How Much Time/Effort Should be Spent Attempting to Find Compromise on Immigration?

Discussion in 'Opinion POLLS' started by Meta777, Jul 25, 2018.

?

How Much Time Are You Personally Willing to Dedicate Towards Finding Compromise on Immigration?

  1. Compromise in General Should be Avoided

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. I Refuse to Compromise on the Immigration Issue Specifically

    24.2%
  3. < 2 minutes

    9.1%
  4. 2-5 minutes

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  5. 5-10 minutes

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. 10-30 minutes

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. 30-60 minutes

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. 1-2 hours

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. 2-8 hours

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  10. 1-4 days

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  11. 4-7 days

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  12. 1-2 weeks

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  13. > 2 weeks

    6.1%
  14. As Much Time As It Takes!...

    30.3%
  15. Other

    30.3%
  1. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hey folks. I created a series of ranked votes recently which covered the topic of comprehensive immigration reform. In one of those threads a few of us got to talking and discussing about the time commitment involved in understanding the particulars of the subject/the different options involved and the time and effort it should take to find/come up with good compromise positions for a comprehensive bill on something like immigration.

    So that got me to wondering, just what exactly folks actually thought about how much time and effort was an appropriate amount to spend on such an endeavor. At what point people felt essentially, would it make sense to call it quits on such efforts assuming a lack of any sufficient progress...

    During the conversations, one poster also mentioned that I should have set up that particular vote using the forum's built-in poll functionality... to which I replied, something along the lines of there being way too many options for that, among other things, given that the forum poll maxes out at 20 options. But the question of how much time should be committed towards finding compromise seems a perfect fit for the forum poll. Options are easily condensed to just a few, and only a mere 2 seconds at best for one to pick and click just one of the options. ;-)
    Simple, right?

    On the question of how much effort (apart from time) that should be put towards seeking compromise though, I'm not sure how to put that into a poll. So let's discuss it here in this thread. How much effort would you be willing to expend attempting to find compromise with those who disagree with you on the subject of immigration? What sorts of things would you be willing to do in order to find a position on the subject that most people could agree to? And what sorts of things wouldn't you be willing to do? Where do you draw the line on attempting to compromise in other words?

    -Meta
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  2. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There should be no discussions.

    They are criminals and should be immediately removed.

    Then they should be prevented from every coming back here.

    Now if they would like to discuss the best way of removing them of preventing their arrival that is something we could discuss.
     
    TrumpTrain likes this.
  3. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113

    No discussion, no compromise. Allow illegals that meet certain criteria (such as being fully employed, paid taxes and can prove it, don't take welfare, have skills) to stay, deport all the rest.

    Severely punish all employers who hire illegals. Severely punish "sanctuary cities". Ban illegals from receiving any tax payer based welfare.
     
  4. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    16,900
    Likes Received:
    5,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    With both party leaders in Washington today, none of them are willing to compromise on immigration. Both sides want an all or nothing deal. So nothing is what you're going to get on immigration. I have a feeling Trump would be more willing to compromise than McConnell, Schumer, Ryan or Pelosi on this. Just a gut feeling, nothing to base that on.

    I think with the polarization, the ultra high partisanship in Washington today, there is no game of give and take or working out a compromise. Not with the current leaders. So any time spent is meaningless and probably wasted. The leaders of each party must want and be willing to work out a solution, as long as none of them want to or are willing, forget it.

    Besides, immigration is too valuable as a campaign issue to fire up each party's base and get the vote out than to solve the problem. Solving the problem takes immigration as a campaign issue, tool off the table. Can't have that with an election coming up.
     
    Last edited: Jul 25, 2018
  5. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ugh, it's as I feared. There seem to be a few people who aren't willing to spend any time seeking compromise, and still many more who apparently aren't even interested enough in the issue to simply spend 2 seconds just to say whether or not they would attempt to find compromise/for how long.

    ...and to think... some of us wonder why it is that nothing substantive ever gets done on the immigration issue...

    -Meta
     
  6. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you two refuse to seek compromise... you even refuse to discuss the issue???
    But if we all refuse to compromise with one another on something like this, then there are only a few outcomes that can result.

    Either nothing at all gets done, we are left with the highly flawed status quo, and no side gets anything at all of what they want,
    left instead with insufficiently secure borders, immigrants and employers who continue to flaunt the rules and get away with it,
    scores of people with murky and questionable legal statuses, and a justice system which is ill-equipped to handle it all...
    unless of course such a flawed status quo is actually what is desired here, but I highly doubt that to be the position of most.

    The other possible outcome to refusing to compromise on this, is that 'sides' simply change hands as the political pendulum swings, lurching back and forth between one extreme over to the other. We could be splitting up families and jailing children today, tomorrow, in reaction to such distasteful policies 'the other side' could be given power and overact by giving every undocumented immigrant instant citizenship. Each 'side' reaching ever more extreme positions in an attempt to do what in their view is 'cleaning up the mess left by their predecessors'. Before you know it, we'll be setting out land mines on the border and then we'll be picking those same mines up the next day right before declaring ourselves a de jure open borders country. And all because people weren't willing to simply spend a little bit of time and effort to find a happy middle-ground.

    Can either of you honestly tell me that either one of those scenarios is preferable to just sitting down with those who disagree with you and compromising? Its not even as if people are really so far apart on this issue in the first place, much of the perceived disagreement actually seems to stem from misunderstandings of one anothers' positions... but of course no one would ever know that if, in addition to not wanting to compromise, no one wanted to discuss the issue either. I believe that if more people did try to discuss the issue, including aspects of it brought up by counterparts, we'd find that there was actually quite a bit of overlap in what folks want. Not everyone will agree on everything of course, there will be differences of opinion, in fact, every single individual may have a slightly different view of things, but this is precisely why compromise is necessary. Even you two, with your shared desire to deport, have subtle differences between your stated positions. Would you even refuse to try and compromise if it were just between the two of you? And if not, what then have you against the idea of compromise that you wouldn't also be willing to try it with others???...

    -Meta
     
    XploreR likes this.
  7. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is nothing else that is acceptable.

    And don't forget, this inaction is not permanent.

    As the situation worsens people will demand change and will end up siding with us, it just takes a little longer but the problem will be solved correctly.

    If we compromise the problem will always persist.

    You are acting as if the problem needs to be solved this year when there is no time limit.

    We can deport all the illegals tomorrow or in two years, the end result will be the same.
     
  8. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That sounds like wishful thinking to me.

    You're basically taking an all or nothing approach, intentionally accepting and perpetuating a clearly flawed system in the hopes that you can wait it out and that... eventually enough of those people who currently disagree with you will get so fed up with the status quo that they simply cry, uncle, and concede to 100% of your demands. But a lot of those people are thinking the exact same thing about you ya-know. Seriously, I do not understand why any of you think that to be a good idea. What exactly would be so wrong with incremental progress? If you all were to just swallow your collective pride and compromise with one another to fix at least some of the things now, perhaps you're right and there would still be things left to fix after that, but if so... if you really are right about those things,... don't you think it would be a whole lot easier for more folks to identify those issues, come to your side, and fix them, if they didn't have all these other easily-fixable-if-you-were-to-compromise factors to worry about at the same time?

    Tell me, how long do you think immigration has been an issue in this country?
    And exactly just how much longer do you expect we will need to continue enduring such a mess of a immigration system before what you claim will eventually happen actually comes to pass? You know its going to be a lot tougher to deport all those immigrants when that previously mentioned pendulum swing occurs if they're then all granted citizenship via blanket unconditional amnesty.

    -Meta
     
  9. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    "Either nothing at all gets done, we are left with the highly flawed status quo, and no side gets anything at all of what they want,"

    Wrong assessment. The current situation is very suitable to the "progressives" agenda of changing the USA demographics to one more supportive of the "progressives". In the short term it opens the door to illegal voting, creates situations (such as the children getting separated from parents) which can be exploited for PR to gain sympathy for illegals and moves the amnesty argument forward.

    In the long term it builds the number of illegals to the point that the shear magnitude of the problem argues for amnesty.

    The status quo is perfectly acceptable to the open borders anti-USA "progressives".

    <>

    "Its not even as if people are really so far apart on this issue in the first place, much of the perceived disagreement actually seems to stem from misunderstandings of one anothers' positions... but of course no one would ever know that if, in addition to not wanting to compromise, no one wanted to discuss the issue either. I believe that if more people did try to discuss the issue, including aspects of it brought up by counterparts, we'd find that there was actually quite a bit of overlap in what folks want."

    Wrong again.

    The issue has been discussed for 40 years. Remember the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, the so-called Reagan amnesty?

    The early discussions results in the amnesty in 1986 (Reagan) in which a small numner of illegals would be given amnesty and the border would be secured, it was also declared that there would never be another amnesty. The Democrats blocked all attempts to secure the border.

    After the Democrats saw the 1986 amnesty result on the south west USA, they saw a strategy of modifying the electorate. California used to be middle of the road and leaned right, the home state of Reagan, is now so far left its a joke. Arizona, the home state of Barry Goldwater and the birthplace of the modern conservative movement, is now left. Colorado and New Mexico are also now left. Many of those areas look more like Mexico than the USA.

    The Democrats want to expand that result to the entire nation. That's why they now bus illegals and "refugees" to conservative areas.

    No further discussion is needed. We know what the agenda is.

    <>

    No compromise is possible.

    The progs don't want compromise because they are getting what they want right now. The conservatives don't want compromise because even a modification to the current situation results in success for the progs and the death of the conservatives.

    The current policy must be ended. No illegals allowed into the country, deport them immediately at the border. No govt benefits to illegals. Punish sanctuary cities. Ban employers from hiring illegals, inspect employers, fine them very severely. Deport illegals in the country as they are found.
     
  10. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well I'd say that the politicians in office are merely a reflection of the people who put them there. Even taking into account the flawed nature of our Plurality system, its ultimately still the responsibility of the voters for what we end up with. And yeah, you can say that some of the views and behaviors of the politicians rub off on the general populous... there's probably a bit of bidirectional back and forth influence going on there... but in the end its going to need to be the people that drive change here, either by using their collective voices to convince the politicians in office to compromise or by replacing those so-called-leaders with better ones. After all, its just like you were saying, a lot of those low down degenerates in congress are actually incentivized to keep the issue unsolved just so that they can maintain it as a perpetual item to campaign on. This is why again, its going to need to be the people that drive the change. But its doubtful folks will be able to convince politicians to compromise or pick ones who will when they themselves don't seem capable, willing, or interested enough to spend even a few minutes on looking for compromise. I'm not even sure who I'm more disappointed in right now... those who say that they refuse to compromise, or those who apparently aren't even interested enough in the issue to spend 2 seconds just to say one way or the other.

    So that's where I would start. Figuring out how to convince our fellow citizens that compromise shouldn't be thought of as a dirty word. That its actually necessary for things to move forward. That finding compromise is worth at least a little bit of time and effort. And that the overall issue we're dealing with here is important enough such that it shouldn't be ignored.

    -Meta
     
    perotista likes this.
  11. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you really believe all that to be true isn't that just all the more reason to compromise now before that amnesty you mentioned comes about?
    Compromise, and take away those extreme situations you say are going to lead to the advancement of the amnesty argument.

    Was border security a part of that amnesty bill? I've said it before and I'll say it again, any compromise legislation needs to be comprehensive and include all of this stuff, not just small bits and pieces at a time. People might realize that if they were willing to talk about the issue more.

    It would be, if people would actually try.

    Why not express those views through a vote using the option labels?

    What is the Most Important Immigration Category Needing to be Dealt With?
    How To Enact Immigration Reform? (Undocumented Immigrants & Visa Overstays)
    How To Enact Immigration Reform? (Immigrants Wishing to Immigrate Legally)
    How To Enact Immigration Reform? (Immigrants Who've Already Achieved Legal Status)
    How To Enact Immigration Reform? (Immigration Systems, Security, & Enforcement)
    How To Enact Immigration Reform? (Foreign Outreach/Other)

    -Meta
     
  12. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113

    You don't get it. The "progressives" are satisfied with the status quo, they don't want to compromise in any manner acceptable to conservatives. The conservatives cannot abide by the status quo or anything that advances the "progressives" agenda.

    The compromise was in 1986 with the Reagan amnesty. And the Democrats sabotaged it.

    Its now a zero sum game, winner take all. There is no room for compromise.
     
    Last edited: Jul 26, 2018
  13. AlphaOmega

    AlphaOmega Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    28,747
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Do you mean illegal immigration or immigration?
     
  14. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Considering what Trump pulled last time any further attempts will be a waste of time.
     
  15. perotista

    perotista Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2014
    Messages:
    16,900
    Likes Received:
    5,678
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Compromise or give and take has worked in the past. Past leaders such as Lott and Daschle or Mitchell and Dole would shy away from a good compromise to keep things moving forward. Past leaders in the senate, Reid, Schumer and McConnell have no interest in compromising. Of course one has to have a president willing to compromise also.

    You do have this: Americans favor compromise to get things done in Washington.

    https://news.gallup.com/poll/220265...utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

    At least the people say they want compromise, that they want the president and congress to work together. But is that the way they vote? Perhaps the choices give are two extreme candidates for the left and right who don't believe in compromise? Remember, to be a candidate in the general election, one first must win in the primaries which compromise among most democrats and Republicans who vote in the primaries is a four letter word.

    Perhaps that is what most Americans want, but that isn't a choice come November after the primaries. We have shrinking major parties and rising independents. Most states don't allow independents to vote in the primaries, add to that the fact even if they could, most independents aren't that interested in the primaries. Even in the general elections independents vote well below their actual numbers.

    2016 for example, independents made up 40% of the total electorate, but only 31% of those who actual voted.
     
    Meta777 likes this.
  16. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,838
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Nothing personal but I think that’s a slightly flawed question. It doesn’t really matter what any of us believe, the discussions we have or the shifts and compromises we might come to as a result. Ultimately, none of us are going to have any kind of impact on what actually happens to immigrants.

    I do think your instinctive framing of the question and the (ironically) uncompromising responses you highlighted demonstrates part of the issue here though. None us need to come to any kind of definitive answer on an issue like this that we’d need to consider compromising on in the first place. I’ve all sorts of thoughts and opinions on immigration issues (plural, being as they’re multiple issues and occur in lots of different places) but I don’t pretend to have any definitive answers. If I found myself in any kind of decision making position on the matter, I’d need to spend plenty of time considering a whole load more information before actually implementing changes that would impact real people’s lives.

    We all can have some influence of course, as part of wider public perceptions and in our support for politicians, parties and policies and I’ve always thought that kind of thing needs to be done from a basis of informed and open-minded contemplation rather than reaching a definitive conclusion and flatly refusing to consider anything – policy, opinion or even evidence – that appears to go against it.
     
    Meta777 likes this.
  17. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What makes sense in 2018? Create an all-new "Guest-worker Program" which will make it easier for alien workers to accept employment in the United States for a specific period of time. They can provide our country with their needed abilities and talents, make money for themselves, pay taxes, and then LEAVE.

    But permanent immigration? We have already achieved a population in the United States at more than 326,000,000 people -- and a very large number of them depend on government handout welfare. We should discontinue ALL immigration to the United States for at least the next five years, and then maybe 'take another look at it'. When you've got approximately half the population taking some form of welfare from the government every month it's a clear indication that the LAST thing we need is any MORE of that....
     
  18. Liberty Monkey

    Liberty Monkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2018
    Messages:
    10,856
    Likes Received:
    16,450
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Without some compromise from BOTH SIDES!!! The issue cannot be addressed in any meaningful way.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2018
    Meta777 likes this.
  19. Pollycy

    Pollycy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    29,922
    Likes Received:
    14,183
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, then there'll be nothing useful or beneficial done. Democrats see a borderless country that acts as a magnet for masses surging in from 'shithole' countries as a vital component in their well thought-out plan to completely take over the country, using their Welfare Circus as the prime attraction. Why would any Democrat want to give up a strategy like that, which has worked quite well for them since the 1960's...?
     
    Liberty Monkey likes this.
  20. Liberty Monkey

    Liberty Monkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2018
    Messages:
    10,856
    Likes Received:
    16,450
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    Build the wall first we can compromise later on how we let people in.

    Prioritise the wall in population centres where illegals are crossing over private land these people are suffering most and although it just shunts the immigrants elsewhere it stops it directly affecting US citizens on the border.

    US has risen in population 100 million since 1970's this is not sustainable under the present economic situation.

    The wall is more symbolic than practical BUT for some Americans it would be a god send. Living right on the border is not as much fun as you might think.
     
    Last edited: Jul 27, 2018
  21. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I prefer to let people speak for themselves, but even supposing your right and those you oppose really don't want to compromise, how exactly is that a good excuse for not at least trying to change their minds by offering the chance of compromise yourself? Again, you said yourself that the current status quo situation is just going to lead to increased numbers of illegal immigrants and ultimately blanket amnesty, so if there's a chance that can be avoided via compromise, then why not take it? After all, what's worse here to you... compromise... or unconditional blanket amnesty?

    1986? You do realize that was like 30 years ago... right? Half the people who were involved with that deal are dead. Most of the other half are retired. Rather than using our predecessors failures as an excuse not to try at all, it'd be much more productive in my opinion to instead learn from their mistakes and improve upon them. First improvement... again, make any new bill comprehensive/all-inclusive when it comes to immigration-based issues.

    Alright, guess I'll ask you the same thing I asked Spooky then.
    Just how much longer are we going to have to wait for this winner take all strategy to actually work??

    Seems like its been going on for a while and hasn't yielded any sort of positive results.
    And supposing it happens to lead to some incremental change, if that change doesn't
    have any broad support or some sort of bipartisan backing, whats to stop the change
    simply being overturned by 'the other side' almost as soon as it gets implemented?

    The way I see things on this issue, if you want any change to have staying power, then compromise is the only way.

    -Meta
     
  22. Meta777

    Meta777 Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Messages:
    15,617
    Likes Received:
    1,730
    Trophy Points:
    113
  23. Liberty Monkey

    Liberty Monkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2018
    Messages:
    10,856
    Likes Received:
    16,450
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    "Policy on the run is policy underdone!"
     
    Meta777 likes this.
  24. AlphaOmega

    AlphaOmega Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2013
    Messages:
    28,747
    Likes Received:
    4,821
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Theres nothing wrong with our current immigration so what would we be changing on that?
     
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2018
  25. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Why are you so short sighted? 30 years is nothing. Do you think every generation starts with a fresh slate, that all the laws and demographics and economics reset every 20 years? Do you think you are not affected by past generations?

    After a little reading, it turns out this open borders plan by the Democrats has its roots in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 (Hart-Cellar Act) which allowed chain migration and created a huge influx of immigration from Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Before that Act, most immigration to the USA was from Europe, Hart-Cellar was designed shift immigration from Europe to other nations.

    The "conversation" has been ongoing for 55 years. There is nothing more to be discussed.

    <>

    Democrats want open borders and want to change the electoral demographics of the nation so that "progressives" will have a lock on power for generations, essentially the end of the 2 party system. They want to change the nature of the USA. Whats your compromise to that situation? What compromise do you have in mind that preserves the nature of the USA and abolishes it? What compromise do you have that gives the progs a lock on power and does not disenfranchise Americans?




    The winner take all strategy is working, just look at the electoral demographics. Look at California, in the 1980's it was a generally center-right state, now its solidly prog and many parts look more like Mexico than the USA. Look at Arizona and New Mexico and Texas, same process just not as fast as California.

    Far left states are pushing for allowing illegals to vote.

    <Rule 2/3>

    This is the end game, progs see the end in sight, they don't want compromise.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 2, 2018

Share This Page