2016 United States Election

[Faramond]

Yesterday he came out against immigration. Not just undocumented immigrants, but legal immigrants as well. I almost hope he does win the GOP nomination.

Oh really? Is that what Walker did?

This is what he said: “In terms of legal immigration, how we need to approach that going forward is saying—the next president and the next Congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that’s based on, first and foremost, on protecting American workers and American wages,”

You know, the whole point of legal immigration is that it's not just a free-for-all. There's a process to follow, and there are limits set. Walker wants to set those limits based on the effect of immigration based on the effect on wages and employment.

To claim that this means he is "against legal immigration" is either dishonest, sloppy, or something that rhymes with "pounded thumb".

I almost hope he wins the GOP nomination too, to see what other insulting rhyming characterizations you come up with.

[Primula Baggins]

The effect of legal immigration on existing American jobs is not clear, and it's quite possible that there is none and that it actually stimulates the economy. Scott Walker has definitely changed his position on immigration (here's Politico's 2013 article on Scott Walker's support for a path to citizenship: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/02/s ... 87960.html), and Occam's razor indicates to me at least that it's simply because he's running for president now.

Here are some conservative voices on the topic of immigration, links gleaned from a Washington Post article yesterday by Jennifer Rubin (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rig ... migration/):

Here's the Cato Institute responding to Jess Sessions' op-ed on the topic: http://www.cato.org/blog/rebuttal-sen-s ... ation-oped

Here's Grover Norquist's take on immigration reform: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... st-support

Here's the American Action Forum: http://americanactionforum.org/sites/de ... Budget.pdf

Finally, here's the abstract from a very recent paper in the journal Public Choice:

The economics literature generally finds a positive, but small, gain in income to native-born populations from immigrants and potentially large gains in world incomes. But immigrants can also impact a recipient nation’s institutions. A growing empirical literature supports the importance of strong private property rights, a rule of law, and an environment of economic freedom for promoting long-run prosperity. But little is known about how immigration impacts these institutions. This paper empirically examines how immigration impacts a nation’s policies and institutions. We find no evidence of negative and some evidence of positive impacts in institutional quality as a result of immigration.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Faramond, I guess you think GOP senators like John McCain, Orin Hatch and Rob Portman are also dishonest, sloppy, or something that rhymes with "pounded thumb".

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/republi ... ign=buffer

I often disagree with each of them, but I have never called them stupid, because they are not. I disagree with Ted Cruz more than just about anyone, but I made a point just a little earlier in this thread of noting that he is brilliant (and I have often made the same point about Justice Scalia, despite my vigorous disagreement with most of his decisions). I said that Walker is stupid because, in my opinion, he demonstrably is (and not just because he is a college dropout). Your implication that I expressed that opinion simply because I disagree with him is uncalled for.

No, he didn't come out for banning all legal immigration, nor would any reasonable person think that is what I was saying, if they look at the issue at all. But yes, he came out against legal immigration that is not just reasonable, but important to both the American economy, and what has always been considered the heart of the "American way". I will not apologize for my comments.

[Faramond]

Faramond, I guess you think GOP senators like John McCain, Orin Hatch and Rob Portman are also dishonest, sloppy, or something that rhymes with "pounded thumb".

No, I don't, because they actually addressed what Walker said and didn't caricature his position as you did when you said he "came out against immigration". When you characterize the position that way, it makes it sound like he opposes all legal immigration. It's a misleading and dishonest characterization and does not contribute in any meaningful way to discussion.

It's very easy to criticize Walker on this without misrepresenting what he said. Those three GOP senators did so.

McCain said he worries about the GOP looking anti-immigrant if its candidates are casting doubt on the virtues of legal immigration.

And of course Walker's position can look "anti-immigrant" if you're not looking carefully at it, or if you want to spin it that way, but in truth it is more subtle than that. Walker of course had since tried to clarify his position through a spokesperson, which was in the article you linked to.

I said that Walker is stupid because, in my opinion, he demonstrably is (and not just because he is a college dropout). Your implication that I expressed that opinion simply because I disagree with him is uncalled for.

Well, being a college dropout has no relevance at all to whether he is stupid or not. And the only thing I implied was that you would continue to heap creative criticisms upon Walker, which I hardly think is incorrect, given the posts you have already made about him.

It must be alarming to Democrats that they lost three times to such a stupid candidate in a purple-blue state. Especially the recall and the last election, when they poured all kinds of resources into beating him.

No, he didn't come out for banning all legal immigration, nor would any reasonable person think that is what I was saying, if they look at the issue at all. But yes, he came out against legal immigration that is not just reasonable, but important to both the American economy, and what has always been considered the heart of the "American way".

Well, this is a matter for debate, of course, whether legal immigration is important to the American economy, and it gets to what Walker actually said. I do think that a reasonable person can interpret "he came out against immigration" as meaning he is opposed to all immigration, especially without context as you presented it.

Note: Legal immigration could both hurt and help the economy, of course. It could bring in much needed high-skill workers while at the same time bring in enough low-skill workers to dilute the labor marker and depress wages at that end. I'm not saying that this is the case, but it's possible.

I will not apologize for my comments.

I didn't expect you to. But I also expect that when I come back here and caricature Hillary Clinton's position on something and call her a rhyming insulting name you won't say a word about it. What's good for the duck is good for the drake.

Prim, it would have been nice to see such substantive rebuttals to what Walker actually said earlier. To me it's a lot more in the spirit of Lasto ( at it's best ) than simply saying "Walker came out against immigration". It's a pity it took me kicking up a fuss to provoke it.

[yovargas]

(I thought about saying something decided it was pretty unlikely to change anything so it wasn't worth the effort.)

[Faramond]

What do you want to change, yova?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Looking at what Walker said (the quote, not just the portion that you extracted):

"In terms of legal immigration, how we need to approach that going forward is saying — the next president and the next congress need to make decisions about a legal immigration system that's based on, first and foremost, protecting American workers and American wages, because the more I've talked to folks, I've talked to Senator Sessions and others out there — but it is a fundamentally lost issue by many in elected positions today — is what is this doing for American workers looking for jobs, what is this doing to wages, and we need to have that be at the forefront of our discussion going forward."

It is hard to see what legal immigration he would support. A highly skilled from South Africa who emigrates to the U.S. on a fiancé visa is just as much of a "threat" to American workers as someone coming here under the H-1B program. I guess the only legal immigration that he would support would be immigrants who don't work and either collect welfare or engage in criminal conduct.

I completely agree with Senator Hatch, a conservative who has long been a thoughtful figure in American politics when he said: "I basically think that's poppycock."

[yovargas]

And I'd say there's a world of difference between "I prioritize protecting American workers" and "I oppose all immigration". Eh.

What do you want to change, yova?

The world, but I'm much too lazy.

[Faramond]

I wondered how long it would be until you brought up my wife being an immigrant.

You're reading way too much in Walker's statement that's not there. Asking what legal immigration does to Americans looking for jobs and to wages doesn't then imply that you're dead set against all legal immigration. That's such a strange leap to make.

I have no idea what sorts of legal immigration Walker supports. I don't think you know either, though you seem to claim that you do.

I don't think Walker has done a good job transitioning from being a state-wide candidate to a national candidate. Right now he looks to me like a slightly more competent version of Rick Perry, someone who may look good to some of the Republican base from afar but will eventually make enough mis-steps to flounder and fail. I don't see voting for him in my future, and I don't think legal immigration needs to be overhauled, though I also don't think examining the effects of immigration of the labor market and at least considering that is outlandish or extremist.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't think Walker has any more of an idea of what legal immigration he would support than I do. I think he got in trouble with his tea party base for expressing tepid support for some kind of immigration reform that might include some path to legalizing some illegal immigrants, so he seized on the most extreme immigration position currently being expressed, that of Sen. Sessions, without actually understanding what it meant.

[Faramond]

I agree that this is a reasonable interpretation of what happened.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

And I agree that I probably should have been more specific in the first place about what he said, and what I thought it meant.

[axordil]

The biggest reason businesses like H1-B visas, in my experience, beyond even wage differentials, is that they provide leverage over high-skilled workers that they otherwise wouldn't have. An American worker at a certain skill level knows they can walk and find another job if things really become untenable. An H1-B with the same skill set can stay here exactly as long as the job lasts. If they get laid off they have an extremely limited period to find another sponsor/employer.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I could put this in the same sex marriage thread, but I think it really belongs here instead.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... y-marriage

Mr. Cruz knows full well that the chances of this proposed constitutional amendment passing is less than the chances of the sun turning green, but he knows that this is the best way to position himself as the principled candidate of the right, and keep the issue alive even after the expected SCOTUS decision legalizing same sex marriage nation-wide. I can't help but be impressed with both his chutzpah and his strategic thinking, even while he scares the hell out of me.

ETA: I assume that people like Bernie Sanders know equally that their proposed constitutional amendment overturning Citizens United has an equally zero chance of passing, but it doesn't stop them from introducing it simply to get their base excited. It makes me a little sad to see people wasting time on something like this when their energy could be better served on something that actually could be productive.

[Primula Baggins]

Making unaware people aware of the extent of a problem so fundamental has a value in itself, in my view. It's moving the Overton Window, which is a tactic the right has used with great success, and by similar means (introducing impossible legislation, calling for changes that will never happen, etc.). The result is they've moved the national perception of what a "centrist position" is very far to the right. For example, a "centrist" on abortion is someone who thinks it's all right to allow one if the woman would die without it.

[Cerin]

It must be alarming to Democrats that they lost three times to such a stupid candidate in a purple-blue state. Especially the recall and the last election, when they poured all kinds of resources into beating him.

It is indeed alarming. He and the Republican legislature are destroying the state.

I don't understand the point of your last comment. You can't run an election without pouring all kinds of resources into it. Of course they poured all kinds of resources into it. And the Republicans poured about $30 million more than the Democrats poured. I rather doubt the money spent in the failed effort is uppermost in anyone's mind, as a factor in the dismay they feel as the observe the dismantling of their once excellent state systems.

[Faramond]

The point is that Walker faced a tough election in which the opposition got their message out pretty clearly, and he still won. Even if he is very stupid, he obviously has some skill as a candidate, or the Democrats message just didn't resonate with swing voters as much as Democrats would like it to, or some combination of the two.

He and the Republican legislature are destroying the state.

I hear this kind of statement all the time, except from the other direction -- Jerry Brown and the Democrats are destroying California! It's always nonsense. Usually the product of hyper-partisans, in my experience. There's too much inertia, too many checks and balances, for any governor or legislature to change things that much, either good or bad. Has crime gone way up in Wisconsin? Has the economy plummeted? Have the public universities closed?

If things were really that awful in Wisconsin, then Walker would have been recalled, or at the very least lost last year. No amount of money spent can convince a majority of the people to vote for someone who is truly destroying a state.

Vehemently disagreeing with someone's policies and proposals doesn't mean they are destroying a state. But it's a very common claim, from both sides, and I think I know why people like to use it.

[JewelSong]

Just popping in here to say that I am enjoying the spirited discussion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Frelga]

Ted Cruz says he's going on Obamacare

I thought that was a joke, at first, but no. He has previously been insured through his wife's employer, but she quit to work on his campaign.

Cruz told the Des Moines Register Tuesday, “We will presumably go on the exchange and sign up for health care.” He then confirmed that he would sign up in an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash.

/.../

Because of an amendment to the Affordable Care Act championed by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), members of Congress not covered by Medicare must receive their government-funded health care via exchanges like millions of other Americans who are not afforded insurance directly by their employers

[yovargas]

That's pretty darn funny.....