<p>
The GOP will not chuck out the anti-immigrant, anti-abortion, anti-gay folk. Instead, the message they will take is not to go wishy-washy, but to nominate someone like Newt>
I was hoping that the Republicans would use the following four years to actually chuck these guys out. Why do you think they won’t do this SoftwareNerd?
I was hoping that the Republicans would use the following four years to actually chuck these guys out. Why do you think they won’t do this SoftwareNerd?
Well, the basic problem I ignored above is that the village idiots add more than a few percentage points to the GOP vote.
The GOP has done a deal with the village idiots and needs their votes to win. Divorce them and they may stay home. That means the GOP gets a few percentage points of votes while losing more than a few percentage from the religious right. If the religious right does not vote for the GOP, they will lose even worse than today.
Actually, today it is becoming inaccurate to even say that the GOP has “done a deal” with the religious right. Rather, the religious right are an important segment of the party.
A related point: many of the religious right folks see themselves as “tea-partiers”. One often sees Democrats conveniently use “tea-party” to mean that village-idiot segment. People who are in the GOP and are fiscally conservative but socially liberal must come up with a new brand-name… something that makes their fiscal/economic focus clearer. of course it would be better still if they simply defined themselves by a focus on individual rights – both economic and social – but that is too much to hope for.
It irritates me seeing my friends on my Facebook with status’ celebrating Obama’s win. I would have been happy seeing a Romney win at least because it is a symbol that people don’t want this type of government - but sadly, they do.
I wanted Romney but only because I am spiteful of reddit liberals. Otherwise, I had no horse in this race, except a bunch of weed laws which all got voted for.
I saw that a bunch of marijuana laws got passed. I’m at least happy that Louisiana amended the constitution to further protect the second amendment. I’m rather concerned about what Obama may do now with gun rights.
never said I believed in god, I thought it was clear the way I worded my post. If you are a conservative and want to conserve what you think is good, how will you change your mind by listening to the party on the left. I just said I don’t blame those who feel they have no choice but to stick to the gop. You could say they should discover objectivism, but you could say that about anyone. Its strange but in the us, with the exception of objectivists the socially liberal fiscal conservatives don’t seem to be able to hold there principles on spending, its like only the people who can withstand being called a nut for being prolife can have the same ability for being more principled on spending. I don’t agree with using god as an only check on the power on govt, and with enlightenment philosophy it wouldn’t be necessary. I am just saying, the left has fallen so low that using god has become more helpful in holding some reminent of the enlightenment position, mostly by tradition but not completely, unless you think you can trace it through history to today’s democratic party. At least conservatives invite people like yaron brook to speak, and they listen to him.
America has forgotton the values upon which she was created; reason, freedom, individualism. Get ready for some rough seas ahead, folks.
Romney won the white vote by almost 20%. Whites are the majority, and their vote is representative of the culture most immigrants aim to - or at least have no choice but to - assimilate into.
So, aside from their abortion stance, the other major element the GOP needs to give up on is the vilification of illegal immigrants. It’s racist (or chauvinistic, to be exact), and it prevents all Hispanic and most Asian immigrants from being open to some of the ideas they would otherwise embrace.
In the meantime though, that 20 point margin among whites shows that the GOP is nowhere near a lost cause, and that despite this victory, Liberals are still in trouble.
So, aside from their abortion stance, the other major element the GOP needs to give up on is the vilification of illegal immigrants. It’s racist (or chauvinistic, to be exact), and it prevents all Hispanic and most Asian immigrants from being open to some of the ideas they would otherwise embrace.
That’s funny. Obama said he would implement a major immigration reform his first year in office. But “As of July [2012], Obama deported 1.4 million illegal immigrants since the beginning of his administration — that’s 1.5 times more immigrants on average than Bush deported every month, according to official numbers from the Department of Homeland Security*.” [1]
What he did do was initiate some sort of temporary (2 year) “deferred action” for immigrants who:
“This is not a legislative or permanent fix. And it does not provide a path to citizenship, the right to vote, or even permanent legal residency for illegal immigrants.” [2] :huh: Way 2 go Obama.
“The second thing I’m confident we’ll get done next year is immigration reform.” -Obama [3] Hmm.. he sounded pretty confident about that 4 years ago. Lets see if he actually gets around to it this time around.
“The second thing I’m confident we’ll get done next year is immigration reform.” -Obama [3] Hmm.. he sounded pretty confident about that 4 years ago. Lets see if he actually gets around to it this time around.
I doubt he can do much on immigration.
Nevertheless, consider this: according to PEW 1.6 million people might apply. From the viewpoint of these people, little else can be more important. I cannot even begin to image how an 18 year old American kid would feel if told he has to go live in some foreign country like Mexico for the next 10 or 20 years. A 2-year legalization would be a huge hope to such a person. An Obama 2012 victory would mean hope that it becomes 6 years, and that it is then too late. Citizenship is of almost zero importance compared to the right to legal residence and the ability to work legally.
In addition, these 1.5 million people probably have a few million friends and family who are legal U.S. voters. Smart political move by Obama, that also has a great positive impact on millions of lives. meanwhile, the village idiots in Alabama are trying to run the Mexicans out of town.
I personally know one person who left the U.S. because of immigration law. I know many others who had to put their lives on hold and to whom immigration law became a central issue for many years of their lives. For instance, I know one young man who came to the U.S. 10 years ago, manages a multi-state business for a large company, probably has paid tax on an income in the $70 - $100K range for at least 6 years, and yet does not have the right to permanent legal residence. Not citizenship: just the legal right to work here, to change jobs, etc. (He is legal, but on a temporary basis that comes with all sorts of restrictions. I’ve been there and I know what is like to be unable to plan things like home-purchases etc. long-term.)
Nevertheless, consider this: according to PEW 1.6 million people might apply. From the viewpoint of these people, little else can be more important. I cannot even begin to image how an 18 year old American kid would feel if told he has to go live in some foreign country like Mexico for the next 10 or 20 years. A 2-year legalization would be a huge hope to such a person. An Obama 2012 victory would mean hope that it becomes 6 years, and that it is then too late. Citizenship is of almost zero importance compared to the right to legal residence and the ability to work legally.
In addition, these 1.5 million people probably have a few million friends and family who are legal U.S. voters. Smart political move by Obama, that also has a great positive impact on millions of lives. meanwhile, the village idiots in Alabama are trying to run the Mexicans out of town.
Yes, that’s very true. (A few weeks ago I read an article about an immigrant working on Obama’s team.. he was very disappointed with Obama’s huge deportation numbers (as was I, but supposedly most of those deportations were of ‘criminals’). It was a great article nonetheless. I’ll try to find it and post it here.)
Edit: I also learned recently that LP is not for open immigration (in the current welfare state), but that Andrew Bernstein is. I assume the ‘Oist position’ is more in line with Bernstein.
Edit: I also learned recently that LP is notfor open immigration (in the current welfare state), but that Andrew Bernstein is. I assume the ‘Oist position’ is more in line with Bernstein.
Objectivism allows for the use of force to protect national security and individual rights. That includes immigration restrictions, be it on criminals or even entire hostile nations.
Aside from criminality and the spread of disease, and assuming the end of welfare statism. We should only look to curtail immgration or emmigration when we literally run out of land.
Objectivism allows for the use of force to protect national security and individual rights. That includes immigration restrictions, be it on criminals or even entire hostile nations.
LP and Bernstein both agree that: 1) the welfare state has got to go, and 2) in a LFC society, we should have open immigration. However, LP believes that open immigration should NOT be permissible in our current welfare state. He is anti-immigration. Whereas Bernstein believes that open immigration would benefit our nation as it currently stands, and therefore SUPPORTS open immigration.
Paraphrased transcript from LP’s podcast:
In a capitalist society, the government has no function whatever, and foreigners should be free to live here, move here, whatever. The principle of individual rights does not apply only to citizens, but also to foreigners, since they are human. Of course foreigners cannot engage in force, but… if they trade, or live here without the use of force, then there’s no problem. The government has the right to monitor for and prevent immigration, objectively provable, physically harmful, threat to the citizens, to the country.
…
What about in today’s society, which is an advanced welfare state?
Immigrants get free medical care. It’s unfair that we have to pay for additional freeloaders in addition to the ones that are already here… Today, while I stress we are still getting a large number of these high quality people, we are also getting a high mass of people attracted by the welfare state. And those people are the opposite of individualistic… There is an unavoidable, inherent contradiction here. It is the contradiction of the policy of the country. On the one hand, it is valid to have foreigners: they have a right to travel and settle freely. But on the other hand, the citizens of this country have a right to private property. Now taking the side of the citizens, I recognize that many American citizens are worse parasites than the worst immigrants. That doesn’t change the fact that… The only solution would be free immigration with no welfare state, but the politicians won’t do this.. they want the vote. So in the total context, I accept the anti-immigration viewpoint.
I agree 100% with Arizona, with their law… [stopping immigrants on grounds of suspicion of improper action]
“If you have evidence that there are a greater number in X group than Y committing a certain crime, you have every right to selectively focus, what they call ‘profiling,’ to try to determine if there’s no other way to do so, which is a given individual, a person committing the evil or not… to act on real probability is not a collective judgement.”
Compare that with part of Andrew Bernstein’s piece:
" Some argue that because of America’s current welfare state, the country cannot afford an open immigration policy. This is false for two reasons. One is that a welfare state is pernicious to both those funding it and those parasitical off of it; the former, because they’re robbed—the latter because its perverse financial incentives support men’s most indolent premises, and seduce onto the dole many who could otherwise gain minimum wage employment. From purely humanitarian considerations, the welfare state must be irrevocably dismantled, regardless of America’s immigration policy.
"Second, most persons who ship out of the only society they’ve known are rationally ambitious individuals. The U.S. is the favored destination of such rationally ambitious persons because they recognize that America is the greatest country on earth—and is so, not because it has welfare programs, but because its mixed economy contains more elements of capitalism and fewer of statism than any other nation.
Most immigrants recognize that America is the land of opportunity. If we let enough in, perhaps their number will offset the growing number of the native born who simper that America is the land of entitlement."
Objectivism allows for the use of force to protect national security and individual rights. That includes immigration restrictions, be it on criminals or even entire hostile nations.
Using these terms is somewhat problematic. Do you call restrictions on theft “economic restrictions”? If not, then this position where only criminals are prohibited from traveling would be termed unrestricted immigration. If by “interventions” and “restrictions” we mean actions that invade the sphere of voluntary actions (i.e. the free market), then we cannot also refer to those acts which restrict criminal actions as restrictions in the same sense. In that case, as per above, the term for the objectivist position would have to be unrestricted immigration.
Four more years of collectivist, paternalist, fascist, socialist Obama? This will not end well. :nuke: