jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (13 posts)

Senate passes immigration bill

  1. IslandBites profile image86
    IslandBitesposted 3 years ago

    What now? House republicans said they will do their own reform. But, there is division about the issue, specially after some republicans voted to passed it in the Senate. Do you think the bill will not pass? Do you think that the loss of latin votes in last elections ultimately will make the House to pass the bill?

    1. Mighty Mom profile image90
      Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I doubt the House will pass it.
      The Senate tossed in the border control with Mexico as a "sweetener" -- it's ridiculously expensive and there already is border control and net immigration from Mexico has been 0% recently.
      But where is the incentive for the GOP to actually pass this? They believe that if
      they grant a path to citizenship to illegal immigrants, those immigrants will vote Democratic regardless.

      The rabid right jackals (Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin et al) have turned on Marco Rubio. I think he showed incredible courage and decency as a politician in working on this Gang of 8 committee.

      BTW, the loss of votes in the last presidential election has already been "whitewashed" (pun intended). The GOP does not believe they need to change their policies. They just need to change their messaging to women, African Americans, Latinos, Asians, and LGBTQs to "pretend" they are the big-tent party of opportunity.
      Yeah, good luck with that, Republicans.
      Your "base" may be gullible and hate-filled. Doesn't mean the rest of us are.

    2. Quilligrapher profile image89
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      There is a fair amount of evidence that the GOP is undermining their own chances in the 2016 election.

      For example, House Republicans are ignoring the party-sanctioned 2012 election post-mortem that recommended they embrace "comprehensive immigration reform" or suffer crippling losses among Hispanic voters in 2016 and beyond. 

      “The most immediate [debate] centers on the only major policy recommendation from a party-commissioned report written after Romney's defeat," reports a Fox News affiliate. "Citing dismal showings among the fast-growing Hispanic electorate, the report said Republicans 'must embrace and champion comprehensive immigration reform. If we do not, our party's appeal will continue to shrink to its core constituencies only.'" {1}

      However, the self-inflicted wounds go far beyond just immigration issues. The destructive elements of the GOP continue to reject warnings from establishment Republicans. Many on the extreme right fringe cling to the old messages while saying the party simply needs to articulate its conservative principles more skillfully. With stubbornness quite obvious in the Republican dominated House, they adhere to the old policies without modification, even after losing the popular vote in five of the past six presidential elections.

      As if blinded by their own passion and despite Romney's poor showing among female voters, House Republicans prolonged their "war against women" by passing the most restrictive abortion measure in years. A significant number of Republicans blame their past presidential election problems on “tone and perceptions,” not their stands on issues, or their inflammatory statements like pregnancies don't result from "legitimate rape."

      Not having learned from the downgrading debacle of the US bond rating and in the midst growing corporate fears about the economic damage that would result from another scare over the default on U.S. obligations, hard-line GOP lawmakers are once again threatening to block an increase in the government's borrowing limit later this year to gain leverage over President Barack Obama. Another example of the GOP putting politics before the economic good of the country!
      http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
      {1} http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politi … -for-2016/

  2. Mary Neal profile image59
    Mary Nealposted 3 years ago

    Suggested reading: "Ted Cruz Exposes Amnesty Bill: $5000 Penalty For Hiring Citizens Over Legalized Aliens," published June 27, 2013

    1. Mighty Mom profile image90
      Mighty Momposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      1. Link please.
      2. Anytime we have a US senator "exposing" something it immediately becomes suspect.

      1. Quilligrapher profile image89
        Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        This claim and the amendment of Senator Ted Cruz span both ObamaCare and the now pending Immigration reform bill which is not in any way an amnesty bill as it is characterized by Ms. Neal. 

        Under the ACA, employers, who offer insurance plans to their workers that are deemed either too pricey or too skimpy, will be fined $3,000 for each full-time worker who takes advantage of ObamaCare's subsidies to buy adequate and reasonably priced coverage. When you force some or all of your full-time employees to need ObamaCare subsidies, you will pay a fine. {1} In real after-tax dollars, this is the equivalent of $5000 because the fine is not deductible as an expense on either federal and state tax returns. 

        Matters get complicated because immigrants legalized under the reform bill just passed in the Senate will not be eligible for ObamaCare subsidies for a decade or more. Therefore, employers could avoid an ObamaCare fine for years to come for each legalized immigrant on their payroll.

        It is easy to imagine an employer, faced with a choice between either hiring, or keeping, a full time US citizen or a legalized immigrant, might be tempted by these conflicting government incentives to tilt against the US citizen.

        What is really a fine for not offering qualifying healthcare insurance is being characterized as a “fine” for hiring a US citizen.

        Senator Cruz’s real motive is to obstruct the implementation of ObamaCare, destroy the momentum gathered by the Gang of Eight Reform Bill, or both! This is why he is asked for unanimous consent to introduce an amendment that would fix this issue by defunding Obamacare until there are no more individuals with RPI status.

        A more logical and politically plausible fix would have ObamaCare’s employer fines reduced and/or extended to cover legalized immigrants without qualifying health coverage. The GOP has already signaled it will not fine tune ObamaCare but prefers to repeal it before it has a chance to demonstrate its potential benefits for America’s healthcare system.
        http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg
        {1} http://news.investors.com/politics-andr … tional.htm

        1. Mary Neal profile image59
          Mary Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You said, "This claim and the amendment of Senator Ted Cruz span both ObamaCare and the now pending Immigration reform bill which is not in any way an amnesty bill as it is characterized by Ms. Neal."

          Please don't attribute things to me that I did not say. I wrote, "Suggested reading: 'Ted Cruz Exposes Amnesty Bill: $5000 Penalty For Hiring Citizens Over Legalized Aliens,' published June 27, 2013." When I was asked by "Mighty Mom" for a reference link, I gave one and suggested that she could use Google search for more references about the same subject.

          I merely called the article by its correct title. Whether you agree or disagree with Sen. Cruz's assessment of what he perceived, and I agree, is a potential problem regarding the Senate's bill, I did not name the article "amnesty bill," but I called it what the author called it in order for interested persons to locate it on the Internet. Calling an article by its name is in no way a "characterization."

          Below is the link for the exact title which I referred:
          http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/06/ted-c … ed-aliens/

          Thank you.

          1. Quilligrapher profile image89
            Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this


            Good evening, Ms. Neal.

            I agree on all counts. Thank you for adding a link to the actual article.
            http://s2.hubimg.com/u/6919429.jpg

  3. Mary Neal profile image59
    Mary Nealposted 3 years ago

    Mighty Mom, whenever you see a title without a link, you might want to use Google browser. Just copy the title and put it in the Google browser, and abracadabra! You get lists of news sources carrying a report on the subject. By using a specific link, however, users are directed to only one particular news source. I often avoid using links for that reason, but since you asked, here is one, and contact information to get more info:
    Press Release of Senator Cruz
    Sen. Cruz Proposes Amendment to Prevent Penalty for Hiring Citizens and Legal Immigrants [rejected by Senate]
    Contact: press@cruz.senate.gov / (202) 228-7561
    http://www.cruz.senate.gov/record.cfm?id=344190

  4. Mighty Mom profile image90
    Mighty Momposted 3 years ago

    Hello Mary Neal,
    The reason I asked about the original source of your information was because I wanted
    to see where the inflammatory title came from. It certainly is an attention getter!
    Thank you for suggesting a Google search.
    That is always my first go-to tactic when I want to either
    a) Find out more about a topic that I only have a few keywords on, or
    b) Check to see how many news outlets/bloggers have published the same information or similar information.
    In this case, there are quite a few colorfully named "media" sources.
    (e.g., noliburls.com). I stopped looking after  page 3 because I could not find a source I recognized.
    Which is not to say Mr. Cruz's discovery does not have merit. Just that its merit is extremely narrowly focused (as indicated by Quillographer) toward a certain segment of the population.
    Nonetheless, the quest to confirm new information is always time well spent.
    Thank you.

  5. psycheskinner profile image82
    psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago

    I don't think the House will pass it.  They barely pass anything these days, let alone something this controversial.

    1. Mary Neal profile image59
      Mary Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The White House is open to signing an Immigration Reform Bill. Of course, we have to wait and see the House version of the bill before knowing what will be sent to the White House for signature. I hope we all agree that any Immigration Reform Bill that goes into law would be reprehensible if it gives incentives for employers to favor hiring former illegal aliens over American citizens, which is what the Senate's version does.

      1. psycheskinner profile image82
        psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I don't agree that is what it does.
        But them I am an immigrant, so I probably have a different perspective.

 
working