MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters 
Thursday, April 24, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 50.0° F  Light Rain
Collapse Photo Bar

Immigration fight: all about future voters

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby fisticuffs » Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:59 am

As liberal from Wisconsin, you might want to tone down the treason claims, when referring to the minority of a legislative body stopping a bill from passing, through unprecedented obstructionist procedures.


The WI Democrats haven't made obstruction a standing policy. They used a procedural move in one instance for one pretty aggressive bill that they were not allowed to debate or amend. Congressional Republicans filibuster everything. There is a difference.
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7739
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:38 am

fisticuffs wrote:
As liberal from Wisconsin, you might want to tone down the treason claims, when referring to the minority of a legislative body stopping a bill from passing, through unprecedented obstructionist procedures.


The WI Democrats haven't made obstruction a standing policy. They used a procedural move in one instance for one pretty aggressive bill that they were not allowed to debate or amend. Congressional Republicans filibuster everything. There is a difference.


definitely, but calling the use of a legitimate procedure "treason" is pretty far fetched. The rule exists in the Senate. If they want to stop that rule, it wouldn't be that difficult, but Democrats like to use it too, though granted not as much recently.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1901
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby fisticuffs » Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:42 am

definitely, but calling the use of a legitimate procedure "treason" is pretty far fetched.


It's not the specific use of the filibuster I consider treason it's the strategery of obstruction of any and all measures that would help the US economy as a political weapon. It's holding the country's credit rating hostage, holding up every single administration appointment, etc. etc. These people were elected to legislate not obstruct and fund raise.
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7739
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:56 am

fisticuffs wrote: These people were elected to legislate not obstruct and fund raise.


More correctly, they were elected to represent the citizens of their states. While you or I might disagree with their assessments, a lot of them are representing people who believe otherwise. Granted they also used the filibuster to shut down Obama (and Reid/Pelosi's) agenda in the last session, but the voting public did that even more when they filled the House with Republicans.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1901
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby Detritus » Fri Jun 22, 2012 10:28 am

Huckleby wrote:
Detritus wrote: Nevertheless, I repeat: Where did you get that phrasing?

CNN, NY TIMES, NPR
I never heard word "citizenship" on FOX either
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/22/us/po ... ation.html

And if he did utter the word somewhere, it was in reference to an insignificant number of soldiers, so lets get back to the main topic: all of those disenfranchised, innocent kids who grew up in America.

All I was looking for was a source, preferably with a quote. Even the NYT report had too much paraphrasing and discussion and not enough of his actual words--and they did somewhat better than the Reuters stringer everyone else ran. For a speech that was supposedly so important to the campaign, the press sure didn't put much effort into reporting it.
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2305
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby Huckleby » Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:40 am

Its unlikely that Romney uttered the word "citizenship", since it is hot button. "Legal status" sounds Romneyesque. But if he did use the c word, it only referred to tiny number of people, it is trivial, let it go.
Huckleby
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 5502
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 5:12 pm
Location: parents' basement

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:54 am

Francis Di Domizio wrote:
fisticuffs wrote: These people were elected to legislate not obstruct and fund raise.

More correctly, they were elected to represent the citizens of their states.

Unfortunately, they are doing a poor job of that. An overwhelming number of Americans from every part of the country wants the very rich to pay a bit more in taxes. Their Congressional representatives have ignored that; instead they push for more tax breaks for the 1%.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19171
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:12 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote:
fisticuffs wrote: These people were elected to legislate not obstruct and fund raise.

More correctly, they were elected to represent the citizens of their states.

Unfortunately, they are doing a poor job of that. An overwhelming number of Americans from every part of the country wants the very rich to pay a bit more in taxes. Their Congressional representatives have ignored that; instead they push for more tax breaks for the 1%.


Yet despite that, voters chose to elect significantly more Republicans then Democrats in 2010. So either not everyone agrees with your assessment of the job Republicans are doing, or they think the Democrats are doing even worse.

Or maybe an overwhelming number of Americans don't vote on one issue alone (or if they do it isn't that particular issue).

edit: Granted we only really review our elected representatives every two years, so it's completely possible that 2012 will reverse the trend from 2010, but if Wisconsin is any indicator, that seems less likely than it did a month ago.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1901
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby johnfajardohenry » Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:25 pm

fisticuffs wrote:Why did the 55 votes for the Dream Act lost to the 41 votes against? That is what you are missing. Unprecedented procedural obstruction. I'd go as far as calling it treason.


Treason? really?

I was going to say that seems a bit overwrought but I think a better phrase would be batcrap crazy.

Treason? Could you explain?

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1317
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby johnfajardohenry » Sat Jun 23, 2012 9:38 pm

[/quote]

More correctly, they were elected to represent the citizens of their states. While you or I might disagree with their assessments, a lot of them are representing people who believe otherwise.[/quote]


Wrong. The Senate does not represent the citizens of their states. They represent their states. Many times those interests are aligned but when not, their first duty is to their state.

The people are represented by the Representatives in Congress.

The Constitutional responsibility of the Senate is to slow things down. Its job is to be undemocratic and obstructionist. See for example:

"To the framers themselves, Madison explained that the Senate would be a "necessary fence" against the "fickleness and passion" that tended to influence the attitudes of the general public and members of the House of Representatives. George Washington is said to have told Jefferson that the framers had created the Senate to "cool" House legislation just as a saucer was used to cool hot tea.

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/his ... reated.htm

The Senate's bedrock founding principle has always been "unlimited debate" Any senator can speak about anything at all, relevant or not for as long as they like.

Up until 1916 or so there was no such thing as cloture. A single Senator could hold the floor as long as they were physically capable (filibuster) and there was no procedural way to stop them. Several senators, speaking in turns, could hold the floor forever, or at least til the end of the Congress.

The Dems had the chance in 2007 or so to change the rules on cloture and decided not to. They felt that they might need it themselves when next in the minority.

I think the Demmies in the Senate ought to show some spine by forcing actual filibusters. Make those senators actually stand up and speak for hours and days on end. The way the Demmies (and repos to a lesser extent) cave on the mere threat of a filibuster is shameful.

You are right to be upset. Not at the Repos for using the tactic though. You should be upset at the Demmies who let them.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1317
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby Stella_Guru » Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:13 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote:
fisticuffs wrote: These people were elected to legislate not obstruct and fund raise.

More correctly, they were elected to represent the citizens of their states.

Unfortunately, they are doing a poor job of that. An overwhelming number of Americans from every part of the country wants the very rich to pay a bit more in taxes. Their Congressional representatives have ignored that; instead they push for more tax breaks for the 1%.

Obama's presidential executive action regarding immigration demonstrates that he can pretty much act forcefully for things important to him if he so chooses, doesn't it? What are the limits of presidential executive orders and could they be used to champion legislation targeting some of the major economic issues we face?
Stella_Guru
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1162
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:08 pm

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby Henry Vilas » Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:35 pm

Stella_Guru wrote: What are the limits of presidential executive orders and could they be used to champion legislation targeting some of the major economic issues we face?

The limitations are vaguely defined. Only two have ever been overturned by federal courts.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19171
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby Henry Vilas » Sun Jun 24, 2012 12:44 pm

And speaking about vagaries, here is what the Romney camp has to say about Obama's executive order:
Ed Gillespie, a senior adviser to Mitt Romney, would not say on Sunday whether a President Romney would leave President Barack Obama's recent immigration directive in place, but said all executive actions will be subject to "review and repeal."
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19171
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby snoqueen » Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:08 pm

...despite that, voters chose to elect significantly more Republicans then Democrats in 2010. So either not everyone agrees with your assessment of the job Republicans are doing, or they think the Democrats are doing even worse.


Or they're engaging in self-contradiction, the way they are on the healthcare bill. Surveys are showing many parts of the bill are actually supported by a large majority, with the exception being the individual mandate. Still, people say they hate the healthcare bill when asked.

A lot of this is the same kind of nonsensical talk we hear from Medicare recipients who like Medicare but want the government to out of healthcare. In other words, a poorly-informed electorate has been led to support legislation whose details they don't agree with, but whose hot-button name ("Obamacare") they've been convinced represents something evil.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 10979
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: Immigration fight: all about future voters

Postby johnfajardohenry » Sun Jun 24, 2012 3:08 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:And speaking about vagaries, here is what the Romney camp has to say about Obama's executive order:


I think this is all a massive squirrel exercise to distract us from the Fast & Furious scandal and the Holder contempt charge.

First, it was not an executive order. It did not even come from the White House. Most people think it is because Obama seemed to imply that it was in his speech.

It is not even a DHS "order". It is an explanatory memo from Janet Napolitano. As she begins the memo:

"By this memorandum, I am setting forth how, in the exercise of our prosecutorial discretion, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) should enforce the Nation's immigration laws against certain young people who were brought to this country as children and know only this country as home."

But then, if you read the memo, you find out that it is not really about young people brought as chidren to the US.

They can have come, on their own, at up to 16 years old. They can be as old as 30. They only need to have lived here for 5 years. During those 5 years they can have spent as much as 6 months, each year, outside of the US.

It also addresses people who served illegally in the military. It is hard for me to believe that there are illegals in our military. Getting into and staying in the military is not like getting a job at HoDe of McDonalds. They check pretty closely. I wonder what Obama was really talking about here.

The whole memo doesn't really change any current practices in any dramatic way. It is basically suggestions, not even orders or directives, from Lucy Napolitano to the acting head of ICE. As she says:

"This memorandum confers no substantive right, immigration status or pathway to citizenship."

The memo is here http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/s1-e ... ildren.pdf

Maybe everyone should pause, take a deep breath and read it. It's only 3 pages.

It does seem to be serving its purpose well, though. It is taking up news media space that would be otherwise occupied with F&F and Holder. So there is that.

And Romney was stupid enough to fall for it.

For the record, I think we should deport all illegal aliens as we find them. If they have citizen children, the children can stay or go with the parents. They have a right to be here, not the parents.

John Henry
johnfajardohenry
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1317
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 12:22 pm

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Detritus, Ned Flanders, nutria and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


FacebookcommentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar