5 ms·

> intends to reshape the electorate and dilute the voting interests of legal citizens Even if this characterization of the bill were accurate, those people wo

> intends to reshape the electorate and dilute the voting interests of legal citizens Even if this characterization of the bill were accurate, those people would then be legal citizens. Are they then diluting their own voting interests? At any rate people being born also dilutes voting interests, should we end that too, or are only people born to it inherently worthy of citizenship? Anyways, what, precisely, makes these people's interests less valid than those citizens? Most of them are paying taxes and working and raising families. They're literally asking to be subject to the same rights and responsibilities as citizens are. Wow how horrible.

dillondoyle 5y ago
Many of them are DREAMers too
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  Why is it relevant that some were DACA eligible? They’re still illegal immigrants, and it doesn’t impact the reality that granting them deferred action changes the future electoral power for each party significantly due to birthright citizenship. DACA wasn’t even a proper piece of legislation, but an executive order, which makes it even more one-sided.
throwawaysea 5y ago
Respectfully, I’m not sure what point you’re making here. Yes this bill would exploit our political process to legally admit many future citizens. I don’t think that makes it ethical, just as I don’t think it was ethical for McConnell to exploit a technicality around a SCOTUS nomination, or for either party to exploit executive orders as a means to legislate. I view the interests of illegal immigrants as less valid because they’ve violated our laws in arriving here in the first place. Crimes normally result in citizenship not being granted to otherwise legal migrants, and the same should hold here. The reason this amnesty is under consideration at all is because it is a shortcut to political power, granting one political side more future votes relative to the other.
- stormbrew 5y ago
  "exploit our political process" is a funny way to say "change the law around immigration". What's the exploit here? We aren't even talking about an executive order here are we? We're talking about an element of a bill being passed through the legislatures of the land. Exactly the mechanism that laws are supposed to go through to change. Anyways the people who are most viciously opposed to immigration are also the very same people who exploit illegal immigrant labor and have a vested interest in keeping an eternal underclass they can abuse, so you'll forgive me if I have very little sympathy for the 'side' that claims adding more citizens and giving more people intimately affected by the law the right to vote is an 'end run around democracy'. Also, many of these people had no choice in their alleged "law breaking". Holding people accountable and punishing them for their parents bringing them into the country when they were children is incredibly cruel. Insisting that they should never be able to obtain citizenship in the country they grew up in on top of that because they broke a law that holds almost no moral value would be just pure evil. Also, the 'exploit' that's actually being abused right now is the comically absurd procedural filibuster, which never should have been a thing in the first place. It, frankly, wasn't wrong to reduce the threshold for supreme court nominations to 50 votes in the senate -- it's wrong to tie up every single vote in a filibuster no one has to actually put anything on the line for.

dillondoyle 5y ago

Many of them are DREAMers too

throwawaysea 5y ago
Why is it relevant that some were DACA eligible? They’re still illegal immigrants, and it doesn’t impact the reality that granting them deferred action changes the future electoral power for each party significantly due to birthright citizenship. DACA wasn’t even a proper piece of legislation, but an executive order, which makes it even more one-sided.

throwawaysea 5y ago

Respectfully, I’m not sure what point you’re making here. Yes this bill would exploit our political process to legally admit many future citizens. I don’t think that makes it ethical, just as I don’t think it was ethical for McConnell to exploit a technicality around a SCOTUS nomination, or for either party to exploit executive orders as a means to legislate. I view the interests of illegal immigrants as less valid because they’ve violated our laws in arriving here in the first place. Crimes normally result in citizenship not being granted to otherwise legal migrants, and the same should hold here. The reason this amnesty is under consideration at all is because it is a shortcut to political power, granting one political side more future votes relative to the other.

stormbrew 5y ago
"exploit our political process" is a funny way to say "change the law around immigration". What's the exploit here? We aren't even talking about an executive order here are we? We're talking about an element of a bill being passed through the legislatures of the land. Exactly the mechanism that laws are supposed to go through to change. Anyways the people who are most viciously opposed to immigration are also the very same people who exploit illegal immigrant labor and have a vested interest in keeping an eternal underclass they can abuse, so you'll forgive me if I have very little sympathy for the 'side' that claims adding more citizens and giving more people intimately affected by the law the right to vote is an 'end run around democracy'. Also, many of these people had no choice in their alleged "law breaking". Holding people accountable and punishing them for their parents bringing them into the country when they were children is incredibly cruel. Insisting that they should never be able to obtain citizenship in the country they grew up in on top of that because they broke a law that holds almost no moral value would be just pure evil. Also, the 'exploit' that's actually being abused right now is the comically absurd procedural filibuster, which never should have been a thing in the first place. It, frankly, wasn't wrong to reduce the threshold for supreme court nominations to 50 votes in the senate -- it's wrong to tie up every single vote in a filibuster no one has to actually put anything on the line for.