the parties themselves, then the following logic is valid: if you generally support Republican policies, then you are against Mexican-to-American amnesty and legal immigration; if you generally support Democratic policies, you are for such amnesty. In other words, the coincidences of our current reality tie together two concepts not intrinsically linked (and, according to some capitalist economists, contradictory).

Contrast this with a multiparty system, where a new party might simultaneously adopt some policies Republicans currently support as well as the policies Mexican immigrants tend to support. I imagine there would still be some combinations of policy platforms such that a political party could be nerfed or buffed by an influx of immigrants, but immigration wouldn't necessarily be a boon to ALL progressives or a bane to ALL conservatives.

My point is, perhaps unfortunately, partisan "winning" and "helping people" are, due to the warped nature of the forced dichotomy, pretty much the same thing for pretty much everyone. We'd need to implement reforms like instant runoff voting of similar before I could even consider supporting amnesty; at current, the Republicans are the party of populism, even if only in the Whataboutist sense of "more populist than the other guys."

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Unfortunately, the US does not have viable third parties, only a right-party and a left-party (both of which are mostly co-opted by corporatist anti-populists). As I've said before, the forced dichotomy validates Whataboutism: anything anti-Republican is inherently pro-Democrat.

Therefore, until we escape the forced dichotomy of the two-party system or force Overton Window shifts within the parties themselves, then the following logic is valid: if you generally support Republican policies, then you are against Mexican-to-American amnesty and legal immigration; if you generally support Democratic policies, you are for such amnesty. In other words, the coincidences of our current reality tie together two concepts not intrinsically linked (and, according to some capitalist economists, contradictory).

Contrast this with a multiparty system, where a new party might simultaneously adopt some policies Republicans currently support as well as the policies Mexican immigrants tend to support. I imagine there would still be some combinations of policy platforms such that a political party could be nerfed or buffed by an influx of immigrants, but immigration wouldn't necessarily be a boon to ALL progressives or a bane to ALL conservatives.

My point is, perhaps unfortunately, partisan "winning" and "helping people" are, due to the warped nature of the forced dichotomy, pretty much the same thing for pretty much everyone. We'd need to implement reforms like instant runoff voting of similar before I could even consider supporting amnesty; at current, the Republicans are the party of populism, even if only in the Whataboutist sense of "more populist than the other guys."

I still agree with this, but I also still maintain that you are too focused on IRV; there is a more comprehensive picture that must simultaneously be addressed. True: IRV is essential to a multiparty party system, while FPTP is inherently biased toward a two party system. The second, equally significant dilemma is legitimacy. Our current extra-election process allows a two party system to maintain a stranglehold on the actual election, irrespective of how votes are counted—how a candidate makes it onto the ballot, are granted admittance to debates, if they are reported on, maybe more(?)

The ballot: A party must have secured a significant enough number of votes in previous elections in order to conduct its own primaries, otherwise they have to collect a massive petition which itself introduces loopholes. IRV may assist in securing enough votes over time to develop legitimacy, but entrance is still a problem. I propose closing the worst loophole, contesting petition signatures in court until after the election. That this takes place in court makes it a very expensive process which is abused to bleed grass roots campaigns of their funding. If petition review were to be found legitimate, and a candidate could sue for not only court costs but also other damages (i.e., other campaign expenses and lost future wages/benefits), then it’d flip a switch—rather than existing (in practice) solely to keep competition financially unviable, it’d penalize attempted abuses of the system and better fund future campaigns.

Debates, reporting and polls: Not sure how to solve this one, but public awareness is still an issue. I’d guess that a majority of voters aren’t even aware of a third option when it exists, and a large part of that is because third party candidates are often banned from debates and/or do not receive balanced reporting—tricky, because the first amendment is still a thing. This feeds back into the legitimacy issue.

"

CanHasPants wrote:

...
Debates, reporting and polls: Not sure how to solve this one, but public awareness is still an issue. I’d guess that a majority of voters aren’t even aware of a third option when it exists, and a large part of that is because third party candidates are often banned from debates and/or do not receive balanced reporting—tricky, because the first amendment is still a thing. This feeds back into the legitimacy issue.

Past a certain point, educating oneself about one's choices in an upcoming poll is supposed to be a responsibility of citizenship. The country was found on ideals of reason and rationality - we're all supposed to be educated individuals making educated choices. That was actually a primary reason why voting was originally restricted to male landowners when the country was first founded - not because HAH HAH SEXISM/RACISM/WHATEVERISM, but because male landowners were the only ones the Fathers figured could be relied upon to make the sort of informed, thought-out choice they considered essential for this system of government they were building to work.

The more inclusive you make the vote (and inclusivity is very much desirable, even a requirement in these days), the less you can rely on the people you're including to make an informed and thought-out decision on their ballot. Any barriers you put up to try and ensure you're only collecting votes from people who know what the flip, and who the flip, they're voting for are hot-button issues and easy targets for calls of anti-democracy. Those calls may well even be true in many cases.

This is how you get to that Idiocracy meme from earlier and the absolutely horrifying thought that Oprah motherfucking Winfrey might end up an actual contender in the 2020 race. As many barriers have been removed from voting as possible in order to ensure that anyone who wishes to exercise that right can do so - whether or not they have met the bar of education and self-informedness the Fathers intended when they created this system.

As I said in the other thread, one cannot lean on "the Vision of the Founding Fathers" for a continued guide for this country. Those guys are dead, they have no idea what's good for America right now. That said...they also did a lot of things for a reason. Frankly, however undemocratic it might be, I'm all for a test of voter competence being required before a major race such as the Presidency. if you can't be assed to spend twenty minutes every four years proving that you know who the candidates are, what they stand for, and also how the American political system works and what voting actually means, then no - you don't get to cast a vote. If you don't know enough to make an informed decision when you cast your ballot then all you're doing is muddying the waters and screwing everything up for the rest of us.

Fixed a key error in diction in first paragraph of my immediate previous post.

@1453R: At a glance, I am okay with the idea of taking a voters exam. If I am not mistaken, the idea was originally opposed because it supported / was supported by racism. That shouldn’t be the case anymore, as institutional (not to be confused with individuals within an institution) racism against minorities isn’t really a thing anymore.

That said, none of that really matter when every facet of the system is used to repress or obfuscate alternative options at the voting booth (my point).

Let me guess: You do not believe that the US are already preventing too many of their population from voting? How would you like to shape your voting stock, then?

So some general thoughts on the DACA deal:

TL;DR: Trump is doing it wrong. So much for "art of the deal." Outside of amending the Constitution, no amnesty.

1a. The Wall is border security, not an anti-illegal-immigration measure — it would be good at keeping out people and objects we don't want to even visit the country, but it would do nothing to stop those who enter legally from overstaying their welcome. Trust me, I live in El Paso: any Mexican (the nationality, not an ethnicity) with a valid passport can shop at the Walmart nearest me whenever they feel like crossing the bridge.
1b. Because border security and immigration are very separate issues, it's silly and suicidal for the GOP to trade DACA for The Wall. Wall funding should be seen as a defense appropriation, not a policy proposal. Like, cancel a few aircraft carriers or missile systems or something and use the billions saved to build it. There, done.

2a. The best way to prevent illegal immigration is to hit illegal aliens where it hurts — the wallet. Employers should be required to use the E-verify system to determine work eligibility, and illegal aliens should be denied government benefit programs. (Immigrants with valid visas have work eligibility and should be eligible for benefits.)
2b. Although preventing illegal immigration is fine and well, even this trade in exchange for DACA amnesty would be suicidal for the GOP. A sudden influx of legal Democrat voters, with no significant reduction in the rate of legal Mexican immigration, would result in the functional end of the Republican Party.
2c. Because it doesn't make sense (from their perspective) for Republicans to trade DACA for mandatory E-verify and an end to illegal alien benefit programs, it should instead be traded for immigration reform. Simply put, applying for legal immigration is such a tedious, lengthy, and costly process, almost completely burying applicants in red tape, that it's not that surprising that so many immigrants refuse (or otherwise fail) to comply with it. Streamlining the process would not only hugely improve quality of life for legal immigrants — it would allow bureaucracy to be slashed and massive amounts of taxpayer money to be saved. Including mandatory E-verify and cutting benefits should be part of immigration reform legislation that greatly reduces immigration wait times in a "customer-centric" manner and slashes INS funding.

3a. The single biggest security lapse in US immigration policy is birthright citizenship, in tandem with chain migration. Anyone with means can cross the border while pregnant, give birth in the US to an automatic US citizen, then use their relationship to the child to establish a right to live in the United States. The existence of such a method completely undermines any serious attempt at merit-based immigration reform.
3b. I'm not against chain migration. Saying that a nuclear family needs to be broken up, with some residing in one nation and others in another, is abominable. I might support limiting chain migration to dependent children and spouses of current citizens and legal non-citizen residents, but I can't imagine Republicans attacking the family values of immigrants successfully. There will always be chain migration sufficient enough to make birthright citizenship a problem; thus, birthright citizenship needs to go, not family reunification.
3c. Unfortunately, birthright citizenship is granted not by statute, but by the United States Constitution. This means it would require a 34th amendment, which would require a large amount of political capital to accomplish.
3d. Because of this, the appropriate DACA trade Trump should be pushing is not legislation, but an amendment: one that simultaneously:
* grants mass amnesty to all current (non-criminal) illegal aliens
* repeals the portion of the 14th amendment that guarantees birthright citizenship
3e. Such an amendment deal would not be suicidal to the GOP. While the amnesty would create many new legal Democrat voters in the short term, over a longer duration the effects of prevented birth tourism — the vast majority of which occurs along the southern border — would limit the number of legal immigrants who support left-wing policy positions.