Red Mosquito

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:It's not an either or with Biden and the red team, they both suck on this issue. The 2004 and 2014 bills were both MUCH better.

I think of it like a rapidly filling bath tub. Right now we have a bucket and we occasionally scoop out water when absolutely necessary, but the tub is still filling. What this bill does is provide a much more expensive bucket and the option to more frequently scoop should things get worse than they are in the crises we are in today. What it should do is reach up and turn down the faucet.

That’s a very reductive analogy, but I still want to know what any person genuinely concerned about illegal immigration believes is accomplished by the rejection of this bill.

Big change legislation doesn’t happen on its own. Incremental policy changes pave the way for something to happen, by nudging the goalposts and by laying a groundwork. The ACA, maybe the biggest sea change legislation of the last 20 years, didn’t happen in a bubble. It took years of passing bills like the Medicare Modernization Act (2003) and the National Institutes of Health Act of 2006 to create a framework, and to nudge sweeping change into a context that felt politically feasible.

If those bills had been defeated by purists because they only changed the size of the bucket or nudged the speed of the scooping, that wouldn’t have increased the likelihood of major legislation happening. It would’ve sent a message that the political will was lacking, and most likely ended ACA efforts before they began.

The bill normalizes crises levels of illegal immigration. So the damage we are seeing in NYC, Chicago, Denver, etc. stops being correctly called out as a crises and becomes the baseline and expected state. This should be a non-starter for any and all discussions on the topic.

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:It's not an either or with Biden and the red team, they both suck on this issue. The 2004 and 2014 bills were both MUCH better.

I think of it like a rapidly filling bath tub. Right now we have a bucket and we occasionally scoop out water when absolutely necessary, but the tub is still filling. What this bill does is provide a much more expensive bucket and the option to more frequently scoop should things get worse than they are in the crises we are in today. What it should do is reach up and turn down the faucet.

That’s a very reductive analogy, but I still want to know what any person genuinely concerned about illegal immigration believes is accomplished by the rejection of this bill.

Big change legislation doesn’t happen on its own. Incremental policy changes pave the way for something to happen, by nudging the goalposts and by laying a groundwork. The ACA, maybe the biggest sea change legislation of the last 20 years, didn’t happen in a bubble. It took years of passing bills like the Medicare Modernization Act (2003) and the National Institutes of Health Act of 2006 to create a framework, and to nudge sweeping change into a context that felt politically feasible.

If those bills had been defeated by purists because they only changed the size of the bucket or nudged the speed of the scooping, that wouldn’t have increased the likelihood of major legislation happening. It would’ve sent a message that the political will was lacking, and most likely ended ACA efforts before they began.

The bill normalizes crises levels of illegal immigration. So the damage we are seeing in NYC, Chicago, Denver, etc. stops being correctly called out as a crises and becomes the baseline and expected state. This should be a non-starter for any and all discussions on the topic.

“A non-starter” is exactly what all comprehensive immigration discussions get turned into, when one of the negotiating parties helps to craft a bill and then drops its support for the legislation it helped write at the last minute.

Enjoy your non-starter. It might last a while.

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

McParadigm wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:It's not an either or with Biden and the red team, they both suck on this issue. The 2004 and 2014 bills were both MUCH better.

I think of it like a rapidly filling bath tub. Right now we have a bucket and we occasionally scoop out water when absolutely necessary, but the tub is still filling. What this bill does is provide a much more expensive bucket and the option to more frequently scoop should things get worse than they are in the crises we are in today. What it should do is reach up and turn down the faucet.

That’s a very reductive analogy, but I still want to know what any person genuinely concerned about illegal immigration believes is accomplished by the rejection of this bill.

Big change legislation doesn’t happen on its own. Incremental policy changes pave the way for something to happen, by nudging the goalposts and by laying a groundwork. The ACA, maybe the biggest sea change legislation of the last 20 years, didn’t happen in a bubble. It took years of passing bills like the Medicare Modernization Act (2003) and the National Institutes of Health Act of 2006 to create a framework, and to nudge sweeping change into a context that felt politically feasible.

If those bills had been defeated by purists because they only changed the size of the bucket or nudged the speed of the scooping, that wouldn’t have increased the likelihood of major legislation happening. It would’ve sent a message that the political will was lacking, and most likely ended ACA efforts before they began.

The bill normalizes crises levels of illegal immigration. So the damage we are seeing in NYC, Chicago, Denver, etc. stops being correctly called out as a crises and becomes the baseline and expected state. This should be a non-starter for any and all discussions on the topic.

“A non-starter” is exactly what all comprehensive immigration discussions get turned into, when one of the negotiating parties helps to craft a bill and then drops its support for the legislation it helped write at the last minute.

Enjoy your non-starter. It might last a while.

I understand what you are saying, but in trying to get to "red team bad" you miss the point. The bill would change the law to make the problem of crises levels of illegal immigration worse. Let's imagine there is some safe amount of mercury in grocery store fish. If all of a sudden every fish showing up in stores had 10x the previously determined safe limit, the an acceptable answer would not be to raise the safe limit of mercury consumption just to start a policy conversation about what the safe limit should be and open door to lowering the limit back down at some indeterminate point in the future.

B wrote:

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

They only thing this gets right is using a giant meteor as a metaphor for the destructive force of the current level of illegal immigration

Bi_3 wrote:

B wrote:

They only thing this gets right is using a giant meteor as a metaphor for the destructive force of the current level of illegal immigration

simple schoolboy wrote:

Trump says ICE can arrest people at churches and schools

B wrote:Are the criminal immigrants gone yet?

B wrote:Are the criminal immigrants gone yet?