DescentBB

Look, as you know, I can understand why folks immigrate to the US. And, as I've said, our economy depends on them being here working, which is why there is always a lot of smoke but no fire around really strict immigration laws(economic pressure from big players on both parties). However, as with most issues, I try, at least, to maintain common sense. And, to me, THIS makes no sense, but is simply adding further confusion to a confused situation:
http://news.msn.com/us/colorado-to-begi ... immigrants

I frankly agree with the GOP legislator interviewed for the article. You are simply making one state a mecca, and encouraging a status quo of lawbreaking. This new movement is yet another reason why it seems obvious that BOTH parties sit down and work out a program of systematic, nationwide rules for work visas, permits, amnesty if one is going to do so, and everything around the current hodgepodge of laws and underfunded enforcement.

Colorado, teetering between red and blue....gun rights issues the only thing recently that gives it a push toward red....now?

Or maybe it's that a "red/blue" dichotomy grossly oversimplifies most people's political belief systems, so trying to pigeonhole them into one of the two is an exercise in futility.

They passed a driver license law for immigrants here in Oregon as well, as it said in slick's link. Right wingers went batsh*t over it and collected enough signatures to put it on the November ballet. They need to get over it and see the reason for doing this, public safety. I personally see no problem, because it makes sure these people have read the driver's manual and know the rules of the road, thus making the roads SAFER for all of us. I'd prefer that to a bunch of clueless drivers who don't know a stop sign from a yield sign and who ARE driving around on the same roads I use and possibly causing injury to me or others in careless accidents. Besides, the license is clearly marked as "SHORT TERM" and it can't be used to vote, buy a firearm or get on a plane. I hope some sanity comes to most Oregon voters in November concerning this issue, because it is a public safety issue, not an immigrant issue.

http://www.katu.com/politics/House-pass ... 41241.html

As for issuing an ID card to them in Colorado, that's a quite a stretch. ID that's not a license to drive should be only for U.S. residents.

Top Gun wrote:Or maybe it's that a "red/blue" dichotomy grossly oversimplifies most people's political belief systems, so trying to pigeonhole them into one of the two is an exercise in futility.

It may seem that way to you but on Election Day 99.9% of voters vote either red or blue.
Since these newcomers vote 2:1 for the blue team it is futile to ignore the implication inspite of the complexities of people's belief systems.

One of the Democrat strategists for immigration that Obama consulted with to formulate his position on the issue has said that all the illegals that they can 'legalize' will give the democrats a sweeping victory for decades to come.
Now you could go preach to him and Obama that they are ignoring the complexities of people's belief systems too...but I think they would also laugh at your apparent naïveté on the issue.

I'm wondering if most of the illegal immigrants were known to vote predominantly red, if we would be hearing all the need for amnesty.

Will Robinson wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Or maybe it's that a "red/blue" dichotomy grossly oversimplifies most people's political belief systems, so trying to pigeonhole them into one of the two is an exercise in futility.

It may seem that way to you but on Election Day 99.9% of voters vote either red or blue.

So because people predominantly vote for the only two parties that have any chance whatsoever at winning an election (because of how ridiculous our whole system is), that somehow automatically means their own beliefs mesh neatly with said party's candidates? News flash: people support candidates for all sorts of reasons. Perhaps they have one single issue that they value above all others, and vote for the candidate who supports said issue. Perhaps they may not agree with a particular candidate on some issues, but feel that they are most qualified to make good decisions. And yes, perhaps they just vote a straight-party ticket. But voting for someone with an R or D next to their name does not automatically make someone a dyed-in-the-wool adherent of said party, not by a long shot.

Top Gun wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Or maybe it's that a "red/blue" dichotomy grossly oversimplifies most people's political belief systems, so trying to pigeonhole them into one of the two is an exercise in futility.

It may seem that way to you but on Election Day 99.9% of voters vote either red or blue.

So because people predominantly vote for the only two parties that have any chance whatsoever at winning an election (because of how ridiculous our whole system is), that somehow automatically means their own beliefs mesh neatly with said party's candidates? News flash: people support candidates for all sorts of reasons. Perhaps they have one single issue that they value above all others, and vote for the candidate who supports said issue. Perhaps they may not agree with a particular candidate on some issues, but feel that they are most qualified to make good decisions. And yes, perhaps they just vote a straight-party ticket. But voting for someone with an R or D next to their name does not automatically make someone a dyed-in-the-wool adherent of said party, not by a long shot.

Are you really that dense between the ears? Who ever said their beliefs mesh neatly with anything?!? Did you strain yourself hoisting that strawman up into place?

The distinctions you are pointing out don't factor into the calculations made as to how a certain Party will benefit from an influx of people who WILL VOTE 2:1 IN THEIR FAVOR.

You may be completely correct in the inner workings of voters desires and concerns but still be wrong in the context of the point raised because you have yet to show how those layers of subtext can surface to rewrite the obvious headline:
'Incoming latinos, in enough numbers, will give the Democrat Party a distinct advantage for decades to come. Democrats all in on open border bet.'

I wasn't arguing that at all...in fact neither of my posts had anything to do with it. I was simply responding to your comment about which way Colorado was leaning. Obviously it's in the best interest of the Democratic Party to work in favor of a group that predominantly votes in their favor, and it's a given that the Republican Party would be doing the same thing if the tables were turned. Is that supposed to be a big mystery or something?

Will Robinson wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Or maybe it's that a "red/blue" dichotomy grossly oversimplifies most people's political belief systems, so trying to pigeonhole them into one of the two is an exercise in futility.

It may seem that way to you but on Election Day 99.9% of voters vote either red or blue.
Since these newcomers vote 2:1 for the blue team it is futile to ignore the implication inspite of the complexities of people's belief systems.

One of the Democrat strategists for immigration that Obama consulted with to formulate his position on the issue has said that all the illegals that they can 'legalize' will give the democrats a sweeping victory for decades to come.
Now you could go preach to him and Obama that they are ignoring the complexities of people's belief systems too...but I think they would also laugh at your apparent naïveté on the issue.

care to provide a link and the context for this supposed 'strategist'? Oh, and to the other part: MOST Americans vote a split ticket, so, NO, they don't think EITHER Red or Blue on election day. Your handlers wish you to do so. My OP was regarding layerer more confusion via IDs and even licenses. I get the public safety part, but either you encourage illegal immigrant labor(which is what has been getting done forever, with winks and nods from most politicians), or you prevent immigrant labor from being viable. How? You prosecute those hiring, you prevent folks from legally operating vehicles on the highways to get back and forth to work, etc.

Oh, and for the record, the last administration to grant large scale amnesty was NOT a Democratic one.

callmeslick wrote:

Oh, and for the record, the last administration to grant large scale amnesty was NOT a Democratic one.

Yes and here we are 30 years later with more illegals crying out for amnesty. Unless we have our boarders patrolled better, in another 30 years we will be faced with this all over again.