Monday, January 07, 2019

Dems can press Trump on shutdown


I politely messaged mine (Feinstein and Harris).

Isn't it time for Democratic Senators to refuse to vote on ANYTHING until the Majority Leader McConnell puts bills passed by House to reopen the government up for a vote? If the President wants to veto them, so be it. But you can make him do it if you show some backbone.

Did you?

8 comments:

Rain Trueax said...

McConnell isn't doing it because he knows it'll be vetoed, and it'd take 60 votes to override that. The thing is why don't Democrats want to deal with immigration? They didn't even when Obama first took power with a Dem House and Senate. My Dem friends say that they don't want a totally open border but what would they do to stop that? As far as I can tell-- nada

janinsanfran said...

Rain: afraid you are uninformed about the history of immigration legislation in Congress. After the 2012 election, when saner Republicans realized that if they didn't get immigration issues off their plate before they lost the increasing Latino and Asian voting population for generations, a so-called bi-partisan Gang of Eight floated an immigration compromise that dealt with the existing undocumented worker population, border security and trying to prevent this morass for happening again.

"But, the cries of an establishment desperate to stem its bleeding with Latino voters notwithstanding, right-wing Republicans don’t want immigration reform. The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, attacked Rubio’s proposal as “amnesty” that would cost the public trillions of dollars, and rank-and-file House Republicans lined up against the bill, unwilling to support a path to citizenship for unauthorized immigrants, and suspicious of White House support for the legislation.

"... The public is disgusted with this intransigence, but Republicans don’t care. Nothing, it seems, will budge them from their opposition to give-and-take of governance. Indeed, just this afternoon, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell rejected a proposal to “de-weaponize” the debt ceiling and end the threat of voluntary default, calling the plan “outrageous” and a “gimmick.”"

That's how we got to where we are today. There's a compromise that would greatly improve the mess we've blundered into and protect both immigrants and workers -- but the racist fraction of the GOP base won't allow its own legislators to get it done.

Rain Trueax said...

No, i remember but do you really think Americans will okay amnesty when the border is porous? When Reagan's administration in the 80s did it, the deal was they would stop the illegal flow. i don't honestly know why any democrat would favor people just coming here but i don't see them with any real ideas on how to stop it other than Merkley with technology but no examples of how it'd work with asylum good for any from Central America as soon as they touch American soil. A drone only catches people after they get here. Other technologies are vague for what they'd accomplish if anything.

Dems don't want give and take on this. They want it all. And they use the term racism as a way to make people afraid to do anything but remain silent or agree. There are answers to where we are, but I don't see any dems supporting them. A lot of people like illegal entries and others want no borders at all. Don't tell me that's not so as I talk to those who say it openly. It's just not something a politician can currently say. Although Newsome just did and he'll likely get more voters to keep California on its path. Only time will tell if that path actually works out economically. There are so many poor now, those without homes or jobs because they can't hold one down. Bringing in more, some who don't even speak Spanish as they are Native Americans, how's that going to work? Oh, I know-- no empathy. Well, the ones talking empathy should consider how a huge influx will impact the existing poor.

What i want people on the left to understand is this is an issue of laws not of race. Being Hispanic is not a race. It's a culture. I think there are those who fear an abrupt cultural change in the US and they fear it with Muslims also, who are also not a race but a religion.

When people voted for Trump, they weren't voting against a race. They were voting for what they hoped would be a return to following the laws-- even those they don't like. How do we tell people to obey any laws when we say only obey the good ones-- by our standards.

i will come back here to see if there is a response but I won't be commenting on new posts on your blog again. I think people in social media like to have a place they can find those of like minds. I've noticed that the bubble mostly is intended to reinforce what someone already thinks. My posting another way of looking at it doesn't lead to a conversation but just makes people mad. While i enjoy debate, I don't think a lot do and I don't need it. My life has enough complexity right now for me to avoid conflicts that go nowhere-- and anything i say here would go nowhere, if it follows the past pattern.

janinsanfran said...

Rain: I got lost on your first sentence. There is simply no evidence that the border is "porous." All I can figure out that underlies this idea is that people think unauthorized people are arriving because the country includes lots of people who don't look or talk like them. It's true; the country does. Many were born here; most unauthorized ones have been here a decade or more, working and living; and most never ones never came "illegally," having arrived as tourists or businesspeople and simply overstayed visas. This notion of a border "crisis" is the product of fevered imaginations. Ask the folks who live along the border. They sure don't want any wall.

Rain Trueax said...

Who do you know that doesn't want it on the border? i would guess not in Arizona where ranchers have had a lot of problems from the entries across their lands, dumping garbage (did you know when a cow eats a plastic bag, it will die-- has happened to ours in Oregon), cutting fences, draining water tanks to fill their bottles, etc. etc.

Oregon has a lot of those in my area (very agricultural) from central america and it's obvious based on their size versus those born here. nobody causes them problems and most live honest lives. My brother's partner, although from Mexico is one example. He can't find a way to get citizenship short of going back to Mexico and waiting 10 years. Seriously, you can't say it's not a broken system as it stands. AND it hurts the poor the most.

My first sentence was just I did remember the previous attempt but it did nothing to actually stop the border and didn't, as I recall, deal with the ones here who don't qualify for DACA.

And Visa overstays are also a big problem. I think everybody knows that based on statistics.

The border apprehensions for '18 were supposedly 396,579. That doesn't mean all who got through without being stopped. Some are Mexicans, sent back and will be right back. Central Americans are more complicated.

The point is if someone believes in a border, how do you stop this flow? One person suggested eVerify at the workplace but that'd be tough on the businesses as these people get pretty good IDs from what I've been told. Also if they stop them from getting work, how do they survive in our country? We have so many having a hard time getting by as it is-- and now add potentially millions more. That is a humanitarian crisis that won't impact people on good jobs, pensions or good investments. It's going to hurt those already in trouble like the guy my daughter hires for gardening (here legally from the Philippines) where she has been using him for yard work and he came to her wanting more than the $200 she had just given him-- saying his family lost their home. How do the new arrivals impact people like him and his family?

The latest proposal wasn't the whole 2000 miles but just a few hundred and mainly where Border felt it'd be most helpful. If people didn't think they'd get through, they'd be less likely to come. According to what most say, it's not about fear of violence-- it's about better jobs. They won't get asylum under existing laws. But the thing is how many can we take in with our welfare system already struggling to keep ahead of the existing needs.

What I'd like to know is with the many millions the US sends down there, how much has gone to help start new jobs, get better water, etc etc. That would help the indigent population to stay where they are in their homes. What happens when they get here and don't find it easy to get the work? We now know they do get benefits but that takes from the common pool. If they don't speak even much Spanish, don't have skills, where do they find homes?

I've suggested my ideas for what we could do, but Congress isn't interested in changing laws. i am not interested in ignoring them. I also think we have to think logically on this-- not emotionally. Yes, Trump tries to stoke emotions, but so does the other side.

janinsanfran said...

Rain: I'm too lazy to engage with a debate with you about immigration. Fortunately, Eugene Robinson has refuted the entire catalogue of Trump/GOPer bullshit that underlies the current panic. Read if interested. This "crisis" is a con.

Rain Trueax said...

I don't like the word crisis and do understand the left has their arguments set out. I just would like to know what their answer is-- let anyone in who wants to come or do they have a plan to control who comes in. I've posted my ideas on immigration enough places that there is no point in going further with it.

Rain Trueax said...

I read Eugene and didn't see where he addressed how we handle all the children now being housed from Central America, many who arrived by themselves or how we deal with caravans who arrive in the thousands. He just put it all on the evil man running the country.

I am fine with letting this go as it gains nothing in terms of discussing it. Sometimes people can't agree.

Related Posts with Thumbnails