Republican leaders hope to contain outrage in the ranks over Obama immigration moves....By Robert Costa

[GourmetDan]

I hold positions because I have data top support them.

"Since 1973, the average hourly earnings for workers with a high school degree or less have declined in real terms; male high school dropouts’ wages declined by 2 percent, and male high school graduates’ wages declined by 1.2 percent. At the same time, male college graduates’ wages have remained roughly constant in real terms, and men with graduate degrees experienced a 0.7-percentage-point increase in hourly earnings (Burtless, 1998a)."

Now, if you think 2% is a whole lot (minimum wage in California today being $9/hr, that amounts to eighteen cents an hour (in constant dollars) decline since 1973 and the illegal alien explosion. or @ $16/wk on a $40K/yr salary.) then you'd have an argument.

But you don't.

That's because data can't be created for an event that didn't happen... the non-invasion of low-skilled illegal aliens.

You're still here:

So... your claim is that a flood of low-skilled illegal aliens increasing the supply and therefore the competition for low-end jobs does not depress the wages for those low-end jobs unless someone *proves* otherwise to you.

I'm willing to let you hold that position...

              ... and I still willing to let you hold that position... 'data' and all...

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Sorry, no.  He led the filibuster of the two immigration bills in 2007.  I could have better worded that, lol.

Thank you for clarifying.  I originally wanted to sarcastically point out what a big RINO establishment hack Cornyn has always been...so traitorous that a real conservative, soon to be former Congressman Steve Stockmen, felt compelled (with financial contributions from real Americans) to run against Cornyn. 

I thought it unlikely Cornyn would filibuster Keystone, but understand why he filibustered immigration reform.  To placate conservatives.  I remember Rush bragging how conservatives stopped amnesty in 2005...and shy and timid Speaker Hastert refusing to appoint a conference committee to comprimise between the bills that PASSSED in the House and Senate...the bill GOP President Bush promised to sign.  Then I remember Hastert losing his House Speaker gig.

Some conservatives view melting the Washington DC phone lines as their proudest moment.

That was about the time I stopped calling myself conservative.

[MACVSOG68]

Thank you for clarifying.  I originally wanted to sarcastically point out what a big RINO establishment hack Cornyn has always been...so traitorous that a real conservative, soon to be former Congressman Steve Stockmen, felt compelled (with financial contributions from real Americans) to run against Cornyn. 

I thought it unlikely Cornyn would filibuster Keystone, but understand why he filibustered immigration reform.  To placate conservatives.  I remember Rush bragging how conservatives stopped amnesty in 2005...and shy and timid Speaker Hastert refusing to appoint a conference committee to comprimise between the bills that PASSSED in the House and Senate...the bill GOP President Bush promised to sign.  Then I remember Hastert losing his House Speaker gig.

Some conservatives view melting the Washington DC phone lines as their proudest moment.

That was about the time I stopped calling myself conservative.

Yes, your memory serves you well.  The House Republicans had come up with a bill that was basically the penalty side of the issue, while the Senate actually tried to put some comprehensive solutions into theirs.  No conference committee, nothing.  The opposition to comprehensive reform that put the pressure on the House Republicans not to deal was from a man named John Tanton who at the time had put together a number of anti-immigration organizations, including Numbers USA and Center for Immigration Studies.

Public polling was very much in favor of comprehensive immigration reform, and the public truly wanted good border security along with acceptance of those already here.  That failure of the Republicans to even talk to each other has been considered one of the reasons they lost badly in 2006.  And Bush, who favored such reforms was pretty much ignored, as he had his own problems to deal with. 

Then came the offer from Harry Reid in S.1348 which had everything Republicans could ever wish for and more.  But they had to accept a subset of illegals, but then only after certification of the border security, fraud-proof identification, and stronger employer penalties were in place.  And that they couldn't do.  That was seven years ago.

Once-ler, I wouldn't let anyone define one's conservatism.  Just recognize that everyone who shouts their "conservative principles" loudest, often times fail to demonstrate them.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Once-ler, I wouldn't let anyone define one's conservatism.  Just recognize that everyone who shouts their "conservative principles" loudest, often times fail to demonstrate them.

Money quote.

The basic tenets of conservatism (individualism, expansive liberty, personal responsibilty, smaller government) do not seem to blend well with the notion of political conservatism since by the very definition of those tenets, they cannot be imposed on the people against their will.

You cannot legislate indidualism into existence. You can (by eliminating legislation) promote it however.

You cannot legislate personal responsibilty. You can craft laws that assign consequences for your actions even in those cases where the individual doesn't want to accept responsibilty and you can craft laws to alleviate lack of responsibility (welfare for unwed mothers comes to mind).

You cannot draft laws or statutes that expand liberty, you can only suppress lliberty.

And most certainly you cannot pomote the idea of smaller government by politicking for government actions and more legislation.

Conservatism (as defined by many these days), is more or less collectivist authoritarianism, where the Socialist idea of direct Democracy is promoted (see same-sex marriage referendums and ballot initiatives) and people wish to decide wether or not a right exists for others. If people can vote to decide whether or not a right exists, then how can we believe that rights are Divine in nature?

Good post.

[massadvj]

Money quote.

The basic tenets of conservatism (individualism, expansive liberty, personal responsibilty, smaller government) do not seem to blend well with the notion of political conservatism since by the very definition of those tenets, they cannot be imposed on the people against their will.

You cannot legislate indidualism into existence. You can (by eliminating legislation) promote it however.

You cannot legislate personal responsibilty. You can craft laws that assign consequences for your actions even in those cases where the individual doesn't want to accept responsibilty and you can craft laws to alleviate lack of responsibility (welfare for unwed mothers comes to mind).

You cannot draft laws or statutes that expand liberty, you can only suppress lliberty.

And most certainly you cannot pomote the idea of smaller government by politicking for government actions and more legislation.

Conservatism (as defined by many these days), is more or less collectivist authoritarianism, where the Socialist idea of direct Democracy is promoted (see same-sex marriage referendums and ballot initiatives) and people wish to decide wether or not a right exists for others. If people can vote to decide whether or not a right exists, then how can we believe that rights are Divine in nature?

Good post.

I completely agree.  But let me just pose a question.  This question bothers me, and I am interested in your answer, given that we are both libertarians:

In the face of a system in which the electorate has the capability to vote itself money from the public trough based on majority status, what is to prevent a political party from importing thousands -- or even millions -- of people into the country for the purposes of creating or maintaining a majority?

 

[aligncare]

The basic tenets of conservatism (individualism, expansive liberty, personal responsibilty, smaller government) do not seem to blend well with the notion of political conservatism since by the very definition of those tenets, they cannot be imposed on the people against their will.

Which limits, or removes from reach, the iron fist of government as a tool of the liberal or conservative activist.

Which means both the left and the right are barred from attempting to engineer social outcomes; expansive liberty means a rejection of both the liberal and the conservative agenda.

That's a hard pill to swallow when one is so certain they stand upon a righteous plane, left or right.

Then what can be said about the different positions the right and left take on foreign or economic policy or on taxes? Or, are there even any areas of government administration in the year 2014 that do not involve a left/right dichotomy?

[Bigun]

Which limits, or removes from reach, the iron fist of government as a tool of the liberal or conservative activist.

Which means both the left and the right are barred from attempting to engineer social outcomes; expansive liberty means a rejection of both the liberal and the conservative agenda.

That's a hard pill to swallow when one is so certain they stand upon a righteous plane, left or right.

Then what can be said about the different positions the right and left take on foreign or economic policy or on taxes? Or, are there even any areas of government administration in the year 2014 that do not involve a left/right dichotomy?

 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Which limits, or removes from reach, the iron fist of government as a tool of the liberal or conservative activist.

Which means both the left and the right are barred from attempting to engineer social outcomes; expansive liberty means a rejection of both the liberal and the conservative agenda.

That's a hard pill to swallow when one is so certain they stand upon a righteous plane, left or right.

Then what can be said about the different positions the right and left take on foreign or economic policy or on taxes? Or, are there even any areas of government administration in the year 2014 that do not involve a left/right dichotomy?

No.

[Bigun]

Which means both the left and the right are barred from attempting to engineer social outcomes;...

Which will never happen for so long as they continue to have the Marxist income tax and the IRS to use for that explicit purpose!

[Luis Gonzalez]

I completely agree.  But let me just pose a question.  This question bothers me, and I am interested in your answer, given that we are both libertarians:

In the face of a system in which the electorate has the capability to vote itself money from the public trough based on majority status, what is to prevent a political party from importing thousands -- or even millions -- of people into the country for the purposes of creating or maintaining a majority?

The reality is that can't stop that, even when you stop the importation of people into the country. The native population will be more than willing to do it all on their own as a result of the abuse of the expanding entitlement system.

The people will never vote themselves into austerity, so austerity (the natural correction to the munificence-for-votes style of political tactics that we've seen over the last several decades) has to be forced upon the nation.

How is austerity forced on the nation?

In 1938 Joseph Stalin order the execution by firing squad of Russia's leading economist Nikolai Kondratiev. Kondratiev infuriated Stalin by arguing that the Great Depression would not bring about the collapse of Capitalism, but that in fact, the ability of Capitalist economies to go through cycles (very much like weather cycles to farming) with crashes like the Great Depression were what gave Capitalism the ability to survive and thrive, and the Communist idea of a Central Committee-controlled, ever-increasing economic output was bound to fail. Kondrotiev argued that farmers needed the destruction brought about by winter in order to have a successful fall harvest and that economies needed occasional valleys (corrections) in order to create new peaks.

If Kondratiev was right (history has proven him so thus far) we're in the middle of a crash, with the bottom being reached sometime @2020.

Winter is coming.

P.S. The Founders had it right, then they succumbed to political correctness.

Our economy specifically, and the nation in general wold be far better off if only property owners were allowed to vote.

 

[alicewonders]

Luis wrote:
"Our economy specifically, and the nation in general wold be far better off if only property owners were allowed to vote."

On this we are in complete agreement Luis.  But of course that will never happen. 

[Bigun]

Luis wrote:
"Our economy specifically, and the nation in general wold be far better off if only property owners were allowed to vote."

On this we are in complete agreement Luis.  But of course that will never happen.

This is the way it was for a LONG time! The people who did the electing were also the people who got the bills for what those that were elected did!

It worked well!  But some federal judge somewhere ruled that the right to vote cannot be denied simply because you don't own property and nothing has been the same since!
 

[Oceander]

Our economy specifically, and the nation in general wold be far better off if only property owners were allowed to vote.

 

I'm afraid I have to disagree.  Of course, since I don't own real property right now I obviously have my own bias, but then again, so do those who do own.

Firstly, that makes a hollow mockery of the Declaration of Independence.  "All men are created equal" - not if their right to suffrage, to participation in self-government, depends on the accidents of life.  Those who, due to the accidents of life, do not own property no longer have the right to have a say in how they are governed:  their consent is irrelevant to whether the powers of the government are just.

Secondly, that makes a hollow mockery of the Constitution.  The First Amendment right to assemble and petition the government for redress is meaningless to me if I cannot wield the power to change that government if it ignores me.  And what of my other constitutional rights?  How will I protect those?  I cannot influence the government (at least not peaceably) because I have no say in how it's constituted.  The courts become a thin reed indeed, because the judges are selected by the politicians (president, with advice and consent of Senate), who are beholden to the voters, and thus by necessary implication, may ignore those who do not own property with impunity.  The possibility of becoming a property owner in due course is also a thin reed indeed because the voters can throw all manner of obstacles in my way through their control over the government, to ensure that nobody other than their political favorites become property owners.

That reduces me - and millions of other American citizens - to the status of ward of the state, wholly dependent on the whim of the government for my very existence.  I had thought that folks on this forum generally disapproved of people becoming wards of the state and generally wish to free people by reducing their dependency on the government.

Finally, that would simply lead to a bloody demonstration of the truth of the Declaration of Independence:  That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The idea is seductive indeed, but the reality is vile and insufferable.

[alicewonders]

I'm afraid I have to disagree.  Of course, since I don't own real property right now I obviously have my own bias, but then again, so do those who do own.

Firstly, that makes a hollow mockery of the Declaration of Independence.  "All men are created equal" - not if their right to suffrage, to participation in self-government, depends on the accidents of life.  Those who, due to the accidents of life, do not own property no longer have the right to have a say in how they are governed:  their consent is irrelevant to whether the powers of the government are just.

Secondly, that makes a hollow mockery of the Constitution.  The First Amendment right to assemble and petition the government for redress is meaningless to me if I cannot wield the power to change that government if it ignores me.  And what of my other constitutional rights?  How will I protect those?  I cannot influence the government (at least not peaceably) because I have no say in how it's constituted.  The courts become a thin reed indeed, because the judges are selected by the politicians (president, with advice and consent of Senate), who are beholden to the voters, and thus by necessary implication, may ignore those who do not own property with impunity.  The possibility of becoming a property owner in due course is also a thin reed indeed because the voters can throw all manner of obstacles in my way through their control over the government, to ensure that nobody other than their political favorites become property owners.

That reduces me - and millions of other American citizens - to the status of ward of the state, wholly dependent on the whim of the government for my very existence.  I had thought that folks on this forum generally disapproved of people becoming wards of the state and generally wish to free people by reducing their dependency on the government.

Finally, that would simply lead to a bloody demonstration of the truth of the Declaration of Independence:  That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The idea is seductive indeed, but the reality is vile and insufferable.

Thank you Oceander, that is certainly food for thought - something I'm definitely going to chew on.

 

[massadvj]

The First Amendment right to assemble and petition the government for redress is meaningless to me if I cannot wield the power to change that government if it ignores me.  And what of my other constitutional rights?  How will I protect those?  I cannot influence the government (at least not peaceably) because I have no say in how it's constituted.

Won't this be said about OPapaDoc's new class of resident formed under executive order?

[Oceander]

Won't this be said about OPapaDoc's new class of resident formed under executive order?

US permanent residents - green card holders - have been around for ages and they haven't started agitating for the vote.

[Luis Gonzalez]

The idea is seductive indeed, but the reality is vile and insufferable.

Not to me.

I own property.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

This is the way it was for a LONG time! The people who did the electing were also the people who got the bills for what those that were elected did!

It worked well!  But some federal judge somewhere ruled that the right to vote cannot be denied simply because you don't own property and nothing has been the same since!
 

By 1860 most states dropped the property requirement to vote.
a decade later non-whites could vote and in the early 1900's women were allowed to vote.

Which expansion of voter rights do you think cause America's decline? Which group should we exclude to reclaim our great country?

The question is open to all who long for the good old days they didn't live under.   

[Luis Gonzalez]

I'm afraid I have to disagree.  Of course, since I don't own real property right now I obviously have my own bias, but then again, so do those who do own.

Firstly, that makes a hollow mockery of the Declaration of Independence.  "All men are created equal" - not if their right to suffrage, to participation in self-government, depends on the accidents of life.  Those who, due to the accidents of life, do not own property no longer have the right to have a say in how they are governed:  their consent is irrelevant to whether the powers of the government are just.

Secondly, that makes a hollow mockery of the Constitution.  The First Amendment right to assemble and petition the government for redress is meaningless to me if I cannot wield the power to change that government if it ignores me.  And what of my other constitutional rights?  How will I protect those?  I cannot influence the government (at least not peaceably) because I have no say in how it's constituted.  The courts become a thin reed indeed, because the judges are selected by the politicians (president, with advice and consent of Senate), who are beholden to the voters, and thus by necessary implication, may ignore those who do not own property with impunity.  The possibility of becoming a property owner in due course is also a thin reed indeed because the voters can throw all manner of obstacles in my way through their control over the government, to ensure that nobody other than their political favorites become property owners.

That reduces me - and millions of other American citizens - to the status of ward of the state, wholly dependent on the whim of the government for my very existence.  I had thought that folks on this forum generally disapproved of people becoming wards of the state and generally wish to free people by reducing their dependency on the government.

Finally, that would simply lead to a bloody demonstration of the truth of the Declaration of Independence:  That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

The idea is seductive indeed, but the reality is vile and insufferable.

I owe you a better response.

Right now, in this country, there is a growing portion of the population (nearly half) who do not pay any taxes with about a third of the population not owning any property, voting themselves a chunk of my earnings to provide for things that they want but can't necessarily afford.

Why should I be OK with having people who do not own property deciding how much I should pay in taxes on my property in order to better their lives?

So yes, everything you said feels right, but at the end of the day, property rights are the foundation on which freedom rests, and property rights and taxation cannot be subject to the whims of a portion of the population that either pays no taxes or owns no property. 

[Luis Gonzalez]

Won't this be said about OPapaDoc's new class of resident formed under executive order?

That's where the GOP's opportunity lies.

Do what Obama couldn't do.

Congress needs to act on their Constitutional power to establish "rules of naturalization" and point out that while the Democrats held Congress since the Bush midterms in 2006, it took a GOP-controlled Congress to pave a way to citizenship for qualified applicants.   

[Formerly Once-Ler]

Right now, in this country, there is a growing portion of the population (nearly half) who do not pay any taxes with about a third of the population not owning any property, voting themselves a chunk of my earnings to provide for things that they want but can't necessarily afford.

Why should I be OK with having people who do not own property deciding how much I should pay in taxes on my property in order to better their lives?

I understand your argument and it is a great one for conservatives and elitists.  Not likely to persuade the voters needed to bring the property ownership restriction back.

Renters pay the property taxes of an apartment or trailer park in the form of rent.  Consumers pay the property taxes, and employee wages, and taxes of the business the consumers purchase from.  We all contribute.  Some more than others.  Do renters care less about our country?  Are they less informed than homeowners?  If they work they pay Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance.

I believe people who care enough to vote are more likely to be a net plus contributor than a content American who doesn't vote.  From the dreamers who serve Hitlery rubber chicken dinners, to the small business owner, to the 1%.  But statistics don't show me a huge difference between renter and homeowner voter participation.

The likelihood that a homeowner will vote in a local election is 65%, compared to 54% for renters. For national elections, the difference is much smaller: The probability that a homeowner will vote in a national election is 86% versus 83% for renters. - See more at: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/politics/citizen-action/homeowners-better-citizens-homeownership-community-participation-united-states#sthash.gqqlP0Hj.dpuf

The GOP shouldn't add any new voter restrictions to the platform, but property ownership is likely to be the least effective at weeding out the unwanted voters.  Only 10-15% of Americans owned property at the time the Constitution was ratified.  About 2/3rds of Americans live in there own homes today, but I suspect many of them rented at some point.   

Property taxes fund education primarily in most communities.  Some people have no children.  Why should parents get to dictate the taxes of single property owners?

I believe it is because those children are the ones we have saddled $?? Trillions of debt upon.  Because a majority of voters believe the government has a responsibility to promote the general welfare and growing future tax payers is integral to our continued success.

Congress needs to act on their Constitutional power to establish "rules of naturalization" and point out that while the Democrats held Congress since the Bush midterms in 2006, it took a GOP-controlled Congress to pave a way to citizenship for qualified applicants.

 

I couldn't agree more.

[Fishrrman]

Oceander wrote above:
[[ Firstly, that makes a hollow mockery of the Declaration of Independence.  "All men are created equal"...]]

It's regrettable that Jefferson put that phrase into the Declaration. It was a great and noble notion, born of the time of The Enlightenment and when men were trying to cast off the rule of kings, but it shares little in common with reality.

As a very prescient lady once said, "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the  consequences of evading reality."

If anything, the course of events in this country over the last 50-60 years should evidence that "equality" is far easier to proclaim, than it is to attain.

Quite frankly, I believe those who have jumped the border should never be granted "equality" with law-abiding citizens. It's not a question of sending them back, which I agree isn't going to happen. But they should never be permitted "full citizenship", which includes the right to vote. Quite the contrary, I want them to remain "second class" individuals, forced to live in limbo unto death.

My opinion only and you can facepalm me all you want.
I don't give a damn...

[Formerly Once-Ler]

The idea is seductive indeed, but the reality is vile and insufferable.

Another great post.

[Bigun]

By 1860 most states dropped the property requirement to vote.
a decade later non-whites could vote and in the early 1900's women were allowed to vote.

Which expansion of voter rights do you think cause America's decline? Which group should we exclude to reclaim our great country?

The question is open to all who long for the good old days they didn't live under.

I think all CITIZENS should have the right to vote and that they should all get a share of the bill that comes as a result of their voting as well. 

Not currently happening with the Marxist income tax in place but would if we went to a point of retail sale only sales tax!

[olde north church]

I think all CITIZENS should have the right to vote and that they should all get a share of the bill that comes as a result of their voting as well. 

Not currently happening with the Marxist income tax in place but would if we went to a point of retail sale only sales tax!

I actually think only the poor should be taxed whether from their limited resources or from the sweat of their brow.  There are many more poor than wealthy.  It will be easier.