Elfdude:No link and I cannot find a link -- probably my stupidity. I think it is from U of W but all I could locate was Charles Clotfelter and Jacob Vidor which do not seem to list the study as their published work.To quote the most recent thorough study from Seattle removing the minimum wage removes the lowest rung from your economy and promotes more businesses to rely upon more skilled labor, there's an equal loss of low skilled hours compared to the gain in high skilled hours and there's a surplus gain in economic activity which in turn means more revenues.
Edit: So it was Schumer and not Trump that led to the breakdown of the Schumer - Trump negotiations on the wall. Schumer promised on tenth of what it would cost or one year funding and wanted a full enchilada of DACA in exchange and then withdrew the inadequate offer. He then went out to the media with his Jell-O comment and the media ate it up (pun intended). http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018...withdrawn.html
Last edited by NorseThing; January 23, 2018 at 04:56 PM. Reason: added an edit
DACA death squads are outside Schumer's house for selling out.
He gets what he deserves. Democrat leaning media have weaponized their own extremists for the past year, if they trash his house, it's entirely liberal media's fault.
Sure I've been called a xenophobe, but the truth is Im not. I honestly feel that America is the best country and all other countries aren't as good. That used to be called patriotism.
One thing is for certain: the more profoundly baffled you have been in your life, the more open your mind becomes to new ideas.
-Neil deGrasse Tyson
Let's think the unthinkable, let's do the undoable. Let us prepare to grapple with the ineffable itself, and see if we may not eff it after all.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/exper...medium=twitter
Plan laid out:
-path to citizenship achievable in 10-12 years
-strong reduction to chain migration, only spouses/minors, 25% reduction in arrivals
-no more diversity lottery
-25$ bn border wall
I think it's acceptable.
Your link states that this is simply a rewording of the Trump Administration plan. I still want to see US Senators getting on board before I think a bit about acceptance. The Democratic US Senators have put themselves into a tight space here. If they cave to Trump, the much farther to the left will make life a bit hard with primary challenges. If they fight Trump, the more reasonable voters will flee the Democrats in the next election. If I was a Democrat, I would be wanting Sen. Schumer out of the leadership about now.
Well, it pretty much is. The 10-12 years timeframe is sort of necessary to make it reasonable to much of the immigration skeptic base of Trump while getting serious concessions on curbing both legal and illegal flows.
As for Dems, they are no different than mainstream Reps. I don't have much respect for the current political class of the West. Trump is leading a much needed refreshment.
I am not a Democrat and I have some real concerns with moving the goal posts to 10-12 years from the current policy of having a green card for 5 years. I am just saying it is little things like this that disrupt what on the surface seems reasonable. I have not problem with the clock starting from now, but do not make it different from other legal residents. This is how we have the mess with other temporary residents than are temporary for a decade or more. So yes, I am concerned about the proposal and about what you may find acceptable.
Edit: I think the biggest problem will be accusations from conservatives about amnesty. Trump needs to craft the proposal to only include people who were minors at the time of entrance into the USA and were accompanied by a guardian / parent. Holding a minor up against the amnesty accusation is easy to defend, but only if they were acting in conjunction with a parent or guardian that could be held liable. This will get quite a bit messier before it becomes a law.
Last edited by NorseThing; January 25, 2018 at 07:15 PM. Reason: addded a bit at the edit
I don't think the 10-12 years necessary to acquire citizenship start from now or whenever the legislation is passed. It'll be retroactive starting from whenever DACA started. Essentially, demonstrate you can support yourself and pay taxes gets you a legal permit and if you do that long enough, it earns you the citizenship.
I still wouldn't do it as long as Democrats abuse identity politics to capture the Hispanic vote and make it a white vs non-white issue, but that's another story.
The Senate has begun debate on DACA. I use a rather broad definition of words such as 'begun and debate' since the Senate has yet to actually debate the issue, not in front of the cameras in the Senate Chamber.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-polit...ll-vote-failed
So the Democrat bills get no support from Republicans and the Republican bills get only a small token of support. No 60 vote support on anything. I wonder if there was a vote on the sun rising in the morning whether the Senate could support the idea?
http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/19/ru...ressive-on-immLimbaugh said, "I would be willing right here to support an effort to grant
permanent citizenship to whatever number of illegal immigrants there are in
the country tomorrow if you will make as part of a deal they can't vote for
15 to 25 years. And if they will agree to that, then I'll grant them
amnesty."
Read the whole article at the link.
I do not particularly like the idea of residents becoming citizens but not voting citizens. However it is a position that take away a bit of the critique that all the Democrats want is more Democrat voters.
Ignore List (to save time):
Exarch, Coughdrop addict
DACA is again in the news thanks to the DC Federal Court:
Judge orders full restart of DACA program - read the full article at the link!A D.C.-based federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to restart in full the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
The decision is the latest legal blow against President Donald Trump’s decision to phase out the Obama-era program, which offers deportation relief to undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children.
It seems the judge has taken offense to the reasoning of why a Presidential Executive Order has been reversed. “The court has already once given DHS the opportunity to remedy these deficiencies — either by providing a coherent explanation of its legal opinion or by reissuing its decision for bona fide policy reasons that would preclude judicial review,” said Bates, “So it will not do so again.”
I was not aware that any Executive Order reversal is even subject to judicial review. I realize the original order would be subject to such review, but a reversal of the order? This is insanity. Trump has requested Congress to act and they do not or at least have not as of today. That alone would justify the reversal not being subject to judicial revue. The silence of the legislature can indeed speak loudly.
Of course this may be on it's way to appeal as well.