- Presidents have a finite amount of political capital to push the issues that are important to them. With a country that is typically divided nearly 50/50 a President who uses their capital to push the country in their direction will soon face determined resistance, and find their capital running into the laws of diminishing returns, or running out. They also have to be careful not to use up too much on one issue, or that one issue defines them (Bush-Iraq Obama-Obamacare) and can ultimately handcuff them.
- Congress has a finite amount of time to take action on legislation. There is simply no ability to propose, debate, and pass all of the laws that all 535 member of the House and Senate would like to address. So you have to be careful to make sure the laws that are most important to you, are being given attention.
- Contrary to what Paul Krugman and others suggest, the government really does have limited financial resources. When you decide to spend more money on one government policy, you have to pull back somewhere else, increase the deficit, or ask the American public to pony up more taxes. So you have to carefully choose which programs and policies should be given financial preference.
Another, more typical way of viewing this is, would be to argue that Governing is about choices. Not just binary choices for each type of policy, but a more complicated set of choices regarding priorities and resources. We can certainly learn some things by finding out how a leader stands on individual issues. But to really understand who that leader is as a person, requires us to figure out how a leader prioritizes the issues that are important to them.
This is where I have come to a conclusion that alarms me as an American. Many of our politicians are making a choice to prioritize the specific desires of people who are not Americans over the specific rights and needs of those who "are" American. Given all the problems we currently have to solve in this country, why should we spend our limited resources on providing rights to illegal aliens, or making sure we take in millions of refugees from other countries?
As single issues, we can certainly agree to disagree on the merits of such programs. But if we are looking at this as a matter or priority, why should our leaders be spending time, effort, government resources, and tax-payer money providing aid to illegals and refugees... when we don't have the resources to take care of Americans. Why do some politicians believe that the country needs to use a chunk of our finite resources and devote them to people who they are "not" elected to serve?
I ask this question, not to be flippant, but as a matter of fundamental curiosity. I can accept that there are general arguments to be made in favor of these programs. Although, I must confess, that most of them seem more symbolic and emotional than actually anything of tangible importance.
So I want to take this to the next logical step and have someone explain to me why illegal aliens and Middle Eastern refugees matter "more" than the problems that American citizens face? I want someone to give me a reasonable explanation as to why legal status for illegals and more refugees should be seen as more important to me than say fixing the budget deficit, fighting terrorism, reducing crime, or dealing with stagnant wages and a rising cost of living. I want to know why we should use our limited resources to help people who are not Americans, which by nature takes away resources that actually could help the Americans our Government has taken an oath to serve.
A simple question, that I doubt anyone reading this can address with anything more than lofty rhetoric that misses the point.
32 comments:
The issues of immigration and illegal aliens are not independent of issues facing American citizens, and therefore the resources devoted to those issues cannot be silo'd into only one purpose and not another. The governance is not a zero-sum game, far from it. For example, one of the many inter-relations that you questioned is the matter of rights. It is far cheaper both in administration and enforcement, and more certain, less time consuming for our legislature and less destructive to extend the basic rights to all people who are acting as citizens than it would be to re-order our society to accommodate your vision.
I hope that you realize that this is the most pragmatic possible approach to your point, and not loftily missing as you preemptively presume.
Well WP...
I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that providing legal status to millions of illegals is cost effective, and so did several courts who suggested that there was a tangible burden (including financial burdens) for states if Obama's immigration policy was enacted.
Looking at it realistically, I don't see how administratively there would be much cost difference processing an illegal for purposes of legalization or deportation. I have substantial doubts that the one time cost of deportation would be any costlier than the long term cost of providing all of the government aid that they would be eligible for almost immediately and indefinitely.
The only additional cost argument that I see as realistic would be in "finding" illegals, which we are really not doing to any degree anyways. Moreover, nobody is suggesting any real changes to that policy at this point and time.
I would also point out that with the time and energy Obama and Democrats have used to push the failed immigration policy over the past seven years, that time and energy could have been put to use working on other issues. It wasn't. That is simply an undeniable fact. You didn't address that (and blaming the Republicans for not following along is not a valid argument).
Moreover, the amount of time spent on an issue that deeply divides Americans was obviously a political (not governing) move.
Lastly - I feel like you simply refused to answer the question, and rather came up with an elaborate argument for why the premise is wrong. Which in many ways is sort of missing the point.
I want to know "why" this should be a priority? You neither argued that it wasn't, and you didn't come close to answering why.
As I have said before, for years and years and years certain people, many of them rich Republicans, were quite happy to illegally lure and hire illegal immigrants here, in effect telling them,
"If you will cross the border illegally, we will hire you illegally and illegally pay you wages, wages which will seem low to us but high to you. So leave your impoverished situations over there and come over here to take advantage of this situation."
And they did. For years and years and years. And many of them had children here and became entrenched here.
And now are we to cruelly, simply throw them out?
Gallup
More Republicans Favor Path to Citizenship Than Wall
76% of Republicans favor path to citizenship; 62% building a wall
Two-thirds in U.S. oppose deporting illegal immigrants, building a wall
84% in U.S. favor of path to citizenship for illegal immigrants
http://www.gallup.com/poll/193817/republicans-favor-path-citizenship-wall.aspx
James every where you go on this blog you are insulting or spamming.
Can you please stay on HB's place.
Some may not embrace this Idea because it is completely different from what Obama/Hillary are forcing upon this country.
""There is.a legitimate argument for some limitation upon immigration." And Kennedy reassured Americans that his proposal "does not seek to make over the face of America." JFK
His view was one of reason as is Trumps and CHT's.
So James - Thank you for proving once again that you are not cognitive enough to even understand the question. At least WP understood the question well enough to pose a counter argument. Even if I disagree with him, at least he was on the right track. He at least shows an ability to see the obvious point. He doesn't get lost in... I don't know, where ever the hell you, Roger, and Opie reflexively run off to.
But let's evaluate your information for how it relates to the question.
First - according to the same poll, apparently some people believe in "both" a path to citizenship and building a wall. Interesting. That means that they are answering a "binary" yes or no question, without being asked how much of a priority the question holds to them.
But what this poll fails to ask... is if given the choice would you rather:
a) provide citizenship or
b) provide more teachers
a) provide citizenship or
b) provide more and better trained police
a) provide citizenship or
b) provide middle income tax breaks
a) provide citizenship or
b) provide aid for tuition
I could list item after item after item... how many people would choose to make a path to citizenship their priority for what our Government should be working on?
NBC/WSJ asked people to name their top two priorities for the upcoming election. Only six percent listed Immigration as one of their two top priorities. CBS asked for the "most important problem" and only five percent stated immigration. ABC same question. 33% economy, 28% Terrorism, 13% health care, and 10% immigration. Quinnipiac - Immigration fell below Economy, Jobs, Health Care, Terrorism, and Foreign policy (barely edged out climate change).
I might also offer that a majority of people who find immigration to be a key issue to their vote, are those who oppose it. So those who believe a path to citizenship is at the top of the list, is probably even less than what you see here. There are simply more people going to vote for Trump because he wants to "build a wall" than there are for Hillary because she want's to legalize people.
To give you an analogy:
I could ask a question about whether or not more Americans would like their President to wear blue, red, green, or yellow ties. I am sure they would have an opinion, but it would likely not be the sort of opinion that would move them to vote for someone. How many people are going to say... I don't agree with any of the policies that Donald Trump stands for, but he wears a red tie and I like red ties so he has my vote? How about none.
An equally valid question is:
Given all the problems we have in this country, why should we spend our limited resources on building a 2,000 mile wall, or incarcerating people for years or even decades for minor offenses?
Or, if you truly believe this to be a zero sum game, why should we give tax breaks to a small minority without simultaneously raising taxes on others and/or reducing outlay commitments to match those tax breaks?
BTW, I'm with WP on how much aid is provided, if I'm reading his comment correctly. The illegal aliens try to avoid notice and a big part of this is not requesting benefits. Many work under the table, but others use fake SSNs for regular jobs so their withholdings - for income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare - simply go into the government's coffers and will never be refunded or tapped into at retirement.
The fact that fake SSN's can be used at all indicates the government has no system to determine a fake SSN from a real one.
If used long enough, fake SSN's have a habit of becoming real.
And can be used to tapped into retirement benefits.
CH SAID:
So I want to take this to the next logical step and have someone explain to me why illegal aliens and Middle Eastern refugees matter "more" than the problems that American citizens face?*
I want someone to give me a reasonable explanation as to why legal status for illegals and more refugees should be seen as more important to me than say fixing the budget deficit, fighting terrorism, reducing crime, or dealing with stagnant wages and a rising cost of living.**
I want to know why we should use our limited resources to help people who are not Americans, which by nature takes away resources that actually could help the Americans our Government has taken an oath to serve.***
A simple question, that I doubt anyone reading this can address with anything more than lofty rhetoric that misses the point.****
____________
*They don't matter more. They matter much however.
**Again, not more important, but "much" important BECAUSE
First, we have a large number of people in our country whom we have enticed to come here, and something has to be resolved as to their status. That is a huge political problem, especially for a party that doesn't want to let them attain citizenship and the right to vote, as they will probably vote Democratic.
Second, are we going to allow the fear of radical jihadism to poison our traditional American tenets of respect for valid religious freedom and our openness to worthy immigrants?
***If carried too far, couldn't this attitude result in a xenophobic closing of our borders and extinguishing of the welcoming light held aloft by the Statue of Liberty?
****Lofty rhetoric is one thing our nation is built on. All are created equal. One nation under God. Government of, by, for the people.
James made a comment about wealthy Republicans. I would just point out that 8 of the 10 richest senators are Democrats.
First, we have a large number of people in our country whom we have enticed to come here
Who is enticing people to come here illegally?
Barack Obama with his implied promise that they can stay that's who.
Indy - as a matter of priority building a wall isn't at the top of my list either. But... while building a wall might be giving too much importance to something like that, it still doesn't address the point.
Which of course, providing a path to citizenship or settling more refugees into this country are policies designed to help people who are "not" Americans.
Many work under the table, but others use fake SSNs for regular jobs so their withholdings - for income taxes, Social Security, and Medicare - simply go into the government's coffers and will never be refunded or tapped into at retirement.
Which wouldn't happen if they came here legally. I would think that they understand that by coming here "illegally" and using a "fake social security number" that they would never see the social security checks.
Since they are here illegally and not American citizens, I am not sure why anyone would argue the "injustice" in them losing the benefits of the fake person they created to bypass the laws.
If we can confiscate a person's vehicle for a DUI, we can certaing confiscate a persons social security taxes for committing a fraud to get it in the first place.
Second, are we going to allow the fear of radical jihadism to poison our traditional American tenets of respect for valid religious freedom and our openness to worthy immigrants?
For those who don't see a silent prayer after a football game as a valid religious freedom...
I don't see how you can argue that following Sharia law and wanting to kill Christians should be a valid religious freedom.
By Devin Henry - 07/23/16 06:04 PM EDT
The mothers of several African-Americans killed by police or gun violence will be put in the spotlight at the Democratic National Convention.
The Mothers of the Movement will put presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s embrace of the Black Lives Matter movement at center stage.
"Black Lives Matter to Cops: 'I Eat Pigs, I Don't Eat With Them'"
Thank You Lord, this is going to be sooooo ggggggooooooddddddd.
Difi and Barbra Boxer both from Californicated have repeatedly enticed illegals with their come pick are fruits and veggies for slave wages so CA can get the tax dollars.
Notice how James being a low IQ Liberal blames Americans for the illegals breaking our laws .
Since they are here illegally and not American citizens, I am not sure why anyone would argue the "injustice" in them losing the benefits of the fake person they created to bypass the laws.' CHT
Yep
fundamentally disagree with your assertion that providing legal status to millions of illegals is cost effective, and so did several courts who suggested that there was a tangible burden (including financial burdens) for states if Obama's immigration policy was enacted.
This misconstrues those decisions. Yes there was a tangible burden to implement his particular executive policy, which had no legislative basis. You cannot ignore the second part, which is equally important to the first.
In light of that, the court decisions don't disagree with me at all - they don't even address the issue which we are discussing.
why should we spend our limited resources on building a 2,000 mile wall
To keep the rapists and druggies out. Seems that the current border has allowed the least amount of illegals in years
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/flow-of-illegal-immigration-slows-as-us-mexico-border-dynamics-evolve/2015/05/27/c5caf02c-006b-11e5-833c-a2de05b6b2a4_story.html
Seems the wall is red meat for those uniformed voters that support trump
In light of that, the court decisions don't disagree with me at all - they don't even address the issue which we are discussing.
The question asked in the post, and therefor what I assume we are discussing is why aiding illegal immigrants and Middle Eastern refugees are considered a priority issue for those sworn to represent Americans?
Then why did you cite court cases regarding only one specific facet of a non-legislative policy as something that "disagrees" with this much broader question? Respecting rights of illegal immigrants goes far beyond that particular question of forcing states to accept refugees.
At that point I was addressing your argument that there was some sort of widely accepted idea that it would be cost effective to legalize them. Obviously a court requires that the Party bringing suit can prove harm (in this case financial harm) to have standing. The court agreed that the policy would be a financial burden on the States.
All that being said, I think what we run into is an example of people making "assumptions" about who is here illegally. Just because there are hard working people who are likely making a good life for themselves, doesn't mean that all of them, the bulk of them, or even most of them fall into that category. I think it would more prudent to estimate that a good portion of the 11-12 million illegals in this country would likely qualify for medicaid and other aid right off the bat.
My issue still remains... and has not been addressed. Why are these 11-12 million illegals such a priority to the Democratic Party? Why is it so important to reduce the vetting time to meet goals for bringing in Syrian and other refugees?
Why should these issues be addressed while other issues are being ignored?
If you cannot come up with a "good reason" for this... by good, I mean one that is not pie in the sky rhetorical bullshit.
Then perhaps you can start to see why the "America first" or "Americanism, not globalism" - is resonating with so many Americans (who are falling in behind Trump).
They really do see the Democratic Party working overtime on an issue (legalizing the illegals and increasing our refugees) that very few people see as a priority. More to the point, not only is it not a priority, but many people (including myself) fail to understand why either is good for America or good for Americans.
Dude, you're arguing that forcing States to accept refugees costing money means that everything you do to respect the human rights of illegals has been struck down! Do you really fail to see how ludicrous your argument is?
No "dude" - I am still asking the same question you refuse to answer.
Why is helping Middle Eastern refugees and illegals... more important than helping Americans?
And if your answer is "It is not" - then why is so much political capital being used on these issues. When at best 10% of the country sees immigration (either building a wall or path to citizenship) as one of their priority issues... why is the President choosing this issue to push the legal limits of executive action. Literally putting the entire weight and credibility of the office of President on trial over issues that involve "non-Americans".
why is the President choosing this issue to push the legal limits of executive action. Literally putting the entire weight and credibility of the office of President on trial over issues that involve "non-Americans".
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
to purchase the votes required to secure a permanent democrat majority.
from the new deal to the immigration reform of 1965 to the great society to 0linsky-care...
this has always been all about a singular effort to "keep them n*ggers" (and now hispanics and mooselimbs) votin' democrat for the next 200 years."
when discussing and determining the motives of the left, your default position should always be to let your cynicism be your guide. you can arrive at the correct conclusion much more quickly and with considerably less effort.
Remember When Trump warned of Syria Terrorist in with the flood of illegals from that country.
Well, again we wake to the Syria Terrorist setting off a bomb in Open Borders Merkels Germany.
Hillary is on the wrong side of this issue and so so many more.
A failed Syrian asylum seeker has blown himself up and injured 12 other people with a backpack bomb near a festival in the south German town of Ansbach.
The 27-year-old man, who faced deportation to Bulgaria, detonated the device after being refused entry to the music festival, Bavarian officials say.
About 2,500 people were evacuated from the venue after the explosion.
Bavaria has been on edge since a knife rampage on a train claimed by so-called Islamic State (IS) last Monday.
The Ansbach blast is reported to have happened at about 22:10 (20:10 GMT) outside the Eugens Weinstube bar in the centre of the town, which has a population of 40,000 and is home to a US military base.
The bomb went off close to the entrance to the Ansbach Open music festival."
It just happen to be this Muslim set the explosion off near a US Base.
WP... quite obviously you would rather answer the question as a binary one than as one of priority (which brings me right back to the original point of the post).
But, let's assume that I can take your view at face value. That it's important to accept Syrian refugees as a matter of fundamental human rights?
Why does that logic stand in terms of bringing in refugees (that we cannot properly vet) but not as it pertains to actually preventing the bloodshed and chaos in Syria to begin with?
More to the point, there are people suffering all over the world? Why do we decide to make Syria a priority over all of the other war-torn and poverty stricken areas of the world?
You didn't ask about accepting Syrian refugees CH. There is nothing about that in your post - HAD you asked why it was such a priority to force the States to accept Syrian refugees, why that should have higher priority than other domestic issues, or even why we should disagree with the courts on that issue - had you asked any of those questions I might have agreed. Those decisions were no surprise to me, and I felt that it WAS an over-reach.
But you only shifted to that question after I naively answered the question that you DID ask.
Post a Comment