“Democrats Want Open Borders and Hate Walls!” Or Do They…?

Just to be clear, dear conservatives, I have been seeing posts and videos about the supposed “HYPOCRISY” of Democrats and their leadership over border wall spending; just to be sure you are talking about the how they voted for Comprehensive Immigration bills in October 2006 and April 2013 and the passage of the Secure Fence Act of 2006 right? You know, three times where Democrats voted for walls and security and fences and patrols!… Wonder why they did that if they want open borders? Hypocrisy, or at least its definition, more accurately resembles how you are able to make both these claims at the same time… But I digress…

Well, I’ve pulled 4 bills that are relevant here and they are listed below. For the first House Bill I did not include an analysis because its extreme nature made it a non starter even for many Republicans, but it is a reason why the Secure Fence Act passed so it is necessary to include herein.

So, here we go.

  • H.R.4437 – Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act of 2005
    • Extreme yuck, you go look it up.
  • S.2611 – Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006 (Schumer, Biden, Clinton, Obama Yea Votes) 5/25/2006
    • The major difference between H.R. 4437 and S. 2611 was the proposed legalization for illegal immigrants in S. 2611. The Senate legislation allowed illegal immigrants who have been in the country for more than five years, estimated to be 7 million in number, to apply for citizenship by paying fines and back taxes. Illegal immigrants who have been in the country for 2 to 5 years, numbering around 3 million, would be allowed to stay in the country without fear of deportation, but after 3 years would have to leave the U.S. and could apply for citizenship abroad. Those in the country for under 2 years would be required to return to their original nations. Thus, with some waiting, 10 million illegal immigrants could be eligible to become citizens. The fine is around $2000, but some sources say it could have been higher.
    • The Bill also introduces a H-2C visa, or “blue card.” This visa allows employers to bring in outside workers for up to 6 years, after which the employee must spend one year in their original country. The Bill proposes 370 miles (600 km) of fencing along highly populated areas near the border; H.R. 4437 proposes 700 miles (1,100 km) of fencing.
    • The Bill does not mention any expanded role for local law enforcement for border enforcement tasks (primarily for interior enforcement) the way that H.R. 4437 does. There is an added clause, the Inhofe Amendment, an English-only proposal that makes English the “national language” of the United States aiming at discouraging services in any other language than English (YUCK but an obvious compromise to get a vote and one that should not have been made…).
    • The bill would also increase the annual cap for H-1B work visas from 65,000 to 115,000, with an automatic 20% increase year on year, thus increasing the number of information technology and other professionals from foreign countries eligible to work in the U.S. It also would lower the standard by which judges determine who is eligible for refugee status from “clear and convincing evidence” to “substantial evidence.”
    • It would allow illegal immigrants who later become legal to collect Social Security benefits based on social security credits earned while they were illegal. Also, the United States federal government would have to consult with Mexican officials before commencement of any fence construction on the U.S. side of the border.
    • This bill has been compared to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986.
  • H.R.6061 – Secure Fence Act of 2006 9/14/06
    • Democrats normally in favor of looser immigration laws saw the Secure Fence Act of 2006 as the lesser of two evils, according to a Boston Globe report that detailed the legislative process. Around that same time, the House passed legislation that would make any undocumented immigrant a felon.
    • “It didn’t have anywhere near the gravity of harm,” Angela Kelley, who in 2006 was the legislative director for the National Immigration Forum, told the Boston Globe. “It was hard to vote against it because who is going to vote against a secure fence? And it was benign compared with what was out there.” (H.R.4437…)
  • S.744 – Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act 2013 (Schumer, Sanders Yea Votes)
    • The bill dealt with immigration reform. It proposed to increase some security along the southern US border with Mexico, allow long-term illegal immigrants to gain legal status, and to increase the number of guest workers over and above those already present in the U.S. through a new “blue card” visa program.
    • The sponsor of the Bill, Senator Arlen Specter, introduced it on April 7, 2006. It was passed on May 25, 2006, by a vote of 62-36. Cloture was invoked, which limited debate to a 30-hour period. The parallel House Bill H.R. 4437 would have dealt with immigration differently. Neither bill became law because the two Houses were not able to reach an agreement to go to a conference committee. The end of the 109th Congress (January 3, 2007) marked the defeat of both bills.
    • The bill was voted out of Committee on May 21, 2013 and was placed on the Senate calendar. On June 27, 2013, the Senate passed the bill on 68-32 margin. The bill was not considered by THE REPUBLICAN MAJORITY HELD United States House of Representatives and died in the 113th Congress.
    • If enacted, the bill would have made it possible for many undocumented immigrants to GAIN LEGAL STATUS AND EVENTUALLY CITIZENSHIP. It would have increased border security by adding up to 40,000 border patrol agents. It also would have advanced TALENT BASED immigration through a points-based immigration system (you know like Trumpy and the Republicans say they want).
    • New visas had been proposed in this legislation, including a visa for entrepreneurs and a W visa for lower skilled workers. It also proposed new restrictions on H1B visa program to PREVENT ITS ABUSE and additional visas/green-cards for students with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees from U.S. institutions. The bill also included a $1.5 billion youth jobs program and repealed the Diversity Visa Lottery in favor of prospective legal immigrants who are already in the United States.
    • The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimated this reform bill would have reduced the U.S. fiscal deficit by US $197 billion over the next ten years and by $700 billion by 2033. Its report also states that, if the bill had been passed, U.S. wages would have been 0.1 percent lower in 2023 and 0.5 percent higher in 2033 than under current law. The Social Security Administration said that it would help add $276 billion in revenue over the next 10 years while costing only $33 billion.

So yeah, in 2006 with a 1/3 legislative minority the Democrats took a lesser of two evils strategic step and in 2013 supported a comprehensive moderate immigration bill that added border security but also made immigration safe, legal, and fair. One that was not even considered by House Leader John Boehner. Sure, Sanders and Obama and Hillary and Schumer and Pelosi have a history of voting for border security, just like you forgot to read what was actually in the bills.

In conclusion, #Maga Men and Women, your criticisms and smoking guns are generally a bad argument since the Democrat’s bills had much of what you and your president have recently demanded but you wouldn’t vote for it when Obama was in office. Its not my fault you chose to be obstructionists instead of politicians, but you need to at least read something before you say it proves that you are winning.

Conservative Christians Dream of Theocracy

In our current age of the 21st century, it is commonplace to hear the slogan “America is a Christian nation” chanted by conservative Christians. That particular rightist misconception, albeit a discerning and ridiculous one, is not surprising since the majority on that side of the political spectrum are also prone to rejecting evolution and global warming (they seem to be consistently and fundamentally incorrect about the foundations of reality itself, in most cases).

 

American Prohibition Flag design ca 1915Recently, members of the Republican Party in Idaho drafted a resolution which would have their state specifically declared a Christian state.” Various supporters of the resolution went on to detail how the resolution reflected Thomas Jefferson’s and James Madison’s Christian principles that originally helped establish our nation.

 

But if this is a Christian nation to begin with, why are rightists always trying to slowly but surely make it one by drafting such resolutions in the first place? And why do 57% of Republicans want to make Christianity the national religion if this is already a Christian nation?
Continue reading “Conservative Christians Dream of Theocracy”

Bi Weekly Blasphemy 10: Life and Death with Dignity

Recorded last week but tying in nicely with the wonderful show we had on Sunday December 7th 2014 Deafilosophy ruminates. A few weeks have passed and Brittany Maynard has been given the peace and respect she deserves, I have decided to ask the big questions, embrace the thousand yard perspective, and if we really need the government to make laws on what should simply be the ultimate freedom over your life or death with dignity.

YouTube-logo-full_color

Please Subscribe to Our YouTube Channel Here!

patreon-logo

Interested in becoming a sponsor? Become a Patreon for as little as $2

An Atheist’s Problem of Natural Rights

At the risk of sticking my neck out with a highly unpopular opinion within American politics, I would like to discuss the topic of rights, and how they seem incompatible with an atheistic worldview. This is because rights often seem to be seen as a sort of objective moral standard, while from an atheistic perspective, the world is rather nihilistic, and any morals that exist come from humans, not outside of it.

As we have discussed in my previous post on the argument from morality, objective morality is pretty problematic from an atheistic perspective. Most atheists I have talked to do not believe it exists at all, and while I attempt to argue that it does in the most basic of forms, at the very most all we can establish is an inclination towards certain behaviors and an avoidance of others. The actual morals themselves in practice are largely subjective, and there is a massive amount of latitude that exists in implementation. However, the idea of natural rights is normally seen as a form of objective or deontological morality, and can be justified in one of two ways, or even a combination of the two ways. Some people argue for natural rights by appealing to God, while others just claim they are self evident and can be derived from nature. Both of these justifications are flawed, as I will explain below.

Continue reading “An Atheist’s Problem of Natural Rights”

S.E Cupp the “Atheist”

I should have known this would happen. For many years I have seen liars and trolls on message boards and comment sections claiming they too were once atheists who had finally seen the light. A cheap yet cunning ploy to give doubt to any secularist, this type of dishonesty you would only expect from a believer. So I should have known that with evolution (You know evolution, it’s that fact Christians don’t like) the next step would naturally be a satirical and anthropomorphised version, a troll 2.0 if you will. And here we have it.

S. E. Cupp or Sarah Elizabeth as her parents call her – Always be suspicious of someone with two first names, it shows a hereditary inability to make simple decisions, you know, like choosing if you believe in God or not.

It almost sounds like 2.0 wouldn’t be out of place after her name; and the way she robotically agrees with her Fox news counterparts on nearly every subject, shows she also plays the part very well. I wonder how long it will take until she gets her theist operating system downgrade.

I know I am not the first to say it (thanks Jaclyn Glenn – you couldn’t wait a few more weeks could you) but I won’t be the last, this woman is not an atheist.

I will go one step further, as I always do, and call bullshit – she is what I like to call a class A bullshitter. Continue reading “S.E Cupp the “Atheist””