http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... conditions
I thought this was a very good editorial. Immigration is this terms "no new taxes" issue (and more important in the long term).
R/
Don't Buckle on Immigration
- Frankingun
- Posts: 1925
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 2:03 am
Re: Don't Buckle on Immigration
Only thing is, no more amnesties. We do one, then another, rinse, repeat.
- Weetabix
- Posts: 6107
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2008 11:04 pm
Re: Don't Buckle on Immigration
Random thoughts on the linked article:
Incentives receive too little consideration in legislation. Almost all (actually all?) legislation provides some sort of positive or negative incentive. They really need to bat this stuff around. The legislator who proposes something should be required to submit it to someone who opposes it to figure out the incentives/loopholes that are left in there that the author did not intend. I.E. how can it be gamed?
An old boss used to tell me when he was reviewing my plans and specs that he was going to review it "with his asshole contractor hat on" to see where my project could bite me. It was a valuable education.
That is in place in some areas. When my company had downsized to just me, I was doing admin work. The State required me to do a background check on myself to make sure I was here legally.(ideally by making it mandatory for employers to check the legal status of new hires)
Quoted for truth. Gutless bunch, those Republicans.the related willingness of many Republicans to approve an amnesty with few or no conditions
Ah. There's the rub. Granting amnesty to the DACA crowd without hard language that has a cutoff date, and that firmly states that no more group amnesties will ever be granted for anything will be an incentive for others to bring their children for a future amnesty.Republicans in the White House and the Congress ought to make it clear that they will not accept a deal that encourages illegal immigration
Incentives receive too little consideration in legislation. Almost all (actually all?) legislation provides some sort of positive or negative incentive. They really need to bat this stuff around. The legislator who proposes something should be required to submit it to someone who opposes it to figure out the incentives/loopholes that are left in there that the author did not intend. I.E. how can it be gamed?
An old boss used to tell me when he was reviewing my plans and specs that he was going to review it "with his asshole contractor hat on" to see where my project could bite me. It was a valuable education.
Note to self: start reading sig lines. They're actually quite amusing. :D
- Windy Wilson
- Posts: 4875
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:32 am
Re: Don't Buckle on Immigration
Buckle is their middle names.the related willingness of many Republicans to approve an amnesty with few or no conditions
The use of the word "but" usually indicates that everything preceding it in a sentence is a lie.
E.g.:
"I believe in Freedom of Speech, but". . .
"I support the Second Amendment, but". . .
--Randy
E.g.:
"I believe in Freedom of Speech, but". . .
"I support the Second Amendment, but". . .
--Randy
- Windy Wilson
- Posts: 4875
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 5:32 am
Re: Don't Buckle on Immigration
Windy Wilson wrote:Buckle is their middle names.the related willingness of many Republicans to approve an amnesty with few or no conditions
This is what good lawyers do, and why they are called deal killers. Most contract lawsuits are in essence hiring two lawyers and an overworked judge to decide what the two parties would have done had they thought about this situation in the beginning.The legislator who proposes something should be required to submit it to someone who opposes it to figure out the incentives/loopholes that are left in there that the author did not intend. I.E. how can it be gamed?
The use of the word "but" usually indicates that everything preceding it in a sentence is a lie.
E.g.:
"I believe in Freedom of Speech, but". . .
"I support the Second Amendment, but". . .
--Randy
E.g.:
"I believe in Freedom of Speech, but". . .
"I support the Second Amendment, but". . .
--Randy
- Rich
- Posts: 2592
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:11 pm
Re: Don't Buckle on Immigration
Amnesty or not, it's an automatic failure without a wall in place.
Build the damn wall to slow the flood to a trickle, then talk about amnesty.
FWIW, it's my belief that we will wind up with some form of amnesty as it will be found to be too expensive to try to deport all the illegals in the country now. And I don't really have a heartburn over it.
But, build the wall.
Hold Trump's feet to the fire if we have to.
Build the damn wall to slow the flood to a trickle, then talk about amnesty.
FWIW, it's my belief that we will wind up with some form of amnesty as it will be found to be too expensive to try to deport all the illegals in the country now. And I don't really have a heartburn over it.
But, build the wall.
Hold Trump's feet to the fire if we have to.
A weak government usually remains a servant of citizens, while a strong government usually becomes the master of its subjects.
- paraphrased from several sources
A choice, not an echo. - Goldwater campaign, 1964
- paraphrased from several sources
A choice, not an echo. - Goldwater campaign, 1964
- randy
- Posts: 8335
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:33 pm
- Location: EM79VQ
Re: Don't Buckle on Immigration
The solution to which (as has happened to some extent in the last year) is to make it uncomfortable and unprofitable for those folks until they self-deport.Rich wrote:FWIW, it's my belief that we will wind up with some form of amnesty as it will be found to be too expensive to try to deport all the illegals
Actual enforcement of laws against employing illegals (up to and including jail time, especially for Corporate CEOs and other higher ups that knew, or should have known, their company was playing games). Even if not one goes to Club Fed, the extra expense of maintaining extra staff and lawyers to keep them out of jail could add up to the point where it's cheaper to just not bother with taking the chance.
Hammering "Sanctuary" cities through transferring (not withholding) all Federal funds to jurisdictions in compliance. No grants for anything. No student aid for any school within their borders. No "back pay" either. If you come into compliance, then you can start from scratch. All funds you didn't receive during that period are gone, already spent in compliant jurisdictions. Or for paying for the relocation expenses of Federal Employees to homes outside the jurisdiction, and the relocation of Federal offices.
No official travel by any Federal official not directly involved in National Security, Law Enforcement or tax collection operations (you don't get rid of the IRSthat easy you punks, you still gotta pay without getting any benefits.) anywhere within said borders. Air travel to be routed through airports not associated with a sanctuary location. The extra costs of airline tickets and TDY pay to come from funds that would have gone to that location.
No attendance by any Federal official to any convention, conference training or seminar in your jurisdiction.
No politician or government official from that jurisdiction will be granted admittance to any Federal convention, conference training or seminar, except as determined to be essential to support LE or Defense operations in areas outside of the offending jurisdiction.
If you happen to have a military base in your area, all housing and business establishments are declared Off Limits to all military personnel.
You get the idea...
...even before I read MHI, my response to seeing a poster for the stars of the latest Twilight movies was "I see 2 targets and a collaborator".
- Jered
- Posts: 7859
- Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2008 1:30 am
Re: Don't Buckle on Immigration
Congress can regulate commerce between the states.randy wrote:The solution to which (as has happened to some extent in the last year) is to make it uncomfortable and unprofitable for those folks until they self-deport.Rich wrote:FWIW, it's my belief that we will wind up with some form of amnesty as it will be found to be too expensive to try to deport all the illegals
Actual enforcement of laws against employing illegals (up to and including jail time, especially for Corporate CEOs and other higher ups that knew, or should have known, their company was playing games). Even if not one goes to Club Fed, the extra expense of maintaining extra staff and lawyers to keep them out of jail could add up to the point where it's cheaper to just not bother with taking the chance.
Hammering "Sanctuary" cities through transferring (not withholding) all Federal funds to jurisdictions in compliance. No grants for anything. No student aid for any school within their borders. No "back pay" either. If you come into compliance, then you can start from scratch. All funds you didn't receive during that period are gone, already spent in compliant jurisdictions. Or for paying for the relocation expenses of Federal Employees to homes outside the jurisdiction, and the relocation of Federal offices.
No official travel by any Federal official not directly involved in National Security, Law Enforcement or tax collection operations (you don't get rid of the IRSthat easy you punks, you still gotta pay without getting any benefits.) anywhere within said borders. Air travel to be routed through airports not associated with a sanctuary location. The extra costs of airline tickets and TDY pay to come from funds that would have gone to that location.
No attendance by any Federal official to any convention, conference training or seminar in your jurisdiction.
No politician or government official from that jurisdiction will be granted admittance to any Federal convention, conference training or seminar, except as determined to be essential to support LE or Defense operations in areas outside of the offending jurisdiction.
If you happen to have a military base in your area, all housing and business establishments are declared Off Limits to all military personnel.
You get the idea...
If we wanted to fuck California harder, could Congress cut off their access to the Colorado river and electricity market?
...and because I like saying it, fuck the moonbats in California.
The avalanche has already started. It is too late for the pebbles to vote.
- Rich
- Posts: 2592
- Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 8:11 pm
Re: Don't Buckle on Immigration
Randy, aint gonna happen. The liberal Dems will make it impossible. And the way the American voter lurches from one party to the other, we will always have liberal Dems.
A weak government usually remains a servant of citizens, while a strong government usually becomes the master of its subjects.
- paraphrased from several sources
A choice, not an echo. - Goldwater campaign, 1964
- paraphrased from several sources
A choice, not an echo. - Goldwater campaign, 1964
- randy
- Posts: 8335
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 11:33 pm
- Location: EM79VQ
Re: Don't Buckle on Immigration
Oh, I know. But a guy can dream.Rich wrote:Randy, aint gonna happen. The liberal Dems will make it impossible. And the way the American voter lurches from one party to the other, we will always have liberal Dems.
...even before I read MHI, my response to seeing a poster for the stars of the latest Twilight movies was "I see 2 targets and a collaborator".