The President is watching this same garbage and making policy decisions based on it. Let that sink in for a moment.
> The left refused that compromise
Why was a compromised needed again? Every congressperson, R and D, when asked said they supported a permanent DACA fix. Why should Democrats be willing to compromise on something like lowering the number of legal immigrants admitted for something everyone claims they want. Why should the left compromise to fund a useless wall the President insists will be paid for by Mexico? Problem seems to be Republicans don't really want to admit they're in favor of deporting in all-but-legal-status Americans from their home land.
> Since he has twice been rebuffed on his compromises, he's going the other way. That seems reasonable to me.
Sarcasm? That's what's known as cutting off your nose to spite your face, assuming trump was sincere at all about DACA in the first place, which is highly questionable.
Any politician that compromises an inch these days will be portrayed as an immoral enemy and attacked by some vocal part of their own base.
Democrats are in the minority though, not the majority like the Republicans had during Obama's tenure. If they want something done then they can do it.
Look at how polarized politics has gotten. It's happening right here.
We have media mega-businesses now which are feeding total garbage to people, astroturfing it so that viewers feel like they're getting information from someone they can trust, and we have a President that is getting information from the same kind of sources and is citing that when announcing policy decisions.
I don't care which "side" you're on, I think that's wrong, corrupt, and terrifying. If it were a Democrat doing it, hell, even citing NPR, I'd still be horrified.
Some of Trump's base thinks there's some kind of deep state thing going on, where there are people in government that are controlling things behind the scenes, independent of whatever administration is in office at the time. You know what? They're absolutely right, save for one little thing: the people doing the controlling aren't in government, they're in offices in shining skyscrapers, and they own the news.
And they would really appreciate it if we wouldn't talk about that, and instead just continue to argue about the stupid wall.
The media controls the conversation, and at the very top, I believe that's driven primarily by business interests — not political beliefs.
That's called negotiating in bad faith.
He is pretty clear about what he wants to see, and I’m pretty sure that he sees no deal as better than a bad deal. He’d rather keep the issue in play through mid-terms, or collect some additional policy points (gun control?) that he can throw in the mix to ultimately craft a bill that achieves his core policy objectives around national defense and immigration.
I think immigration policy will be the big issue for the midterms, it will be interesting to see it all play out.
Going to have to disagree on that. At best, his policy positions can be described as tenuous... more typically, amorphous.
"Key immigration reforms" is a great way to spin additional constraints on legal family-reunification, that exact program which allowed Melania's family to join her here in this country. He's closing the doors that he and his family used to come here and amass wealth.
No question Trump represents a large segment of Americans who want to see less immigration overall, and more selective granting of visas and green cards.
The doors, so to speak, would remain decidedly open, to the tune of about a half million green cards per year. Historically average.
There is plenty to question here. Given the CA news and additional leaks regarding the campaign he ran, Trump does not in fact represent a large segment of Americans. At best, he represents a well-targeted, vocal minority.
Specifically, with his actions and his words he is representing and providing a megaphone for the worst xenophobic elements of our society [1].
>The doors, so to speak, would remain decidedly open
Speak to anyone with DACA or TPS, those doors are decidedly closed.
1. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/trump-d...
Oh and the “Trump Defends White Nationalists” trope? Here’s the video [1] and here’s the quote;
“You had some very bad people in the group. But you also had people, that were very fine people, on both sides.... So you know what, you’re changing history, you’re changing culture, and you had people, and I’m not talking about the neo-nazis or the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally, but you had many people in that group other than neo-nazis and white nationalists, okay, and the press has treated them absolutely unfairly.”
If you have an issue with DACA maybe talk to your congressman. Trump’s been trying to get a legal fix for DACA for months now.
As far as TPS is concerned, maybe the “T” doesn’t stand for what I think it does, but 2001-2018 seems pretty generous for the Salvadorans. Unless you’re telling me those countries are still too ravaged from natural disasters over a decade ago to return to?
But I’ll stand by the assertion that while we do have borders and we do enforce immigration law, we also provide entry for half a million immigrants a year. It seems like you’re claiming that because you can cite a specific special interest that isn’t being granted special citizenship outside the legal system that has existed for decades, therefore the doors are closed and that’s somehow xenophobic. I personally think that’s inaccurate and perhaps hyperbolic. While you’re entitled to your opinion, I think a large portion of the country will continue to have reasonable and open debate as to what levels of immigration is right for the country, and how we should select for those immigrants, without resorting to calling it xenophobic.
You should recall what the rally was about, and what "that group" was trying to accomplish. That group was opposing the removal of monument to a general that fought a treasonous war against our country over the right for humans to keep other humans enslaved. Heather Heyer, an anti-racist protester, was murdered by a member of "that group" that ran her over with a car.
>Trump’s been trying to get a legal fix for DACA for months now.
Trump has been using these children as pawns in a ploy to close doors for legal immigrants. He does not offer fixes, the conman only offers cons.
> As far as TPS is concerned, maybe the “T” doesn’t stand for what I think it does
TPS was a compromise reached with a cadre of powerful xenophobes. It in no way excused or repaired the damage done to El Salvador by the civil war promulgated by the US-backed right-wing government[1]. The people that were displaced by the war and earthquake should have been granted asylum and a path to full citizenship, instead they were left in limbo and abandoned by our leaders, on both sides of the aisle.
Wish congress would have moved forward and put a bill on his desk, despite his statements he would have had to sign it or lose face.
[0] http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/sep/19/...
'68 percent of Americans said they oppose "the lottery that randomly picks 50,000 people to enter the U.S. each year for greater diversity.' https://www.npr.org/2018/01/23/580037717/what-the-latest-imm...
Family based (chain migration) is more evenly split according to article.
In fact the wall would have been physical, rather than 'symbolic'
A wall symbolizing keeping out foreigners without actually doing anything useful to do so is pretty much the definition of symbolic.
Who knows what Trump really wants? One day he says generous things about DACA, the next he wants to kill it. I think it depends whether he watched Fox news in the interim. Or spoke to Stephen Miller.
He did the same thing with gun legislation. Says promising things in front of the camera, but then kills anything meaningful after checking in with the NRA and/or Fox news.
I wish I was kidding.
I’m all for increased immigration and amnesty, but I’m not in support of open borders, so a compromise for increased border security sounded like good policy to me.
Despite also supporting amnesty, chain migration, and increased visa quotas I’ve been told I’m racist for wanting a secure border. Racist for not supporting border policies that create an underclass of undocumented, helpless workers.
Doesn't work so well now, it would put enormous pressure on social programs already near their breaking point, and drive unemployment sky high as unskilled jobs are diminishing. Crime would increase as poverty is positive correlated.
However, if you make it past that initial surge, the 2nd generation could provide an enormous boost to the economy as long as education was prioritized.
Compare to uncapped skilled immigration and it's a much higher risk.
Is that a new term for nautical piracy now that “piracy” has been stolen for copyright infringement?
You sit in Thailand, contracted to a client headquartered in San Francisco, whose servers you solely work on sit in Montreal, and the team you work with offices in Berlin; if you try to go legal in such a situation, you will either quickly go broke on attorney, CPA and FX fees, the taxes every jurisdiction levies because there are no reciprocity agreements for many of those inter-relationships yet, or both. The situation is ugly even in supposed "streamlined" situations like NAFTA between the US and Canada; I've seen firms with offices in both nations, employees in both nations, and employees from one are still denied entering the other to do face-to-face work with co-workers, and it's gotten to such a ridiculous level that Legal just verbally signs off on a "don't ask don't tell" policy to declare upon entry that the visit is only for a (or series of) business meetings.
It's not difficult to perform the physical expatriation act. It's difficult to navigate the logistical tail of expatriation though, because movement of labor is still far more constrained than capital movement. Time-wise, it is like 2-3 orders of magnitude. I can flip a year's worth of even high-end labor in USD to CNY under all the capital controls in both host nations in 10 days give or take and make the transfer permanent. Whereas permanently moving my labor in compliance between the same nations is on the order of thousands of days, semi-permanently (residency) moving the same labor is on the order of hundreds of days, and moving labor within 90 days involves all sorts of strings attached that capital doesn't bother with. Issues surrounding healthcare, education (if you have or intend to start a family), cultural and social fit, language, taxes, housing, transportation, forex, etc. pop up when you really dig into the expatriation process, and an amazing amount of what you put up with are purely political constructs and not intrinsic to the actual move itself. So the question becomes not "What are my best and quickest options...", but more "here is my situation and anticipated future desires in lots of pretty intimate personal detail, now what are my options?"
I used to subscribe to the Church of Globalization, but once I delved into the actual practice of expatriation and realized just how much capital movement is favored over labor movement, that was the start of the crack in that edifice, and now I want Capital Globalization rolled back to reciprocity with Labor Globalization, and then roll both forward in tandem. When it gets as easy to move around the world and vote with your feet as with your financial tokens, then I'm fully on board with progressing globalization.
The big problem in much of the modern world is that capital is free to move, but labour is not. This leads to a corporate beauty pageant, run by governments against one another to collect mobile tax revenues. This causes problems in richer nations (such as Britain and the US), which leads to lots of unusual political decisions (rather like the eponymous president at the top of this thread), while the corporations make out like bandits.
I personally believe that as the poster above, we should ensure that both labour and capital are equally mobile, as this will lead to better long-term outcomes. I make no representations as to the goodness of the short-term outcomes, however.