DACA etc.
 

So the price for keeping the DACA recipients in the country is apparently deporting everyone on TPS, ending the DV lottery, ending the family reunification program and building a stupid wall.

Oh is that all. :lol:

What I love about this and none of the journalists can say is that it is a pretty transparent attempt at maintaining the Republican white power structure.

Because if you let the people on TPS and DACA become US citizens, they will vote Democrat overwhelmingly and they can then sponsor in their parents who will vote Democrat overwhelmingly. At least that's what Republicans seem to think.

So let the people on DACA stay, but don't let them become US citizens and failing that, end family reunification so they can't sponsor their (unlawfully present) parents.

And get rid of all the people on TPS as soon as possible before their kids get old enough to sponsor them for AOS.

Methinks the DV lottery is going to be repealed and probably some of the preference categories (you'd be dead if you applied in 3rd or 4th preference by the time a visa number came up, if you applied today).

The Democrats are going to be in a quandary about parents of US citizens though.

God forbid the Republicans might actually adopt political positions that make them more palatable to the public at large. Let's choose the voters instead.

Re: DACA etc.
 

The TPS for El Salvador which will ceased in 18 months was put in place due to earthquakes which happened 17 years ago. That's awfully long time to give you the opportunity for AOS. The overall number of people holding TPS is 325,000 which is a lot in absolute terms but relatively speaking I'm not sure that's going to swing an election for you given eligibility, distribution, turnout, etc.. The 1.9 million people eligible for DACA on the other hand probably would.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Curiously, El Salvador was granted TPS twice. It was one of the original TPS countries when it was created. Many of the beneficiaries obtained LPR via the NACARRA legislation.

Re: DACA etc.
 

It will all more than likely end up nowhere. DACA don't need to worry either

Re: DACA etc.
 

I have always been of the view and one I know shared by many that CIR was going nowhere, not so sure now.

Will everything be addressed, probably not, but some of the major aspects might.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Interesting. Do you know what kind of numbers we would be talking about?

Re: DACA etc.
 

Just saw a story on national news yesterday about tourism to have your baby in US. A Russian tour company is selling up scale packages for wealthy young Russian women to come to Miami stay in luxury hotels have their baby here to gain us citizenship for them. The business is booming even at a cost of around 100k.

Re: DACA etc.
 

IRS will be happy.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Saw a similar thing on one of those CBP shows on Netflix. Couple from Africa flew over to have a baby (think their POE was Detroit) and they let them through even though they clearly stated their intentions. Never realized it was so cut and dry.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Tourist agencies do the same thing for South Koreans.

LA targets Korean 'birth tourists'

Re: DACA etc.
 

This is not something for which I know any of the details, but I would imagine it very much depends on how many are located in swing states. Wikipedia lists Trump/Pence having a majority of about 800,000 in Texas, so DACA could maybe make a sizeable cut into that.

Re: DACA etc.
 

I somehow doubt that Russian financial institutions comply with FACTA and consequently whether there's much tax compliance by dual Russian/US citizens living there.

Re: DACA etc.
 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-a...egally-n836521

Interesting case, sounds like there are a lot more in the pipeline.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Putting 800,000 DACAs on a path to citizenship in Texas would net about 115,000 votes for the Democratic Party there, at current turnout and trend levels. Trump won Texas by about 800,000 votes.

Nowhere near enough to swing an election, and the senior politicians know that even if the media and Facebook class don't. That is at the presidential level - Party ID effectively dissolves once you get into gubernatorial and lower-ballot races. Potential and future DACA votes are not, and will not, be a factor in negotiations.

By the way - Hispanics cannot be programmed. They have their own minds, don't owe anybody anything, and are going to vote however they want to vote. They are also not "all the same" and a Venezuelan is not going to vote for someone on the basis that they did something for Mexicans or Cubans. In very recent times, Hispanics have broken to the Democrats by about 2:1, but Trump out-performed Romney and McCain, and in 2004, at the height of the Iraq War, Kerry only beat Bush by 9% among Hispanics. The Cuban-American segment of the Hispanic vote also tipped Florida away from Al Gore.

Do not think that legalised DACAs will feel they "owe" something to the Democratic Party and that their vote will be a gimme. They won't and don't owe anything, and their vote won't be a gimme.

Of all the reasons to, or not to, legalise DACAs - "we don't want to engage in any self-reflection or examination of why our policies didn't resonate among voters to the extent we thought they would, so instead of changing them, our strategy instead will be to give citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants and tell them that they need to vote for us at the polls as their pay back to us" is about as cynical as I can think of.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Showing the math: 800,000 times 48% turnout = 384,000.

384,000 times 65% (Democratic support) = 249,600

384,000 times 35% (Republican support) = 134,400

Net difference: 115,200

Re: DACA etc.
 

Agreed that 'Hispanic' or 'Latino' vote doesn't exist as a voting bloc. A Cuban emigre living in Florida is far more likely to vote Republican than a Mexican emigre living in California.

Re: DACA etc.
 

I obviously can not talk for the Democrats's but assume they are expecting a higher conversion rate for DACA recipients than the average and would also be taking into account the longer term, with their families added into the equation.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Maybe - but that would be mistaken as historically it hasn't happened, and my 115,000 net gain is probably too optimistic. First-generation voters historically have turned out at a lower rate than the national average; by the time that smooths out in the second, third and later generations, they vote with whatever are the prevailing political winds and trends at the time. Maybe that will benefit Democrats, maybe not, nobody can say for sure and it would be a real throw of the dice and absolutely foolish to make, or oppose, a policy decision based on that.

Very few of the DACAs are going to be political junkies who wish someone would make a set of baseball cards featuring congressmen, any more than the rest of the public. On the list of priorities for why they want to stay in the country, "so I can vote for Democrats on election day" is not going to be on there.

The net effect on presidential elections is going to be miniscule, and at lower levels, totally unpredictable . . . and I think more than a few progressive (and conservative) activists are going to be surprised at how the religious backgrounds and social conservatism of the countries many of the DACAs come from, will interact negatively with many progressive social causes. That is not a mystery, but few have been paying attention until now.

It would be very unwise decision making to base support or opposition to this on trying to read electoral tea-leaves for thirty years from now.

Re: DACA etc.
 

The point isn't whether it is possible, it's how the Republicans perceive it. The southwest and Florida are the most popular places for these people to live, enough to turn Arizona and Florida into blue States. That's what they're scared of. And Nevada from a swing State into a blue State as well.

The fact that so many people have been on TPS for so long is just an indication of political paralysis, because it clearly isn't sensible to send 200,000 Salvadoreans back to El Salvador, that's in no-one's interest. It will destabilize the country and apparently they've got about 200,000 US citizen children as well.

I agree that they should never have been on TPS for as long as they were but that was a decision taken by Bush and Obama, just kick the can down the road in some vague hope of immigration reform.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Sounds like we are now getting immigration reform.

Re: DACA etc.
 

It's not about Texas and it's not purely about Presidential elections either, the Texas congressional map is heavily gerrymandered. Florida and Arizona are the ones they're worried about. If those two States generally went Democratic they would have a tough time getting the votes in the Senate or winning the Presidency.

Personally I think it's silly anyway because I can't see all the Puerto Ricans who've moved to Florida recently voting Republican anyway.

If they had any sense they'd be bending over backwards to rebuild Puerto Rico.

Re: DACA etc.
 

The Republican house bill is a joke and won't go anywhere. Whatever this is isn't going to be some major degree of reform, it's going to be fiddling around the edges. The real sticking point is whether people on DACA can get citizenship, because the Democrats don't want to end sponsorship of parents and that's why the Republicans don't want people on DACA to get citizenship.

My bet in the end is it will be some sort of conditional permanent residency and the only way to get citizenship will be to qualify for it through the regular immigration system.

Re: DACA etc.
 

I think you are looking at this with too much tunnel vision. They don't care about a few hundred thousand DACA voters, none of whom are guaranteed to vote Democratic - and voter participation in down-ballot races is far less than at the Presidential level. The politicians know this very well and aren't making any decisions on the basis of trying to predict what these people will do as voters in 20 years.

Moreover theoretical DACA voters are not the only people potentially being added to the Florida and Arizona rolls. "Reagan Democrats" from the Northeast and Upper Midwest who never went back to the Democrats are retiring and keep moving down in droves.

The electoral patterns in Florida and Arizona haven't changed much in a generation, except there are fewer Democrats in higher office in both now (despite both states being more Hispanic now, than then). A generation ago at least Arizona had Dennis DeConcini and Janet Napolitano, and Florida had Lawton Chiles and Bob Graham.

Florida remains what it was 25 years ago - a 50/50 state that tips whatever way the national wind is blowing. Arizona remains what it was 25 years ago - a state that's winnable when there is a Strong Democrat / Weak Republican combination, like in 1996.

Legalising a million or so Dreamers isn't going to change any of that, at any electoral level.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Yes it will, as I said directly above in #22, because it's not just about them, if they get citizenship they can sponsor in their parents and that's millions more and that will change the outcome of elections in Arizona, Nevada and Florida. And it wouldn't be 20 years down the road necessarily either.

This is the main reason the Republicans oppose it, you only have to read the legislation they've introduced which makes parents of US citizens a non-immigrant category that has to be renewed every 5 years.

Republicans moving down from the midwest and northeast isn't going to make any difference given that NY, NJ, IL and various other States usually go Democratic in statewide elections and Ohio for example is a swing State.

Re: DACA etc.
 

The parents will be even less inclined to vote than the kids.

If these are such guaranteed Democratic votes, why haven't the Democrats been more successful in Florida and Arizona?

To the extent that this is about voters at all, it is about existing voters, and the Republicans not wanting to tick off the social-conservative crazies in their base who might primary them, and the Democrats not wanting to tick off their base in Silicon Valley who can fund a primary challenge to them. Neither side gives a hoot about Dreamers themselves, nor are they engaging in a senseless game of trying to predict an Arizona House race a decade from now.

Re: DACA etc.
 

All I know is I'm getting furloughed on Monday. Thanks Democrats.

Re: DACA etc.
 

DACA is only an issue because Trump chose to make it a bargaining chip for his stupid wall. I also see a few republican senators are purportedly voting against this deal.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Hopefully everybody here has contacted the Senator and told them to pass the bill.

Re: DACA etc.
 

"But Trump..."

Please, give it a rest.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Please, tell me why my comment is inaccurate...

Re: DACA etc.
 

You just have to blame Trump and make it a partisan issue. When it's the Democrats.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Lol. No explanation and just a knee-jerk "blame the Democrats". Partisan much?

Re: DACA etc.
 

I don't really have an explanation. I haven't been following the issue too closely so I can't make a reasoned argument one way or the other.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Let me be clear. Every bad thing that has ever happened was Trump's fault. Every bad thing that will ever happen will be Trump's fault.

We find this truth to be self evident.

FACT.

Re: DACA etc.
 

Also, every bad thing predicted to happen that didn't, still happened and you are a denialist, or will still happen you just haven't given it enough time.

Re: DACA etc.
 

and some Democrats actually voted for it.

So, yeah, all the Democrats fault that the Republican-controlled President, Congress and Senate can’t pass a budget. But POTUS is a great deal-maker, so it will all be right soon. (/sarcasm)

Re: DACA etc.
 

To pass a Budget requires 60% vote, GOP do not have that.

Re: DACA etc.
 

He listened to the White House answering maching message....


US shutdown: White House voicemail changed to blame Democrats - BBC News

It isn't really a partisan thing, as such. It's Trump. He has made it impossible to work with him, for a multitude of reasons, but in addition because of his unconstitutional and transparently ignorant and often bigotted remarks and policies, multiple conflicts of interest, and fundamental incompetence for the office,he is fast become the best present for the opposition anyone has had for a long time.

Re: DACA etc.
 

They didn’t even get 51 votes.

Re: DACA etc.
 

It's Trump's fault, plain as the nose on your face. By most accounts, both House and Senate were heading happily towards a compromise that would have included sufficient provisions to keep everyone on side, until POTUS stuck his oar in and snarled the whole thing up, at the now infamous obscenity-laden immigration meeting last week (or was it two weeks ago now - time ceases to have its usual meaning in the clusterf**k that is the Trump White House).

If the President had not insisted on playing to the more lunatic fringes of his base, the deal would have been done, DACA would have quietly gone away as an issue (because, let's face it, nobody really cares about it, it's just being used as a dog whistle) and the Government could go on functioning while the Administration continues bumbling along in its dysfunctional way. But no, the Orange Cheeto has to screw up every deal, because he is monstrously incompetent. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.