FYI… took the liberty to interpret this as abandoning the conservative base in exchange for wooing Hispanic voters.

Then we must be living in different worlds. Cantor is just an anomaly. Cruz is just an anomaly.

This single issue is probably the biggest factor that cost Rubio his chance at POTUS.
.

“First the GOPe; “Top GOP donors tell party to legalize illegal immigrants””

That first point proves my point…

We fetishize what we are going to do about the people here illegally. We just cannot let that sit to the side, thus it becomes a major road block to making headway on Border Security.

It is besides the point about who wants what for a GOP politician to do.

Should the fact that some at the table may have different ideas on what to do with these people stop us from moving forward on getting to a solution for the separate issue of Border Security?

If you were leading with your proposal to a GOP base audience and your first point was about your plans for these people, how do you think it would be received?

Ya think they’d want to hear the rest? … that they’d be hooting on top of their chairs saying “That’s the guy we need at the negotiation table!”?

I hope you see the point now.

Yet, your outline is one of the closest to realistic than any of the political rhetoric around this has been.
.

“”…immigrants are potential Republican voters…” That … points to the second factor; the GOP is set on wooing Hispanic voters and exchanging (abandoning) them for its conservative base.”

I’ve been saying all along immigrants are potential GOP voters.

I don’t want to defend statements I don’t know the full context on. I don’t agree with their implied premise (from the quote) that massively legalizing illegal immigrants (if that is what they are proposing) is the way to woo immigrant votes (if that is their argument).

That said, these are not mutually exclusive – appealing to those in the immigrant community here legally that can vote, and maintaining a core conservative base.

This is another form of the non sequitor that “continued illegal immigration ensures a permanent democrat majority”.
.

Regarding Ryan and “Open Borders” … First it quotes Ryan as saying “Open Systems” – IDK what that means and Breitbart does not provide enough context (I found a link to a one hour video of Ryan’s speech, but I’m not going to spend that kind of time to find out, considering it is Breitbart and similar sites framing it this way).

Second, I think this might give a better picture of what Ryan stands for. This is much more in line in characterizing where I thought he was. Maybe he has changed significantly since then?
http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Paul_Ryan_Immigration.htm

Then there is this recent commentary…
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435289/immigration-open-borders-republicans-are-few-and-far-between

Since the GOP ignores pushback from its base all the time, I’m doubtful that pushback from the conservative base is a factor..

No, IMO two other factors are responsible.

First the GOPe;

“Top GOP donors tell party to legalize illegal immigrants”

“Nearly a hundred top Republican donors and Bush administration officials sent a letter to the House GOP on Tuesday urging lawmakers to pass a bill that legalizes illegal immigrants, arguing that the current system is already allowing them to stay and so it makes sense to register them and bring them into the system.
The donors, led by former Bush administration Cabinet officials Carlos Gutierrez and Spencer Abraham, also said that immigrants are potential Republican voters who can be won over – if the party can be seen as welcoming to immigrants.”

That emboldened section points to the second factor; the GOP is set on wooing Hispanic voters and exchanging (abandoning) them for its conservative base.

“Hispanic Voting Power Swells to Record for 2016, Pew Study Says”

Nor is this new;
Paul Ryan’s Open Borders Push With Luis Gutierrez Exposed in 2013 Video”

“U.S. Congressional Debate In California Hosted Entirely In Spanish”

“Come on Geoffrey, that is not what I said.

It was in context of active mass deportation, the kind that most Trump supporters likely think Trump is going to provide.”

Sorry, I wasn’t ‘trying’ anything. I was speaking to my proposal, as your response (I thought) was in regard to my proposal. Agreed that mass deportation is unlikely and would result in massive civil disobedience. Which is an argument for self-deportation. Remove the incentive and you change the behavior.

Mostly Disagree.

I agree, in as much as I think Dems, and the GOP see an advantage in keeping it a wedge issue for elections.

I disagree in that, at least on the GOP side, politicians get burned by even suggesting they negotiate, as even a smidgen of give on the topic of what to do with the illegals (to say nothing of going as far as your proposal) gets blasted as “AMNESTY!!!” So, it is the GOP supporters who have created a political taboo preventing the politicians from moving on the subject.

These both reinforce each other… taboo, wedge.
.

No solution can be perfect, so the evaluation must be is the proposed solution good enough?

Oh agree fully.
.

“There is going to be FIERCE political opposition to any real change. … Much of what I propose can legally be done by Trump alone.”

Come on Geoffrey, that is not what I said.

It was not in context of what Trump could do with YOUR proposal.

It was in context of active mass deportation, the kind that most Trump supporters likely think Trump is going to provide.

Nice try, though.

Nail, meet Hammer.

I’ve tired of hearing how Trump is a “genius”, and am particularly annoyed at bloggers who attempt to “explain it” – one of the more egregious is Scott Adams (Dilbert) who sings “Hare Trumpna” in honor of how Trump is some “master communicator”.

Adams also thinks the population are a bunch of “meat puppets”, but from his writing I’d guess that he excludes himself, as he has the unique ability to “see and observe” the impact of such communication on (the other) “meat puppets”.

Stopped reading him almost as soon as I started.
.

Explaining the Trump phenomenon is like trying to explain why a song is a hit. The fresh arrangement of instruments. The words and the notes hit just the right emotional chords. The star’s image is one their fans aspire to. Like trying to figure out the image reflected in a million pieces of broken mirror – all of it right or wrong in some general way, but never hitting at the core, nor getting the combination just right.

In absence of a clear explanation, folks default to “he must be a genius”.

Most of these explanations fall flat when run up against the actual path to victory.

Trump had a string of wins with a plurality against a highly divided field all of whom (but Cruz) were competing for the same group of votes. They were all on one side of town and left the other, large part of town to Trump. Strategic error.

Trump may have won by the rules (and we know he didn’t even play that game well), but he hadn’t won the hearts and minds of the majority of the GOP – that takes something more like “genius”, IMHO.
.

“Yes to your last two comments, x 1000. Well said.”

Thanks. I look forward to more “Bill says”.

“AMNESTY!!!”

There would be no citizenship for any illegal and legal residency only for those who can prove that their child was born here.

True, Trump is not selling this but he could sell it and he’s indicated some flexibility on the issue.

There is going to be FIERCE political opposition to any real change. If sincere, Trump should have no problem telling his critics to ‘pound sand’. Much of what I propose can legally be done by Trump alone.

I have never heard of a statute of limitations on illegal entry. Remember they are not citizens and if they cannot prove they’ve fled from persecution, they’ve no basis for an appeal.

So no need for Congress to fund a huge expansion of agents and judges.

We weather any economic turmoil and once we have a handle on the problem, we adjust and adapt.

The real issue is that the President and Congress do not have the desire to secure the borders.

No solution can be perfect, so the evaluation must be is the proposed solution good enough?

“AMNESTY!!!”

That word would be heard across most of the “conservative” radio talk shows and blogs over such a proposal anytime in the last 7-8 years.

It is an outcome something like this that is probably the “compromise” that would happen.

There is precedent. Hong Kong citizens even carried British Passports, BUT they were not allowed to migrate to the UK prior to the turn over of HK to China in 1997.

So, yes, Geoffrey, that is probably close to what the majority in the US can accept. But, it is not what Trump is “advertising”, nor his supporters are “thinking” would be the outcome (nor “acceptable” in their eyes, I’d guess).
.

@Bill – right – there are many pieces to the actual issue of deporting on that scale.

Political. I doubt there is an appetite for what would be seen on TV every night. So, I’d expect FIERCE political opposition – not just relatively passive “sanctuary cities” anymore.

How does one deal with governments (i.e. states) that would declare themselves a “sanctuary”? What funding cuts would be enough for them to give in that wouldn’t have an impact on the re-election expectations of their Congressional representatives?

Legal. We have statutes of limitations on almost all crimes short of murder. Is crossing the border illegally on par with murder, or should it be treated as a lesser crime?

The adjudication of each case and the repeated appeals would take ages – unless the POTUS bypasses Congress to make “arrangements” to fastpath this process. Acceptable?

Would Congress fund a huge expansion of the agents and judges required? Probably not unless the GOP dominate both House and Senate (assuming all GOP would even vote uniformly). If not, how does POTUS implement it?

Economic. There is the common perception that this is a drain on the economy. We can find reports for either side of this, but mostly from those who may have a dog in that hunt. If it is a net positive, as I suspect, will people be happy and accepting of an impact to their pocket book? Double whammy, really, as more taxes are required to pay for the enforcement too.

As a practical matter, if we line up all the pros and cons, would we find out that it really is worth going to the mat on this one vs finding some compromise?

Many, many implications that are tied up in any active-deportation plan.

Our real issue is that the borders are not secure, at both the physical borders and the virtual borders (where we have people overstay). That is where we need our attention and need to get fixed.

I have yet to have anyone tell me why Trump (or any other President) cannot simply go after the employers and use his regulatory powers to defund benefits for illegals. Throw some employers in jail, make it clear that prosecution of employers of illegals will continue. End the benefits.

NO jobs + NO benefits = self-deportation.

NO wall needed.

Let any child born here, who is in elementary school and up stay, put the parents on a semi-permanent work visa but the parents are barred permanently from American citizenship. That is the consequence for breaking the law.

I’m not talking about winning over leftists. You can’t win without getting votes from moderates and independents (like my kind hearted mother, who is almost 80 and who has voted for the winner in every election since she was able to vote. She’s not voting for Trump, btw)

Trump is cementing in the minds of people he absolutely needs if he is going to win that he and, by definition, his party are racist. The only reason he still might win is people are completely cynical now anyway and HRC is so awful.