Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
According to many on the left, even the NYT is racist now
YellowSnow
Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 34,971 
in Tug Tavern
Apparently many on the left are up in arms with the NY Times and starting an #unsubscribe movement, for allowing one of their token center-right, Never Trumpers, Ross Douthat to publish the following op-ed. I swear to god these whackos are drive my cuck ass into the arms of the Troomps.
Because #fakeconservative @oregonblitzkrieg has used up his monthly allotment of 10 free articles from the New York Times, I decided to cut and past in TL, DR format. You're welcome!
"After 12 years of failed attempts at immigration reform, the current round of negotiations are turning on a strangely personalized question: When a deal is being made, should Stephen Miller be at the table?
Miller is the White House’s point man for immigration policy (and for strange and strident encounters with the press). He is also an immigration restrictionist: He wants a policy that favors skills-based recruitment over extended families, and he wants a lower immigration rate overall. He says he’s concerned about assimilation and crime and native wages; his critics say he just wants to keep America as white as possible, and that by even bringing him to meetings Trump is making a deal impossible to reach.
The critics are right about this much: Having someone like Miller involved is a change from the way prior immigration negotiations have proceeded. As Jim Antle points out in a column for The Week, those negotiations have been consistently bipartisan, bringing together John McCain and Ted Kennedy, Marco Rubio and Chuck Schumer, now Lindsey Graham and Dick Durbin — but “they have mostly taken place between people who are fundamentally in agreement on immigration,” who favor both amnesty for illegal immigrants and reforms that would probably increase immigration rates.
The problem with this approach is that it doesn’t represent the actual divisions in the country. Americans have become more pro-immigration since the 1990s, but there is still a consistent pattern when you ask about immigration rates: About a third of Americans favor the current trend, slightly fewer want higher rates, and about a third, like Miller, want immigration reduced.
And there are various reasonable grounds on which one might favor a reduction. The foreign-born share of the U.S. population is near a record high, and increased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on our politics. There are questions about how fast the recent wave of low-skilled immigrants is assimilating, evidence that constant new immigration makes it harder for earlier arrivals to advance, and reasons to think that a native working class gripped by social crisis might benefit from a little less wage competition for a while. California, the model for a high-immigration future, is prosperous and dynamic — but also increasingly stratified by race, with the same inequality-measuring Gini coefficient as Honduras. Hi @CirrhosisDawg
With that said, JAKE BROWNING SUCKS illegal immigration has slowed over the last decade, and immigration’s potential economic and humanitarian benefits are still considerable. And it’s also clear that many immigration restrictionists are influenced by simple bigotry — with the president’s recent excrement-related remarks a noteworthy illustration.
This bigotry, from the point of view of many immigration advocates, justifies excluding real restrictionists from the negotiating table. You can give them a little more money for border security, some promises about reducing illegal entry. But you can’t let them play a large role in shaping policy. The limits of this strategy, though, are evident in the repeated failure of “comprehensive” immigration reform over the last decade and more, doomed each time by the gulf between the plans of Republican negotiators and the actual preferences of their voters.
The present view of many liberals seems to be that restrictionists can eventually be steamrolled — that the same ethnic transformations that have made white anxiety acute will eventually bury white-identity politics with sheer multiethnic numbers.
But liberals have been waiting 12 years for that “eventually” to arrive, and instead Trump is president and the illegal immigrants they want to protect are still in limbo. So maybe it would be worth trying to actually negotiate with Stephen Miller, rather than telling Trump that he needs to lock his adviser in a filing cabinet, slap on a “beware of leopard” sign, and hustle out to the Rose Garden to sign whatever Durbin and Graham have hashed out.
Especially since last week, Trump and Miller actually made an interesting offer: an amnesty and even a path to citizenship for DACA recipients and other Dreamers, more generous than what many restrictionists favor and with no promise of the new E-Verify enforcements conservatives often seek, in return for a shift (over many years) to a skills-based policy and a somewhat lower immigration rate.
If you’re committed to the view that restrictionists can and must be steamrolled, you’ll respond to this offer the way many Democrats have — call it a “white supremacist ransom note,” punt on policy, and use the issue to rally your base in 2018.
But if you think that lasting deals are forged when all sides are represented, you might consider making a counteroffer: for instance, the same rough blueprint but with more green cards for skilled immigrants, so that Miller gets his cuts to low-skilled immigration but the overall rate stays closer to the status quo.
I don’t know if there’s a deal to be had along those lines; restrictionists might rebel and Democrats might simply not want a grand bargain with this president."
Because #fakeconservative @oregonblitzkrieg has used up his monthly allotment of 10 free articles from the New York Times, I decided to cut and past in TL, DR format. You're welcome!
"After 12 years of failed attempts at immigration reform, the current round of negotiations are turning on a strangely personalized question: When a deal is being made, should Stephen Miller be at the table?
Miller is the White House’s point man for immigration policy (and for strange and strident encounters with the press). He is also an immigration restrictionist: He wants a policy that favors skills-based recruitment over extended families, and he wants a lower immigration rate overall. He says he’s concerned about assimilation and crime and native wages; his critics say he just wants to keep America as white as possible, and that by even bringing him to meetings Trump is making a deal impossible to reach.
The critics are right about this much: Having someone like Miller involved is a change from the way prior immigration negotiations have proceeded. As Jim Antle points out in a column for The Week, those negotiations have been consistently bipartisan, bringing together John McCain and Ted Kennedy, Marco Rubio and Chuck Schumer, now Lindsey Graham and Dick Durbin — but “they have mostly taken place between people who are fundamentally in agreement on immigration,” who favor both amnesty for illegal immigrants and reforms that would probably increase immigration rates.
The problem with this approach is that it doesn’t represent the actual divisions in the country. Americans have become more pro-immigration since the 1990s, but there is still a consistent pattern when you ask about immigration rates: About a third of Americans favor the current trend, slightly fewer want higher rates, and about a third, like Miller, want immigration reduced.
And there are various reasonable grounds on which one might favor a reduction. The foreign-born share of the U.S. population is near a record high, and increased diversity and the distrust it sows have clearly put stresses on our politics. There are questions about how fast the recent wave of low-skilled immigrants is assimilating, evidence that constant new immigration makes it harder for earlier arrivals to advance, and reasons to think that a native working class gripped by social crisis might benefit from a little less wage competition for a while. California, the model for a high-immigration future, is prosperous and dynamic — but also increasingly stratified by race, with the same inequality-measuring Gini coefficient as Honduras. Hi @CirrhosisDawg
With that said, JAKE BROWNING SUCKS illegal immigration has slowed over the last decade, and immigration’s potential economic and humanitarian benefits are still considerable. And it’s also clear that many immigration restrictionists are influenced by simple bigotry — with the president’s recent excrement-related remarks a noteworthy illustration.
This bigotry, from the point of view of many immigration advocates, justifies excluding real restrictionists from the negotiating table. You can give them a little more money for border security, some promises about reducing illegal entry. But you can’t let them play a large role in shaping policy. The limits of this strategy, though, are evident in the repeated failure of “comprehensive” immigration reform over the last decade and more, doomed each time by the gulf between the plans of Republican negotiators and the actual preferences of their voters.
The present view of many liberals seems to be that restrictionists can eventually be steamrolled — that the same ethnic transformations that have made white anxiety acute will eventually bury white-identity politics with sheer multiethnic numbers.
But liberals have been waiting 12 years for that “eventually” to arrive, and instead Trump is president and the illegal immigrants they want to protect are still in limbo. So maybe it would be worth trying to actually negotiate with Stephen Miller, rather than telling Trump that he needs to lock his adviser in a filing cabinet, slap on a “beware of leopard” sign, and hustle out to the Rose Garden to sign whatever Durbin and Graham have hashed out.
Especially since last week, Trump and Miller actually made an interesting offer: an amnesty and even a path to citizenship for DACA recipients and other Dreamers, more generous than what many restrictionists favor and with no promise of the new E-Verify enforcements conservatives often seek, in return for a shift (over many years) to a skills-based policy and a somewhat lower immigration rate.
If you’re committed to the view that restrictionists can and must be steamrolled, you’ll respond to this offer the way many Democrats have — call it a “white supremacist ransom note,” punt on policy, and use the issue to rally your base in 2018.
But if you think that lasting deals are forged when all sides are represented, you might consider making a counteroffer: for instance, the same rough blueprint but with more green cards for skilled immigrants, so that Miller gets his cuts to low-skilled immigration but the overall rate stays closer to the status quo.
I don’t know if there’s a deal to be had along those lines; restrictionists might rebel and Democrats might simply not want a grand bargain with this president."
Comments
Also didn't realize the Dems push back on everify.
Not that it matters since every illegal has a fake social.
Trump actually has the balls to get something like this done. Give an amnesty plan to not just the DACA's but also the folks who have been here 10 or more years and fit the above stated criteria. But on the back end of this, there would be no more sanctuary cities and local and state law enforcement would need to cooperate and collaborate with ICE, Feds and Border Patrol to make illegals that don't fit the criteria to GTFO. I don't really care about the wall as that's just a rallying point for low info voter.
If he were to step up and do that, it would absolutely neuter the Democratic party for years.
Fucking Beautiful Hypocrisy
Which means we can't have it.
Salem thinks you're a low info voter and doesn't think the wall is a real thing.
Just wanted to make sure you two met.
Most are too PC to say it, but I'm not. Trump's base is fed up with immigration and wants the immigration rate to be ZERO. Only the best and brightest 5 star recruits should be admitted. There will be a wall to keep out unwanted vermin. Nothing short of the total destruction of the visa lottery program will be acceptable. No more religious fascists from shithole countries. No more chain migration.
In exchange for everything just listed,
the dreamersthat particular group of illegal aliens can stay.Pretty simple.
But you calling the Democratic party the party of racists, in the spirit in which that term is normally used (as opposed to the twisted version of it that focuses on the focus on race as itself racist) is basically POTD, and not in a good way.
The paper hanging and the rhetoric have reached an all-time level now. Everyone wants votes. Of course the Ds use poor people for votes, just like right likes to re-draw voting districts for cartography fun and games. That means nothing to me either way.
But this drum beat of yours that the newly invented Republican party, which has absofuckinglutely sold its soul to (1) the religious fundies, (2) the poor white trash redneck belt, (3) the tin-foil hat crowd, is somehow keepin' in real for the Amurican Peeps is just too much fucking fun for one day.
The only thing left for me to determine is whether you & the other Breitbarts are (a) that fucking stupid and easily manipulated or (2) just absolutely fucking with me and the rest of the bored. I have my theory about OBK, and maybe Turd. You and and some of the other bananas are an open question.
Salem broh, meat OBK. OBK, meat Salem, my main CUOG!!!!!!!!
Salem thinks you're a low info voter and doesn't think the wall is a real thing.
Just wanted to make sure you two met.
People that are here doing the right thing should stay. Deadbeats and losers LEAVE. Border security now and forever including a tracking system for the visa over stay crowd that fly in.
Trump already offered to take the heat from the OBK crowd and Durbin panicked that it could happen
"My" crowd will stand their ground, because we're right. We see what went down in Germany and in Europe. We see how they're handling it over there, and won't permit that shit here.