Republicans Ready To Cave On DHS Funding?

With three days to go, there are signs the GOP is ready to give up on its showdown over DHS funding.

Capitol Daytime

For the better part of the past month, the Senate has been tied down in a debate over funding for the Department of Homeland Security and deportation deferral program that the President announced in November. As you may recall, during the lame duck session, Congress passed a budget that fully funded virtually the entire Federal Government through the end of the Fiscal Year in September. The budget for the Department of Homeland Security, however, was only funded through the end of February. At the time, the move was seen as an opportunity for the newly elected Republican Congress to make some kind of statement about the President’s executive action. In January, the House passed a bill that purported to fund DHS in all respects except for those directly tied to the deportation relief program. For the past month, though, that bill has been tied up in the Senate due to what continues to be a successful Democratic filibuster effort that has, as of yet, not resulted in any defections from conservative Democrats such as West Virginia’s Joe Manchin. With the fourth failed cloture vote just last night, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell appears to be moving on to Plan B:

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took steps Monday to prevent a shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security by splitting off legislation attacking President Obama’s immigration actions from the funding fight.

The Kentucky Republican is seeking to fast-track legislation to eliminate two new immigration programs launched by Obama late last year, while allowing a 2012 initiative targeting younger immigrants to continue as designed.

McConnell’s move sets the stage for separate votes on a measure to fund the Homeland Security Department (DHS) past Friday and to dismantle Obama’s unilateral efforts to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation.

A House-passed proposal combining those two efforts had hit a wall in the Senate, where Democrats on Monday united for a fourth time this month to block the measure over their opposition to the provisions undoing Obama’s executive actions.

The DHS will suffer a partial shutdown if Congress doesn’t act before Saturday.

McConnell said he wanted to take away Democrats’ excuse for not voting against Obama’s 2014 actions, which several centrist Democrats had previously criticized.

“Some Democrats give the impression they want Congress to address the overreach. But when they vote, they always seem to have an excuse for supporting actions they once criticized,” he said on the floor. “So I’m going to begin proceedings on targeted legislation that would only address the most recent overreach from November.

“It isn’t tied to DHS funding. It removes their excuse,” he added.

McConnell’s decision could mark a step forward from the stalemate over the funding debate, which had left GOP leaders of both chambers struggling for a way to prevent an agency shutdown while appeasing conservatives insisting the immigration riders be a part of the package.

It remains unclear how the strategy will be received by House conservatives, but the office of Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) was quick to indicate its support.

“This vote will highlight the irresponsible hypocrisy of any Senate Democrat who claims to oppose President Obama’s executive overreach on immigration, but refuses to vote to stop it,” Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement. “If we are going to work together on the American peoples priorities, Washington Democrats must be honest with the people they represent.”

Democrats quickly criticized McConnell’s decision, saying it won’t help prevent a shutdown of DHS.

“It’s becoming clear Senator McConnell realizes he must separate himself from the far right, but the bottom line is this proposal doesn’t bring us any closer to actually funding DHS, and Republicans still have no real plan to achieve that goal,” Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a statement.

He added that any immigration debate should happen after lawmakers pass a bill to fund Homeland Security.

McConnell’s move sets up what is sure to be an animated meeting of House Republicans on Wednesday morning, where Boehner and other GOP leaders are certain to get an earful from conservatives insisting the immigration provisions remain attached to the Homeland Security bill and centrists leaning toward a cleaner bill for the sake of keeping the agency up and running.

Boehner had been adamant that the ball remain in the Senate’s court after the House last month passed a $40 billion funding proposal that included several amendments undoing Obama’s unilateral efforts to shield millions of illegal immigrants from deportation.

McConnell, meanwhile, had said he was “stuck” in the face of Democrats insisting on a clean bill absent the immigration amendments. Monday’s 47-46 vote was designed to drive home that point

McConnell’s rhetoric makes it seems like he thinks that he’s trapped Democrats who have been unwilling to take a stand on the President’s deferred deportation program, and that’s how the National Journal characterizes is, but it seems clear to me that this is nothing short of a recognition by McConnell that the shutdown strategy has failed. As in previous cases, Republicans have obviously hoped that the threat of a shutdown at DHS would force Democrats to cave in and allow a DHS bill that “defunded” the President’s deportation relief program to pass the Senate. The recent ruling by a Federal Judge in Texas striking down the program has no doubt given them some degree of hope notwithstanding the fact that another Federal Judge in Washington, D.C. has ruled completely differently. In the end, though, it’s obvious that neither party wants to get to the point where it’s the end of the day on Friday and there hasn’t been a budget passed for the Department of Homeland Security, the question has always been which party which blink first. For the moment at least, it appears that the Republicans are ones getting ready to cave in. If McConnell’s proposal passes, then we’ll see the budget for DHS approved in full, including that portion covering the deferred deportation program. The second bill purporting to repeal the President’s program, even if it did pass the House and Senate, would quite obviously be vetoed and that veto would not be over ridden. In the end, it would be a purely symbolic vote.

The big question, of course, is whether or not this will go over well with the House Republicans, which would have to pass a new DHS funding bill for this to go to the Senate. The initial comments regarding McConnell’s plan from House Speaker John Boehner have been muted, but seemingly positive, but the real test will come tomorrow when the House Republican Caucus holds its weekly meeting. That will be the first initial test of how things are likely to go in the House if this plan goes forward, and it will likely lead to Boehber and the rest of the leadership having to once again making a choice between keeping the government running and appeasing the right wing of their caucus. Given the fact that funding runs out in three days, there isn’t much time for them to decide.

FILED UNDER: Borders and Immigration, Congress, US Politics, ,
Doug Mataconis
About Doug Mataconis
Doug holds a B.A. in Political Science from Rutgers University and J.D. from George Mason University School of Law. He joined the staff of OTB in May 2010. Before joining OTB, he wrote at Below The BeltwayThe Liberty Papers, and United Liberty Follow Doug on Twitter | Facebook

Comments

  1. C. Clavin says:

    You really have to feel bad for McConnell. He’s stuck dealing with a House Republican Caucus that’s borderline (pun intended) insane, and House Leadership that has no idea how to handle that caucus.
    Tim Huelskamp
    Louie Gohmert
    Joe Wilson
    Pete Sessions
    Steve Scalise
    Steve King
    Joe Barton
    These people are all f’ing nuts.
    Good luck getting anything done.
    I can’t wait for your both sides do it analysis as we get closer to the deadline.

  2. al-Ameda says:

    @C. Clavin:

    Tim Huelskamp, Louie Gohmert, Joe Wilson, Pete Sessions, Steve Scalise, Steve King, Joe Barton … These people are all f’ing nuts.
    Good luck getting anything done.

    What they have in common is that they do not at all mind if government is shut down, and they believe that their constituents see it the same way.

    The problem is, those nut bags suffer no fallout when they do this stuff, they personally do not pay a political price for their petulance and bad behavior.

  3. superdestroyer says:

    Once again, when it comes time for the Republicans to decide whether they want to be relevant or not to policy or governance in the U.S., they opt to be irrelevant. After another collapse of the Republicans on an issue that virtually all Republican voters lean one way but the big Donor class leans the other way, the Republicans have decided to go with the big donors.

    After results such as this, there is no way for argue that there will be a Republican Party in the future and the real question is when will the average Republican voter decide to start voting in the Democratic primary in order to have some say on issues of policy and governance.

  4. C. Clavin says:

    Prototypical Republican mouthpiece, and all around idiot, Ron Christie admits what this is all about for Republicans:

    This standoff isn’t about funding for the Department of Homeland Security but Republican language to prohibit Obama from providing funds to his executive actions that would allow some illegal immigrants to remain in the country and apply for work permits.

    It’s all about sending those brown people home. Weird coming from a man of color…but whatever it takes to establish wwing-nut cred, I suppose.
    Christie goes on to say that Democrats are just scare-mongering…that shutting down the DHS has no consequences. Ignore for a moment that Christie worked in the White House when 9.11 happened, so his credibility on National Security is iffy at best.

    Obama and his Democrat enablers are Chicken Littles predicting dire harm to the country when they know nothing is further than the truth.

    My question is; why are we wasting money on the DHS if it is not essential? Why aren’t the Republican fiscal hawks (who are never ever really fiscal hawks) calling for the dismantling of this non-essential bureaucracy?

  5. LaMont says:

    @al-Ameda:

    You are correct – which is likely why they will never have any real power. It makes the entire Republican Party look bad, and that counts against them for presidential year elections like 2016 where the President could remain in the Democratic Party and the Senat could flip. The worst that would happen to these types of people is that they get “primaried” under the false premise that they’re not doing enough! Sad and funny but very true in today’s political environment…

  6. gVOR08 says:

    @superdestroyer:

    After another collapse of the Republicans on an issue that virtually all Republican voters lean one way but the big Donor class leans the other way, the Republicans have decided to go with the big donors.

    In other news, water is wet.

    I’m glad you have worked up to seeing this as something the Rs are doing to themselves and not something the Ds are doing to them, or responsible for saving them from. (I don’t mean to imply that I agree with your basic thesis that we’re headed for single party D government.)

    (And does anybody know how to not bold blockquotes with Firefox?)

  7. gVOR08 says:

    “GOP leaders are certain to get an earful from Tea Party whackjob conservatives insisting the immigration provisions remain attached to the Homeland Security bill and centrists establishment conservatives leaning toward a cleaner bill… ”

    Fixed that for The Hill.

  8. superdestroyer says:

    @gVOR08:

    This actually is a good indication that the U.S. is headed to being a one party state. The Republican in Congress are incapable of holding meaningful hearings, passing legislation, or passing a budget. The Republicans in Congress are no more than a speed bump for the Democrats. In 2016 the Democartic Party will regain control of the Senate and in 2022, the Democrats will regain control of the House. In January 2023, all of the wonks and pundits will be writing about how the Republicans are irrelevant and no longer worth writing or thinking about.

  9. Tony W says:

    @superdestroyer: The bigger problem for Republicans is that they are divided on this issue.

    The religious/bigot wing wants to keep the “furiners” out, but the pro-business wing needs easily exploited labor and a steady stream of immigrants to drive down native labor costs

    This is one of the few issues where the Republican’s unholy trinity of oligarchs, religious nuts and white-trash racists comes to bite them in the collective backside.

  10. superdestroyer says:

    @Tony W:

    But the oligarchs should learned from the California example that adding millions of third world immigrants does not make overall costs go down but makes them go up. Increased taxes, increases real estate costs, harder to find middle managers, and creates a government dominated by Democrats who are generally unfriendly to the private sector.

    What immigration shows is how short sighted the Big business Republicans are versus the small guys. The small guys know what a hassle it is to avoid the costs of unchecked immigration. The oligarchs to not.

  11. C. Clavin says:

    @superdestroyer:

    time for the Republicans to decide whether they want to be relevant or not to policy or governance

    But this is not about policy and governance. It’s about the base and it’s xenophobia…with a good dose of ODS thrown in for good measure.
    If it was about governance Republicans would pass an immigration bill.
    I’ve noticed that you confuse these things a lot. When Democrats work on policy and governance to help…you know…actual people, you think it’s pandering. But when Republicans are actually pandering to their base…as is the case here….you think it’s about policy and governance.
    Not until you get this sort of thing straight, in your own head, will politics make much sense to you.

  12. Tillman says:

    @gVOR08: Could have sworn it was something about spacing away from blockquotes. Though I just tried it and it didn’t work.

    Maybe this?

    Okay, that’s it. Put blockquotes on their own line, don’t have them following any text. See if that works.

  13. gVOR08 says:

    @superdestroyer: The establishment GOPs seem to be making progress on bringing the Tea Party types to heel. They need your votes in the general, they don’t need or want you for anything else.

  14. stonetools says:

    Senator Harry Reid weighs In:

    Senator Harry Reid @SenatorReid · 2h 2 hours ago
    I appreciate the Majority Leader has to try to please extreme voices on his side. But we’ve wasted time. 4 days left to pass a clean bill

    Man, if you look at his mentions, conservatives are frothing mad over this. They know they aren’t winning this one .
    The ball is in the House Republicans’ court. I expect they’ll cave but how knows with those crazies?

  15. Gustopher says:

    If we do have a DHS shutdown, I hope the airport and border screeners in the fast lanes for first class, precheck, and nexus folks are not considered essential and forced to work without pay.

    It would just be a nice little thumb in the eye for the congress critters and their backers if they had to stand in the long slow lines like poor people.

  16. Gustopher says:

    What was the Republican plan for handling the inevitable Obama veto? I mean, sure, their plan failed before getting that far, but what did they think would happen?

    Meanwhile, Mitch McConnell begins to learn that the most precious commodity in the Senate is time, and that he has squandered a month or so tilting at windmills. I really hope he doesn’t learn this lesson, actually, since a functional Republican congress would be so much worse.

  17. HarvardLaw92 says:

    Quotes which begin a comment are not bolded by default

    @gVOR08:

    Initial block reply quotes (i.e. those directly preceded by the initial reply link) ARE bolded by default

    and

    quotes following text are not bolded by default

  18. Gavrilo says:

    Why the hell would Republicans force a DHS shutdown when the President’s amnesty plan is already on hold? This is actually a pretty good move. Why not make Joe Manchin, Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp, Angus King and the rest of the the Dems who supposedly oppose the President’s executive order vote on it without the excuse of the funding issue?

  19. superdestroyer says:

    @C. Clavin:

    I understand that what all elected leaders should do is to focus on policy and governance. However, to argue that bringing in millions of third world immigrants is going to help all people is insane. Immigration is a great deal for those who receive amnesty, those Democratic party politicians who will benefit in the future from million of automatic Democratic Party voters, the public sector workers who are employed to handled or mitigate the effects of unchecked immigration, and those the Wall Street types who want cheaper labor. However, immigration reform does nothing for the middle class white (and black) private sector employed American citizens who will see their taxes go up, their quality of living go down, and their job prospects fade away.

    There are at least a few Republicans who realize that comprehensive immigraiton reform and amnesty are huge wins for the Democrats and a huge loss for Republicans and Repubican voters. What is amazing is how the Democrats refuse to admit that it will be a huge win for themselves and bring about a one party state faster than the current demographic changes.

  20. C. Clavin says:

    @Gustopher:

    a functional Republican congress would be so much worse.

    this….

  21. superdestroyer says:

    @gVOR08:

    But then again, who needs a Republican Party that does nothing but rubber stamp whatever the Democrats and the big donors want. There is not one establishment Republican who has ever explained how amnesty and comprehensive immigration reform makes life better for middle class white Americans. (and yes, the white party is important because every one of those receiving amnesty will eventually be eligible for a quota, set aside, or affirmative action. In other words, how does amnesty and comprehensive immigration reform make life better for the Abigail Fishers of the U.S.

  22. superdestroyer says:

    @stonetools:

    Calling it a clean bill is a lie. It is a bill that enables amnesty for millions of illegal aliens. There is nothing clean about it. It is massive victory for the Democrats and a massive loss for the Republicans (and conservatives). A “clean bill” lets President Obama do whatever he wants on immigration. The only way to prevent President Obama from providing amnesty to millions of illegal aliens is through the budget function. Surrounding on the budget means that the Republicans are surrounding on immigration reform and giving everyone another example of why they are irrelevant.

  23. C. Clavin says:

    @superdestroyer:

    immigration reform does nothing for the middle class white (and black) private sector employed American citizens who will see their taxes go up, their quality of living go down, and their job prospects fade away.

    Your economic argument is mis-guided. If anything immigration is a small plus for the average American. Even then it is likely less that 1% to the plus.
    You are using unsubstantiated and hyperbolic statements about the economics of immigration as cover for your widely recognized xenophobia.

  24. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @superdestroyer:

    It is a bill that enables amnesty for millions of illegal aliens.

    No, actually, it isn’t. Neither DACA nor DAPA provide (or indeed CAN provide) either legal status or a path to citizenship. Those can only come from Congressional grant via legislation. Both programs are solely deferred prosecution with respect to deportation.

    In other words, for the benefit of the learning impaired, it’s “we’re not going to deport you for the moment, but we still can – whenever we want – so don’t go getting too comfortable …”

  25. C. Clavin says:

    @superdestroyer:

    how does amnesty and comprehensive immigration reform make life better for the Abigail Fishers of the U.S.

    Do you really expect immigration reform to change that girls shitty SAT scores and sub-par grades?

  26. C. Clavin says:

    @HarvardLaw92:
    There you go using facts again…instead of partisan fever induced emotional rants.
    WTF?

  27. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Gavrilo:

    Why not make Joe Manchin, Claire McCaskill, Heidi Heitkamp, Angus King … who supposedly oppose the President’s executive order vote on it without the excuse of the funding issue?

    Considering that none of those listed are up for reelection until 2018, I say go for it. Republicans have certainly grasped the concept of legislative games intended to embarrass the opposition, but they never have grasped the concept of timing …

  28. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @C. Clavin:

    I mostly ignore him and his poorly disguised racism / white supremacy. When I do reply, it’s usually to clarify a point of law he has (as usual) gotten wrong – and I only do that for the benefit of the other people who might come along and actually believe his error.

  29. superdestroyer says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    The executive decisions is that there will be no deportations (and thus a continuation of a long list of benefits) until the Democrats regain control of both houses of Congerss and then comprehensive immigration reform will be passed along with a fast path to citizenship. So, in reality, the Democrats will eventually get everything they want and the Republicans will get nothing. And by the time the Democrats have regain control of the U.S. House, there not be a relevant conservative party in the U.S.

  30. superdestroyer says:

    @C. Clavin:

    You have forgotten the facts of the case. If Abigail Fisher’s SAT and GPA were not good enough for UT-Austin then why were they good enough to Latinos students at the same high school. Your argument is that Agibial Fisher’s SAT and GPA were not good enough to put enough white student between her and the first quota admission. If you add millions of Latinos immigrants to the U.S., then the SAT and GPA that will be required of the future Ms. Fisher’s will be even higher and thus, there will be fewer educational opportunities for middle class whites.

    Of course, if progressives did not separate and unequal standards based upon race and ethnicity, they would not have any standards.

  31. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @superdestroyer:

    and then comprehensive immigration reform will be passed along with a fast path to citizenship.

    When, and IF, that happens, you should feel free at that time to bitch about it to your heart’s content. In the meantime, you are just flat out wrong. At least have the decency to admit it instead of doubling down on the stupid.

    And you have already been warned about this never-ending “one party state” meme. Find another shtick …

  32. superdestroyer says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    When the Democrats have control of all the branches of government, there will be no point if complaining because nothing will be done. Currently, the Republicans have the ability to influence policy when it comes to immigration amnesty. Now is the time for them to take steps to prevent it in the future. Waiting until they have no pathway to influence the issue would be even dumber than not trying now.

  33. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @superdestroyer:

    If Abigail Fisher’s SAT and GPA were not good enough for UT-Austin then why were they good enough to Latinos students at the same high school.

    God, enough with the racism and white victimhood.

    When Fisher applied to UT in 2008, Texas students who finished in the top 10 percent of their high school classes were guaranteed admission. Because Fisher did not graduate in the top 10 percent, she was not automatically admitted to UT. Instead she became one of an estimated 16,000 applicants competing for about 1,275 slots available to students who graduated outside the top 10 percent.

    Fisher’s combined math and verbal SAT scores were 1180 out of a possible 1600. Her case presumes that UT made way for a minority student who did not deserve to be admitted more than she deserved to be admitted. Court documents show that one black and four Hispanic applicants with scores lower than Fisher’s were allowed into a provisional admission program, but so, too, were 42 white students with scores equal to or lower than Fisher’s. Meanwhile, 168 black and Hispanic applicants who had scores equal to or higher than Fisher’s were denied admission.

    The university offered Fisher the chance to attend another UT System school her freshman year and transfer to Austin her sophomore year if she earned 30 credits and maintained a 3.2 GPA. Fisher rejected this fair offer, choosing instead to enroll at Louisiana State University, from which she graduated in May 2012.

    Can we please put to bed this exceedingly threadbare “Abigail Fisher was the victim of reverse racism” garbage? She wasn’t. She was simply a less than stellar student who didn’t get what she felt she was entitled to and spent 6 years griping about it.

  34. Jack says:

    @HarvardLaw92: As we have discussed in the past, a work permit is an avenue for a SSN which is an avenue for citizenship. In essence, this is amnesty for 4-5 Million illegals.

  35. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jack:

    Yea, you’ll recall that my eventual reply to you was “this is going in circles and getting nowhere”.

    You’re wrong about this point, and you for whatever reasons either can’t or won’t accept that you’re wrong about it. I honestly have no desire to resurrect that discussion.

  36. C. Clavin says:

    @superdestroyer:
    I will refer you to this factual response to your emotional rant.
    @HarvardLaw92:

  37. C. Clavin says:

    @Jack:
    Do you ever examine the facts as presented to you and reconsider your positions? Or do you just automatically double down on your mis-informed opinions without further consideration?

  38. michael reynolds says:

    Dear Latino Voter:

    In case you were in some doubt, we’d like to remind you that we f–king hate you. We hate you so bad we’d shut down the government just to express how much we hate you.

    Don’t forget to vote Republican in 2016!

    Signed: the GOP.

  39. Tillman says:

    @Jack: You realize for the vast, vast majority of people covered by these actions, they could’ve applied for a SSN when they applied for a worker visa way back before they overstayed? It’s likely they already have a SSN in that case.

    Also, quick question, exactly how does a SSN help you become a citizen? You’ll note that none of the requirements to naturalize as a citizen require having a SSN. In fact, Social Security isn’t even mentioned. They do require an Alien Registration Number, but they are not the same thing or even acquired the same. Where do you get this idea that Social Security is an avenue towards citizenship?

  40. Jack says:

    @C. Clavin: Again, stick to what you know. Has Doug written any basic math articles lately? I was going to say ….animal husbandry, but I hear that is a touchy topic with you.

  41. C. Clavin says:

    @superdestroyer:
    You do not influence policy by stomping your feet and holding your breath.
    Governance is hard work and Republicans show neither the aptitude nor the inclination.

  42. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jack:

    Again, stick to what you know

    A sagacious suggestion, and one which you might consider following yourself in those instances where, say, you try to argue about the law with a lawyer.

    Just saying … 😀

  43. Tyrell says:

    What we have here is another spending-budget crisis that overlooks the real problem: out of control “discretionary” spending ! Think about these “worthwhile” spending projects: the tunnel for turtles, a study of video games, a study of Twitter, a study of why kids fall off tricycles, and the scandalous $15 million spent on the ” Soul City “disaster of the 1970’s. !!
    Congress has a responsibilty as trustees of taxpayers’ money to see that it is cost effective, benefits the country, that there is no waste, fraud, or theft. Yearly audits need to be conducted. There need to be reviews and the elimination where needed of obsolete, ineffective agencies and departments. Congress needs to pass a law that does away with pork barrel spending !
    Think term limits !!

  44. Jack says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Aren’t there usually two or more lawyers that represent multiple sides of an argument? So, all lawyers agree with you? I think not, since there are lawyers representing the side saying this IS an illegal act by Obama.

    You’ve now made me question your credentials, counselor.

  45. superdestroyer says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    However look at the final result of the lawsuite:

    A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday, 2-1, that the University of Texas could continue to consider race and ethnicity in deciding admissions, that the two factors can join grades, test scores, extracurricular activities, community involvement, examples of leadership and family circumstances as part of a “holistic review” of a prospective student’s application.

    Thus, other students will be held to different standards than the one Ms. Fisher was held. How does it help conservative middle class whites to add millions more people who will be allowed to be considered using race and ethnicity. Also note that progressive feel it is completely acceptable to use race and ethnicity to discriminate for blacks and latinos but never find it acceptable to discriminate against blacks or Latinos when they were overrepresented.

    It the future when more than 50% of high school students wil be eligible for “Holistic Review” it will me much harder to middle class whites (and Asians) to get ahead.

  46. superdestroyer says:

    @C. Clavin:

    The main way for the House to influence policy is through the budget process. Giving up using the budget process because progressives will say bad things about you and your party just means that the U.S. only has one relevant political party.

  47. Jack says:

    DAPA and DACA confer work permits, driver’s licenses, and SSN on those accepted into the program. While not “technically” US citizens, they are eligible to all the benefits of a real US citizen, so, in the words of the great one, “What difference at this point, does it make?”

  48. C. Clavin says:

    @Jack:

    While not “technically” US citizens…What difference at this point, does it make?

    So you are willing to give up your status as a US citizen…and accept theirs…because there is no difference?

  49. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jack:

    Sure there are. There is also always a lawyer that eventually loses in every argument. Heck, there were lawyers arguing as late as the mid 1960s that segregation was okie dokie.

    They lost.

    The Constitution gives Congress the power to set, via legislation, the standards for who qualifies for citizenship. The executive can not change those via fiat. It can decide which lawbreakers it wants to pursue for prosecution and which lawbreakers it wants to ignore, either permanently or temporarily.

    So, once again – Obama does NOT have the power to extend to these folks either legal status or a pathway to citizenship. He DOES have the power to decide which of those folks he’s going to pursue for deportation.

    Now, I get that you think that he shouldn’t, and every single undocumented immigrant should be deported, but both of those are irrational beliefs.

    Separation of powers, friend.

    Given that you have no credentials that I am aware of to question, I’ll refer you back to my earlier comment about taking your own advice.

  50. C. Clavin says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Giving up using the budget process because progressives will say bad things about you and your party

    If only it were that easy to circumvent the do-nothing caucus.
    This is easy…pass a bill.

  51. Tillman says:

    @Jack: Some states require you to be a citizen in order to purchase firearms. Oklahoma, for instance.

    Also, as a noncitizen, you can still be drafted. Unlike a citizen, you can’t vote, and you can’t do any work that requires a government-mandated security clearance. You actually can’t hold any job in the federal government. That keeps you out of plenty of lucrative fields.

    Finally, did you know that a citizen who doesn’t work at least ten years (according to some credit system SSA has) can’t get Social Security disability or retirement benefits?

    By the way, you never explained how getting a Social Security number is a path towards citizenship. That’d be interesting to know since I had a friend who arrived in this country at age nine and didn’t become a citizen in time to vote in the 2004 election.

  52. KM says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Fisher’s combined math and verbal SAT scores were 1180 out of a possible 1600.

    Wow – somebody should have hit the books more. With a score like that, I’d be trying to blame anyone else for not getting too.

  53. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Thus, other students will be held to different standards than the one Ms. Fisher was held

    Um, no, every applicant not granted automatic admission to UT is evaluated on the same set of holistic criteria. There is no differing standard. If there were, 42 white kids wouldn’t have beaten out Fisher (or those other 168 minority applicants who had higher scores) for admission.

    How does it help conservative middle class whites to add millions more people who will be allowed to be considered using race and ethnicity.

    So, in your opinion, the goal should be to pursue policies that benefit conservative middle class whites? At least you’ve finally explicitly admitted what you’ve been trying to tap dance around up to this point …

    Also note that progressive feel it is completely acceptable to use race and ethnicity to discriminate for blacks and latinos but never find it acceptable to discriminate against blacks or Latinos when they were overrepresented.

    Yea, we’re just taking up torches and pitchforks in defense of those 168 higher qualified minority applicants who didn’t get in either. Oh wait, we’re not …

    First rule of holes – when you find yourself in one – stop digging.

  54. gVOR08 says:

    @superdestroyer: So it’s not that there will only be a Democratic Party, there will be a Republican Party, just not a

    white party

    I trust you’ll be clear on this in future comments on the subject.

    Thank you, @HarvardLaw92: Following text AND after a carriage return.

  55. Tillman says:

    @KM: Either that, or she was in dire need of extracurriculars.

  56. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @KM:

    What I found interesting was her 3.59 GPA. The two don’t really correlate with each other.

    Possible conclusions – either she doesn’t test well (which is possible, but unlikely) or we have grade inflation (more likely, IMO).

    The bottom line is that she was a second tier student who believed herself to be entitled to first tier treatment.

    (Her lawyer – when confronted with the “well, what about those 168 minority kids with scores higher than hers who didn’t get in either?” question – routinely just shuts down the discussion. That tells me all that I need to know about his argument. He doesn’t have one left …)

  57. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Tyrell:

    Congress needs to pass a law that does away with pork barrel spending !

    I agree. We can start with the massive transfer of tax revenues to Southern states from Northern states for the purpose of maintaining roads.

    I never cease to find it amazing when someone from an area which massively and disproportionately benefits from federal spending criticizes federal spending.

  58. al-Ameda says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Can we please put to bed this exceedingly threadbare “Abigail Fisher was the victim of reverse racism” garbage? She wasn’t. She was simply a less than stellar student who didn’t get what she felt she was entitled to and spent 6 years griping about it.

    What is interesting to me, is that in all of these “reverse racism” [slash] “affirmative action” admissions cases, there is never any discussion whatsoever of the lesser qualified white students that were admitted ahead of plaintiffs like Abigail Fisher.

    We know why: it is because many White people assume that most Black and Latino students were admitted at the expense of more qualified White applicants.

    Any bets that many White students with (on the face of it, less qualifications) were admitted ahead of Fisher?

  59. James Pearce says:

    @superdestroyer:

    When the Democrats have control of all the branches of government

    What will it take to convince you to drop this nonsense?

    The Republicans just took control of Congress a few months ago. Our more recent history indicates this is going to be a back and forth process for as long as we have the two dominant parties.

  60. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @al-Ameda:

    Yea, there were 42 of them according to the documentation submitted to the court.

    It’s also worth noting that this academic powerhouse (in her view anyway …) attended and graduated from LSU – a less competitive and academically rigorous university) without honors. Not even cum laude …

    Short version – She’s a evidently mediocre student with a massively inflated sense of entitlement.

  61. al-Ameda says:

    @Tyrell:

    There need to be reviews and the elimination where needed of obsolete, ineffective agencies and departments. Congress needs to pass a law that does away with pork barrel spending !

    We agree. Finally, states like Mississippi will have to start paying their way, instead of relying on a significant redistribution of federal tax monies from states like California. Most Southern states are net beneficiaries of federal income tax redistribution. California gets back 80% of each tax dollar it sends to Washington.

  62. Jack says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    which lawbreakers it wants to ignore, either permanently or temporarily.

    At least you admit that it may be permanent, this administration is waiting until after all these people are integrated to break the news to the American people.

  63. C. Clavin says:

    @HarvardLaw92:
    So in short…we cannot fund the Department of Homeland Security because a mediocre student in Texas (where mediocre education is as good as it gets) couldn’t get into UT-Austin?
    OK.
    Next topic.

  64. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jack:

    Of course it COULD be permanent. Your house also COULD be flattened by a meteor.

    Both are probably equally likely to happen.

    Look, just come out and admit that you want every single undocumented immigrant deported, and anything which impedes that goal you find objectionable. You’ve tap danced around that point enough.

  65. superdestroyer says:

    @C. Clavin:

    From their POV, it is a great deal, all of the benefits, none of the responsibilities. And they can leave the country if they get into trouble and go back to where they are actually a citizen with no chance of extradition.

  66. superdestroyer says:

    @Tillman:

    People with green cards do hold federal jobs unless you can provide a site. In addition, green card holders can easily work as contractors.

  67. KM says:

    @HarvardLaw92

    It’s been a while but you can retest, right? If you choke, you can retake it up to 3 times if memory serves and provide the best of the bunch. That means her 1180 is the best score. Even if she bombed test #1, she should have hit the books, crammed every prep course she could, whatever to get that number up. She clearly didn’t or didn’t retake it – either point to lack of effort and ambition on her part and may have played a role in keeping her out. If I had to pick between two students with low SATs and I saw one retook it 3 times, I’d pick them even with the mediocre score since it shows initiative and willingness to learn. The other I’d mark off as lazy and a bad prospect.

    It’s totally grade inflation. What we have here ladies and gentleman is someone who always got the gold star A-for-Effort finally trying her hand at the real world and realizing she’s not hot stuff at all.

  68. Jack says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Look, just come out and admit that you want every single undocumented immigrant deported, and anything which impedes that goal you find objectionable. You’ve tap danced around that point enough.

    That is the intent of our immigration law.

    Only in America can you be fined for fishing without a license and jailed for failure to pay/appear, but not for crossing the border illegally.

  69. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @superdestroyer:

    You can start with Executive Order 11935. Once you are done with that, you can travel over to the sections (reenacted every year due to the yearly nature of appropriations) in the appropriations acts which prohibit the use of appropriated funds to employ non-citizens within the United States.

  70. superdestroyer says:

    @gVOR08:

    When politics is about fighting over government goodies along ethnic and racial lines, there will only be one relevant political party: See Chicago, See California, See Maryland, See the cities governments of virtually every large metropolitian area in the U.S.

    The more conservative party will always be seen as the white party in a country where more than 50% of non-white children are born the single mothers and as long as most non-whites are eligible for ethnic or racial set-asides. So no, there will not be two parties, there will be one relevant political party and the Democratic Primary will be the real election. However, looking at the 2016 presidential election, who knows how many competitive races there will be in the future.

  71. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jack:

    Ok, now that we’ve established that baseline belief on your part:

    1) Congress does not appropriate enough funding to accomplish your goal. They don’t even appropriate enough to make headway in that regard.

    2) There are obvious economic consequences inherent in removing 12 million consumers from the economy (helpful hint – recession …)

    So, there is no obvious economic reason to deport them, and deporting all of them will cost you, the taxpayer, a great deal more in taxes.

    Is this some “rule of law” motivation for you, or it is a brown people thing?

  72. Tillman says:

    Today I learned overstaying a work visa counts as crossing a border illegally.

    @superdestroyer: Sure, as janitors. I was reaching on saying every federal job requires citizenship, but it’s fairly established by CIS here and a site claiming to be a consortium of immigration lawyers here that most federal jobs require you to be a citizen.

  73. superdestroyer says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    From http://govcentral.monster.com/benefits/articles/1655-employment-of-noncitizens

    in looking at the rules, the lower levels of civil service require one to be a citizen (but it does not say if one can also be the citizen of another country) whereas the political and high level jobs do not require citizenship.

  74. Jack says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Is this some “rule of law” motivation for you, or it is a brown people thing?

    Considering my wife is Hispanic, I’ll take that as an insult.

    You mention 12 million and the inability to remove them all, but it has been our government’s failure to secure the border and remove those that come in year after year since 1986 that has gotten us to where we are today. Even if we legalized every immigrant that was here today, it would be the executives fault 30 years from now that there are again 12 million more.

    P.S. Others here seem to think we can track down and remove 300 million guns, but not 300 million illegals.

  75. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Dual citizenship is not problematic in and of itself, but the appropriations bills do lock out payments to citizens of certain foreign countries.

    Fine – find me a SES appointee who is not a US citizen. I’ll be waiting.

  76. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jack:

    If you consider a question to be an insult, then you have bigger issues.

    Truly securing a border than is over 2,000 miles long will cost more than just letting them stay, and it says nothing about the REST of the border. How do you propose to secure Malibu?

  77. KM says:

    @superdestroyer:

    The more conservative party will always be seen as the white party in a country where more than 50% of non-white children are born the single mothers and as long as most non-whites are eligible for ethnic or racial set-asides.

    Congrats on coming up with a single sentence that manages to offend, denigrate or insult the honor of the majority of social groups in America, not limited to: whites, blacks, browns, anyone without transparent skin , women, men, children, voters, liberals, conservatives, political-interested people, intelligent people, stupid people, singles, marrieds, childless, with children, etc.

    It’s almost like you hate everyone…….

  78. Jack says:

    @HarvardLaw92: Most of the DHS funding for “immigration” goes towards care, feeding, and lawyers. Divert that money back to enforcement and it will get done.

    I have no problem with increased number of temporary worker visas, but that is not what this is. You know it and I know it.

    What you will not admit is this IS backdoor amnesty. Rep Luis Gutierrez has all but said that is the goal, why can’t you?

  79. C. Clavin says:

    @Jack:

    P.S. Others here seem to think we can track down and remove 300 million guns, but not 300 million illegals.

    Please provide a link to back up your B.S.
    Oh…that said P.S.?
    Whatever.

  80. michael reynolds says:

    @HarvardLaw92:
    The Malibu beaches are well-defended by cranky old millionaire movie producers yelling at people.

  81. Bob @ Youngstown says:

    @Jack:

    Yes, you CAN get fined for fishing, but (from first hand experience), it is up to the game warden to decide if the violation (fishing) warrants prosecution.

    Visualize tens of millions of ” illegal” fisherman…… you want to prosecute them all? Do you have resources to do that? Maybe you would choose to go after the fishermen with the biggest catches?

  82. Jack says:

    @C. Clavin: Don’t you have some animal husbandry to attend to?

  83. David M says:

    @Jack:

    How does securing the border help with people who enter the country legally? And the number of undocumented immigrants in the US has stabilized, so the assertion that there will be another 12 million over the next 30 years isn’t supported by the evidence.

    It also seems like the current immigration problem is due to a lack of legal immigration options and excess of jobs available to undocumented immigrants. So why are people opposed to actually addressing the issue through immigration reform…

  84. Jack says:

    @Bob @ Youngstown:

    Visualize tens of millions of ” illegal” fisherman…… you want to prosecute them all? Do you have resources to do that? Maybe you would choose to go after the fishermen with the biggest catches?

    First of all, illegal fishing is an infraction for which a ticket is written, much like speeding. They do this with immigration now. The difference is, people who are given these tickets either show up to court to fight the ticket or they pay the fine. Unlike the illegal immigrants who neither pay a penalty or fight the ticket.

    Effectively, the US has a “catch and release” policy for illegal immigrants. The difference being that fish can’t apply for and receive social welfare benefits.

  85. michael reynolds says:

    Superdestroyer is an unabashed, unreconstructed racist. He sees a problem: white people are losing control! His solution? More white racism. Some folks might suggest reaching out to brown and black people, but SuperD understands that there are two parties, one for white people, and one for mongrels and inferiors.

    What he never, ever does, is lay down his next card. He never offers a final solution. But I’m pretty sure that’s what he has in mind.

  86. Jack says:

    @michael reynolds: The racist card. The last argument for a liberal, when there are no arguments left.

  87. C. Clavin says:

    @Jack:
    Childish personal attacks…what Jack resorts to when he has been overwhelmed by counter-factuals…but cannot bring himself to turn his back on the wing-nut arguments he copied and pasted from elsewhere.

  88. David M says:

    @Jack:

    Um, you might want to rethink things if you’re defending superdestroyer.

  89. Jack says:

    New Zealand Immigration Policy – If you’re looking to make New Zealand your permanent home and have skills, experience or capital that are in short supply locally, we’d love to hear from you. (ask first)

    New Zealand Immigration Policy – To live in Australia you must have a valid Australian visa. Your visa might also let you work, study or visit for a short time or several years. (ask first)

    Mexican Immigration Policy – illegal immigration is a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison. Immigrants who are deported and attempt to re-enter can be imprisoned for 10 years. Visa violators can be sentenced to six-year terms. Mexicans who help illegal immigrants are considered criminals.

    US Immigration Policy – If you can make it here, we will hem and haw until you can claim to have been here long enough that it will be an inconvenience to you or you family. You can work, get a driver’s license, get a SSN, get social welfare and maybe, one day, if we ever get around to it or if you commit a felony…you might get deported.

  90. Jack says:

    @David M: I’m not defending anyone, but calling someone a racist because you disagree with them is, in fact, a liberal tactic to shut down debate. Period.

  91. superdestroyer says:

    @michael reynolds:

    As I have said before, there is no “solution” there is just ways to think about the impact because the results is already set due to demographics. What happens when the U.S. is a one party state like modern day Californai? What happens when elections no longer are relevant (See Chicago or the District of Columbia). What happens when more than 50% of the population is eligible for affirmative action? What happens when more than 50% of the population are not native English speakers? How much will people have to spend to live in a good neighborhood with good schools? What happens with the currnet fertility rates for the upper class and the the lower classes? What happens to a country when the upper class have the fewest children and the poorest have the most children?

    But since Team Blue works really hard to not thinking about such issues, the end result will probably be a huge surprise for most Americans.

  92. michael reynolds says:

    @Jack:

    You really are a moron.

  93. superdestroyer says:

    @KM:

    I always find it odd that progressives believe that noticing demographic and political trends in the U.S. is somehow racist. Many progressive publications and websites have noted that when 95% of blacks are voting for one party, the other party defaults into being the white party.

    The question is what would conservatives get out of pursuing the votes of the most liberal demographics in the U.S. How does throwing middle class whites under the bus to try to pry black or Latinos voters way for the Democratic Party help politics in the U.S.

    One of the major effects of comprehensive immigration reform is to turn the U.S. into a one party state. California is the model that the Democratic Party wants to follow for the rest of the U.S. The only question then is what will happen to the country is all of the states become like California with a small group of elites and a massive underclass.

  94. Jack says:

    @michael reynolds: Said Hillary Clinton’s penis.

  95. KM says:

    @Jack:

    I’m not defending anyone, but calling someone a racist because you disagree with them is, in fact, a liberal tactic to shut down debate. Period.

    You are defending him by accusing Micheal of calling him a slanderous name to discredit him. Even if you are not aware or intended to, that’s what you did. Period.

  96. Jack says:

    @C. Clavin: Animal husbandry…what Clavin resorts to when he cannot find a woman that will let him touch her.

  97. Mu says:

    I’m always surprised that the Republicans are not embracing the deferred deportation programs. There is a morality clause in the rules for citizenship, you can be a legal resident but nevertheless excluded from ever gaining citizenship. All they needed to do with couple “application for deferment/amnesty” with “ineligible for citizenship” and most of their followers will be happy. Of course that will not satisfy the outright racists for whom the ultimate goal is elimination of birthright citizenship, but those should be a minority even today.

  98. michael reynolds says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Were you to pull your head out of your rear end long enough you’d see the answers to all those questions are easy, even self-evident.

    Political power inevitably fragments. You have to have ignored the last 10,000 years of human history not to understand that. So even if we accepted your paranoid premise of a single party, obviously schisms would form in that party, and then there’d be two. Or more. Just like has happened, oh, let’s see, every single time in history.

    So even in crazy town where you live, you really should be able to see that the inevitable result of a single party’s dominance in a democracy is division and re-organization. Because – and here’s an insight you can only get here – people are greedy and power-mad. A single party can have only a single power structure into which not everyone will fit. Right? So what happens to ambitious pols who find their way blocked? Schism. Duh.

    The parties will adapt. The issues you seem to believe are permanent are actually temporary and will be replaced by other issues which will draw lines differently.

    The only reason this is obvious to everyone but you, is that you have performed intellectual self-mutilation with your racist ideology. It’s like the rest of us can count to ten on our fingers, but you’re operating in base seven cause you chopped three of your fingers off. It’s self-imposed mental retardation. Not sure what emotional problems have led to your decision to auto-castrate, but hey, whatever floats your sad little boat.

  99. Jack says:

    @KM: So, you admit that the only reason Micheal called him a slanderous name to discredit him. Good, we agree.

  100. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @michael reynolds: Well, that and recovering heroin addicts 😀

  101. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jack:

    LOL, so you propose to starve them while they are awaiting trial before an immigration judge, then send them before that judge without a lawyer?

  102. KM says:

    @superdestroyer:
    Do you happen to know the percentage of left-handers in the conservative party? Why isn’t it the “Left-Handed” Party if one has a significantly higher percentage then the other? What about people with glasses? Brunettes? People over 6ft? Athletic people? Fat people?

    All of these are appropriate physical descriptions. Many may have correlations to voting patterns the way race does. Why the hell don’t we call one the “fat party”? What makes you pick this physical trait and no other – there’s your answer as to why its considered racist. Start reporting on other traits, make race what it is – just one trait of many. That’s how you shed the label.

  103. Jack says:

    @HarvardLaw92: I propose no such thing. The fact remains, their family can provide for them while in custody. Why should they automatically begin their life long sucking at the tit of government the moment they are detained?

    Why have a trial for them. They have no papers, ship them home for dinner.

  104. KM says:

    @Jack:
    If you can prove it slanderous, then yes. “Perfect truth is its own defense”. Prove the charge, darling.

  105. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jack:

    LOL, really? So now people who are arrested don’t have to be fed & clothed or provided with attorneys ax taxpayer expense?

    Congratulations. You’ve somehow overturned Gideon v. Wainwright without even having to involve the court that issued the ruling.

  106. KM says:

    @Jack:

    Why have a trial for them. They have no papers, ship them home for dinner.

    Don’t get caught without your license then. Might ship you off to god knows where! Papers please!

    Where are you going to send them if you don’t know where they came from? Do you just pick a destination?

  107. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Jack:

    Why have a trial for them. They have no papers, ship them home for dinner.

    Because of that pesky constitution. They’re entitled to due process, just like you and I are. I bet that one chaps your ass 😀

  108. Marco says:

    @Jack:

    I don’t care if you are married to a martian, your ideas on immigration policy, and immigration policy in action, are screwed up.

    And your party refuses to sufficiently fund ICE as well as EOIR so we currently have a shortage of enforcement personnel as well as a ton of empty immigration court rooms with no judges to preside.

    However recently the policy has changed so that anyone apprehended now must get a master hearing within 21 days and have a hearing scheduled within 21 days of that.

    Unfortunately that obviously politically motivated move has pushed back the hearings for thousands that were scheduled for hearings and deportation up to 4 additional years depending on where they are.

    It’s a mess. Call your congressman and tell him or her to cough up the funding and progress could be made. Just remember each immigration judge you appoint gets a lifetime appointment.

  109. Marco says:

    And those before immigration court do not get attorneys at taxpayer expense. They have to pay for their own.

  110. michael reynolds says:

    @Jack:

    The word “racist” is not some random, all-purpose insult like, say, “aszhole.” Racist is a descriptor. It describes a thing, in this case a set of beliefs and those who subscribe to those beliefs. So I don’t “call” him a racist, I describe him as what he is. And he is, beyond any doubt, a racist.

  111. Marco says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    Again, no free lawyers in immigration court but there are some good ones working pro bono.

    And if the judge grants say, amnesty, the government can appeal to BOIR.

    But the fact is if you get to immigration court your screwed. Roughly 85% lose.

  112. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Marco:

    To an extent with regard to civil proceedings. They remain entitled to taxpayer funded representation in criminal proceedings. We already have one recent ruling (Franco-Gonzalez v. Holder) mandating taxpayer funded attorneys for immigrants with mental disabilities who are facing civil deportation proceedings. The last thing that Congress, or Jack for that matter, should want is the courts deciding whether or not Gideon et al apply to immigrants in civil deportation proceedings. They won’t like the outcome.

  113. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Marco:

    I know. I’m playing a game with Jack to point out that he doesn’t. He fancies himself a lawyer.

    That said, the situation is pretty rapidly evolving on this issue. As noted above, folks like Jack would not want the courts deciding the question of taxpayer funded attorneys in civil immigration proceedings.

  114. Marco says:

    @HarvardLaw92:

    What would drive Jack truly batty, assuming he isn’t already there, is the $200 per day it costs the feds to detain immigrants till their hearing.

    Even with companies like Corrections Corporation of America doing most of the detention.

    True story, they got their start by buying a Motel 6 and fencing it in to house detainees awaiting deportation hearings.

  115. HarvardLaw92 says:

    @Marco:

    LOL, true.

    I imagine he would also be very disturbed to learn that the plaintiffs in Franco-Gonzalez enjoyed (among others) several very highly priced attorneys from Sullivan working pro bono on their behalf.

  116. Ken says:

    @superdestroyer: Democrats refuse to admit that it will be a huge win for themselves and bring about a one party state

    Four minutes to Wapner

  117. gVOR08 says:

    I’ve been forgetting that DHS uses a lot of contractors. I imagine there’s been pretty intense lobbying pressure to not pull their teat away from them.

  118. michael reynolds says:

    @Ken:

    If I could give you 10 more up votes I would.

  119. DrDaveT says:

    @Tyrell:

    the real problem: out of control “discretionary” spending !

    Once again, you have it exactly backwards. What is out of control is mandatory spending — the part of the budget that nobody authorizes as line items, but that automatically gets paid whether we have the money or not. That includes Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security benefits of all kinds, Veterans’ Disability Benefits, servicing the debt, and some odds and ends. It’s more than half the budget, it’s growing fast, and nobody in Congress has the cojones will to do anything about it.

    Think about these “worthwhile” spending projects: the tunnel for turtles, a study of video games, a study of Twitter, a study of why kids fall off tricycles, and the scandalous $15 million spent on the ” Soul City “disaster of the 1970’s. !!

    OK, I’ll think about those. In the meantime, you think about the DDG-1000 “destroyer”, of which we bought exactly three and are using exactly none. For the cost of any one of those three, I could pay for every stupid federal discretionary non-defense line item you can find, twenty times over.

    There is only one part of the discretionary budget that is hurting America, and it ain’t turtle tunnels.

  120. Marco says:

    No one, and I mean NO ONE wants a one party state!

    For one thing how could we be sure the ONE PARTY would rent a margarita machine? And I’m really picky about my guacamole, I mean really, really picky.

    No, so long as there are partiers there will always be multiple parties out there to choose from.

    Unless of course you’re the guy who doesn’t get invited to parties. If that’s the case you have to consider the possibility that all the party goers just got sick of you whining about a future one party state.

  121. DrDaveT says:

    @Jack:

    Most of the DHS funding for “immigration” goes towards care, feeding, and lawyers. Divert that money back to enforcement and it will get done.

    See, here’s a perfect example. Two separate assertions, both of them false. Not only false, but easily established as false by looking at publicly available data right here on the Intarwebs. The second one, in particular, is off by a couple of orders of magnitude.

    I figure there are three primary possibilities here:

    1. You are both earnest and honest. You go check the facts for yourself, admit you’re wrong on this, and adjust your beliefs and proposed course of action accordingly.

    2. You are earnest, but not honest. You either resist the temptation to go check the facts, or you check them and then try hard to forget what you discovered, because you’d rather protect your notion of how the world ought to be than grapple with how it is.

    3. You are a troll. Since the facts are irrelevant, you simply continue to poke this hot-button because it’s fun.

    I’ve got my money on #2, but I could be wrong.

  122. Tyrell says:

    @DrDaveT: I agree that the military has had more than its share of boon doggles: the new army tank that was too wide to fit on a plane, the F 35 that is supposed to combine fighting, bombing, and cargo drops but can’t do any of these very well, the $200 hammers, and the $500 coffee makers. Often some appropriation committee approves huge contract on something the military does not even want !

  123. C. Clavin says:

    @DrDaveT:

    1. You are both earnest and honest. You go check the facts for yourself, admit you’re wrong on this, and adjust your beliefs and proposed course of action accordingly.

    Hahahahahahaha….cough, cough…hahahahaha
    Holy $hit…that’s hysterical stuff…

  124. anjin-san says:

    @Jack:

    he cannot find a woman that will let him touch her

    Now that sounds like the voice of experience speaking.

  125. Gustopher says:

    @michael reynolds: That was beautiful. You had me at the fingers, and then the jump to self-castration was perfect.

    Superdestroyer reminds me of myself when I was 14 or so. And assuming he still lives with his parents and hasn’t had a job or gone to college, he’s not evil, just kind of dumb and inexperienced. There is hope for him yet — he might become mediocre!

  126. jukeboxgrad says:

    DrDaveT:

    Once again, you have it exactly backwards. What is out of control is mandatory spending

    Mandatory spending is a big part of the budget, but we could pay for it if we wanted to. The main thing that’s out of control is revenue.

    If we wanted to completely eliminate the deficit and the debt we could, just by raising taxes on the top 1%. 100% of the current deficit would be eliminated if the top 1% resumed paying the effective tax rate they used to pay in the period 1942-1981. Link.

    The Reagan tax cuts for the rich are what’s unsustainable, and that problem will eventually be addressed.

    Keep in mind that FY14 spending was 20.3% of GDP (and obviously that includes mandatory spending). The 40-year average is 20.5%. So spending, including mandatory spending, is not high. The cause of the current deficit is low revenue, not high spending.

    You will rarely find this information anywhere in the press. That darn liberal media.

  127. C. Clavin says:

    @jukeboxgrad:

    So spending, including mandatory spending, is not high. The cause of the current deficit is low revenue, not high spending.

    Well, yeah…of course…we spend too much to give the wealthy any more tax cuts.
    Hence Dynamic Scoring.
    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/01/congresss-first-act-was-to-declare-war-on-math.html

  128. Blue Galangal says:

    @al-Ameda: Speaking as someone who has seen admissions committees at work, it could even have been her high school; or it could have been her subject scores did not correlate well with her intended program of study (e.g., a higher subject score in math might have weighted the decision if the intended program of study was, say, engineering or science; the ACT is better for this, but but I’ve seen decisions made on SAT math scores as well, where when the composite score was the same, the higher math score got an offer compared to the lower math score).

    Edited to add: Conditional admit is being used by more and more schools and is often used for students in STEM fields (even minority students!), the idea being that if you can handle your first year, you get to come to main campus/enter your chosen field of study, yay. So yeah she’s basically an entitled whiner.

  129. gVOR08 says:

    @jukeboxgrad:

    FY14 spending was 20.3% of GDP… The 40-year average is 20.5%.

    But, but, Obama! Out of control spending!

  130. jukeboxgrad says:

    I left out the best part. Average for the 20 years of Reagan-Bush-Bush: 20.8%. Reagan’s average: 21.6%. In other words, IOKIYAR.

  131. DrDaveT says:

    @jukeboxgrad:

    Mandatory spending is a big part of the budget, but we could pay for it if we wanted to.

    We don’t disagree on this.

    The main thing that’s out of control is revenue.

    I was using “out of control” in the statistical sense of “not staying within stable bounds”. Mandatory spending is growing fairly rapidly; discretionary spending is not.

    You make an interesting argument that mandatory spending is not, in fact, growing rapidly as a proportion of GDP. Were you including servicing the debt in that calculation, or just the formal mandatory accounts? Either way, thanks for the link.

  132. DrDaveT says:

    @jukeboxgrad:

    Reagan’s average: 21.6%. In other words, IOKIYAR.

    Possibly. It might be more a case of “It’s OK if you spend it on tanks and warplanes and space lasers, but not on education or nutrition or insulating houses.”

  133. jukeboxgrad says:

    Were you including servicing the debt in that calculation, or just the formal mandatory accounts?

    I’m not sure I understand your question. The number I mentioned (20.3%) includes both.

    “It’s OK if you spend it on tanks and warplanes and space lasers, but not on education or nutrition or insulating houses.”

    Exactly.

  134. superdestroyer says:

    @michael reynolds:

    Chicago has been a one party state for more than 50 years. The same for cities like Detroit, Baltimore, and The District of Columbia. There has not been any fragmentation. There has not been any realignments. There has just been an increased amount of power to clouts and fixers.

    What is more likely. That blacks and latinos will split their votes between two relevant political parties or that the U.S. will be a one party state where most political power is held by people like Valerie Jarrett and holding elected political office is just a method to direct government money and power to your friends.

  135. gVOR08 says:

    @superdestroyer: Why are you arguing this SD? You’ve admitted there will continue to be a Republican Party, but it won’t be, in your felicitous phrase, a “white party”.

  136. michael reynolds says:

    @superdestroyer:

    Cities aren’t countries. Apples and oranges. They don’t represent enough of a prize in most cases to entice national parties to pursue them. The GOP can’t reach out to Detroit without abandoning their base. But the GOP could certainly reach out to evangelical blacks.

    Actually, there are already splits within the Democratic Party. Rich San Franciscans are not a natural fit for poor Chicagoans. I’m way to the left on social issues, in the middle on economic issues, and to the right on foreign policy issues. What do you suppose binds me to the Democrats? Above all it’s Republican backwardness on social issues.

    Going forward the social issues will become less important. We’ve won on those.

    Let’s say it’s 2026. The left has pushed the Democrats to embrace an extreme environmental position, they are becoming isolationist, the social issues are already settled, and Democrats propose a confiscatory tax policy. Possible, right? Then I vote GOP.

    It’s actually not hard for the GOP to capture more of the future. They aren’t required by virtue of their whiteness to go on being stupid. They could adapt. But it would mean shedding nuts like you. You and I cannot be in the same party. Me and Joyner? Sure, that could easily happen.

  137. gVOR08 says:

    @superdestroyer:

    …holding elected political office is just a method to direct government money and power to your friends.

    Which differs how from being a Republican Senator?

  138. superdestroyer says:

    @gVOR08:

    It does not. That is why so many short term thinkers run for office. They just want the opportunity to do favors for their friends.

  139. superdestroyer says:

    @michael reynolds:

    You will never vote for any form of Republican Party as long as 95% of blacks vote for Democrats. No progressive will ever put themselves in a position where someone can call them racist. That is just another reason why the U.S. will soon be a one party state. When 95% of the Ivy League are Democrats and 95% of blacks and Latinos are Democrats, there is no place for anyone who wants to have a career to go but to be an automatic Democratic Party voter.