The Washington Post has a full transcript of the prime-time debate, and also a transcript of the “undercard” debate. It’s also worth checking out Factcheck’s quick overview of both the main and the undercard debates.
“Businesswoman and former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, Carly Fiorina” had the greatest success at distinguishing herself from the pack, and seems likely to “advance” to the prime-time debate in the next round. In my personal estimation, Chris Christie wins the contest for most vacuous fluff, by answering a serious question about civil liberties by crying “nine eleven! Nine eleven! Nine eleven!”
On the substance… well, it’s all pretty dire, isn’t it? All of these candidates seem to agree that the main thing to do about immigration is to build a “wall,” even though there’s strong evidence that doing so will not only kill some immigrants (admittedly, not something I think any of these candidates care about), but actually increase the number of undocumented immigrants (which is something they claim to care about).
Meanwhile, Cruz derides the 2013 “Gang of 8” bill as “amnesty.” But if that bill – which would have hired thousands of new border patrol agents, spent billions on wallbuilding and security measures, and the “amnesty” would have required potential immigrants to “wait for 13 years, pay all back taxes, learn English, no legalization for people with criminal records, and citizenship or permanent residence only after the border becomes fully secure.” If that’s unacceptable “amnesty,” then basically nothing is acceptable to the Republicans Cruz represents. And no one disagreed with Cruz.
Cruz also called for a mandatory five sentence for any undocumented immigrant who is deported and then returns to the USA. A disproportionate and vindictive idea, and again, no disagreement from any of the other Republican candidates.
Republicans like to say that they’re not anti-immigration, but in practice, they are. Favoring unreasonable and vindictive “reforms” to immigration is not, for any practical purpose, different from opposing immigration in general.
Also depressing: Everything said about Iran. Everything said about abortion. Transphobic comments from Huckabee, misogyny from Trump. Well, basically, everything.
(The opposition to same-sex marriage is, for me, beginning to seem less depressing than pathetic. You lost, people. Move on.)
Part of the problem is that the Republican base wants this; they have genuinely terrible policy preferences, and of course their candidates reflect this preference. And they also clearly want belligerence, hence the Trump moment.
The non-debate debate format is a lesser part of the problem, but as a debate geek it’s a part I find especially irritating. The debates are designed to keep candidates from pressing each other, and to prevent any candidate from being able to discuss anything in depth. Rather than the “clown car” approach, I wish that the Republicans (or the Democrats, if the Democrats had a large number of candidates) would have a series of small debates – three candidates per debate. In each debate, one of the better-known candidates should face off against two of the lesser-known candidates. This would both make the better-known candidates have to work harder and justify their positions more, and give the lesser-known candidates a better chance to show voters who they are in (relative) depth.
So that’s how I’d have the debates run if I were dictator (although if I’m a dictator, then what are we having an election for?). What did y’all think of the debates?
It’s been an interesting morning listening to my office talk about last night’s pre-primary GOP debate. A couple of good words for Ben Carson, a lot of praise for Huckabee (who says the same things as Trump but more PC), continued approval of Trump, a good word for Kasich, some admiration for Rubio and total and unanimous dislike for Paul. That was followed by a discussion of how things are too PC these days and how we shouldn’t be trying to change the Pledge of Allegiance which has included the words “under god” for over 200 years.
[Moved by Amp from the open thread to this brand-new thread.]
Oh, yeah. My coworkers liked Fiorina best out of the undercard. They were unimpressed by Cruz, though I’m not sure why. With Paul, they found him unlikable and condescending and thought it was arrogance to not use all the time allotted to answer.
I didn’t watch/listen to the debate, but I heard a recap on NPR this morning. The thing that struck me the most was Trump’s complete and utter condescending sexist jackassery toward Megyn Kelly. Anyone who self-identifies as Republican I would hope would be asking themselves this morning what they think of the fact that he’s currently the front-runner in most polls; and even though that probably won’t last he’s still not being called out nearly enough on almost everything that comes out of his mouth. The idea that he would become president sounds like the premise of a really bad movie, probably resurrecting the career of the eminent Andrew Dice Clay….
I should add I didn’t hear anything about the “kiddie table” debate. And of course some might argue NPR has its biases (although for my money they’re one of the best sources of national news in the US), but these were direct quotes from Trump, with full context – the guy is a complete jackass. (About 3 min in to
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=430221633&m=430221634)
I didn’t watch the debates — we were having our own national election debate here in Canada at the time — but I really liked this piece on the comment Donald Trump made about Rosie O’Donnell during the debate.
Thanks, Dragonsnap – I really enjoyed that link.
Here’s a sample, but it’s a wide-ranging article and it’s worth it to read the whole thing:
I think calling a person who happens to be a woman names is not misogyny; it is more likely firing back at a person who happens to be a woman. Or childishness. Trump doesn’t like Rosey O’Donnell, so he instantly fired back when she insulted him.
Misogyny would be hatred of women because they are women. For example, if an MRA site put up a one-sided “Female Privilege Checklist” and then tried to whip men up to feel disadvantaged because women can work with affirmative action or sit at home and watch TV, they don’t have to register for selective service, over 90% of industrial deaths involve men and all of that. Pretty girls get everything handed to them in life. Whip those guys up into a froth that life is unfair. That would be hatred of women. Ya know?
But not calling Rosie names.
I think the Trump phenomenon is coming from people who are tired of spectacles like the guy who led a team that put a space ship on an asteroid, and then feminists lambasted him because he had girls on his shirt. On the one side, you have people who achieve things, get patents and push technology forward; on the other side, you have people who can’t really do any of that so they get their self-pride from out-elbowing others in being sensitive about triggering and micro-aggressions. Or at least sensitive to the groups of people who they think deserve sensitivity.
Trump correctly said in his response that there are a lot bigger issues to deal with than whether he called Rosie names in 2006. And he’s right on that one. Many people feel that political correctness is now more important than getting real things done, and those people feel that the US is going to be a crummy country because all of that. When China and Russia gang up and invade the United States, the only issue will be how to shame them for insensitive micro-aggressions.
Gee, SWA, what are you saying?
I’m saying that misogyny is hatred of women, not a person who happens to be a woman.
Hatred of Rosie O’Donell is misodonelly. People who don’t like Trump himself because of his policies and beliefs, and who call him names for that reason, likely suffer from misotrumpism and not misandry.
No, no, I meant in the particular passage I quoted. Was there a point you were making in that passage?
My point was exactly what I said. If someone insults a person back because he/she doesn’t like that person, it is not really misogyny. I then gave a clear example of what misogyny IS, which is hatred of women as a class. Smearing an entire group of people because of the birth group they happen to occupy.
By the way, here are two women who are supporters of trump and who also believe that he only fired back and was not being misogynistic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DP6S3KE2DaI
Oh, okay. I thought maybe there was some hidden second meaning. My mistake.
It is quite an amazing coincidence that SWA’s apparent parody of Amp’s “Male Privilege Checklist” in reality had absolutely nothing to do with it. But life is full of coincidences.
I also always get a kick out of people who bring up selective service. I’d be curious, SWA, how has selective service affected your life, or the life of anyone you know under the age of about 70? Given that we haven’t had a draft since 1973, have zero realistic possibility of one now or in the foreseeable future, and no man has even been prosecuted for not registering in almost thirty years, and even before then the numbers were trivial. Of course you can still be denied some benefits in some states for not registering, and I’d love to see the whole thing be abolished (or be applied to all people, but much more preferably be abolished). But in practice it’s a lot easier to do than registering to vote in many states, and has zero negative consequences for those who do. If you’re looking for something to put on a “female privilege checklist,” SS should be at/near the bottom of any remotely coherent one.
I saw most of the later debate and was impressed. Mostly, I was impressed by the moderators. From what I recall, there were a lot of tough questions asked (Trump’s questions being the most widely discussed).
While my track record for predicting the future is generally abysmal, I would be surprised if the Democratic debates contain similarly difficult questions. We will see.
Amp: “Republicans like to say that they’re not anti-immigration, but in practice, they are. Favoring unreasonable and vindictive “reforms” to immigration is not, for any practical purpose, different from opposing immigration in general.”
This is simply incorrect. Bush attempted comprehensive immigration reform; McCain tried to push it through. The base opposed it. Why? Because, unlike Democrats, who seem to march in lock step in regard to reform (let everybody stay), Republicans have disagreements about the logistics of “comprehensive” immigration reform. Democrats don’t believe in comprehensive immigration reform; they want to deal with the people who are here, but do not want to deal with the enforcement component. Republicans feel they got burned on this issue by the Democrats in the 80’s (Reagan’s Amnesty), and they are not going to get fooled again. The law in the 80’s was supposed to include an enforcement component and, 30 years later, we have the same problem that that law was supposed to fix.
I presume you were simply speaking imprecisely, but it is simply not logical to say that Republicans oppose immigration in general because the proposed reforms are vindictive. Immigration “in general” includes legal immigration, and Republicans are fine with that. And, as far as legal immigration goes, there are reforms that get tossed around that are not vindictive (e.g. increase the number of H1-B’s; expand the guest worker programs so that migrant laborers can more easily return to Mexico at the end of the season (you know, some of them don’t want to be U.S. citizens; they are proud to be Mexican)).
-Jut
Amp:
I didn’t watch the debates figuring that a) it would be a show, not an actual debate, and b) family things to do. However, this has caught my eye:
It seems to me that the media loves to conflate “anti-immigration” with “anti-illegal entry into the U.S.”. Opposition to the latter is taken as equal to the former, and you seem to be supporting that. So I’d be interested in your expansion of this idea. Tell me, what positions by the candidates in your mind are unreasonable and vindictive and equal in practice opposing immigration in general?
I’m well under 70 and I can never get a job with the federal government (something I’ve tried once or twice).
At the time that I wasn’t registering, the possibility of a draft was generally seen as a realistic one and some of the louder non-registrants were being prosecuted or threatened with prosecution.
Part of the reason that I didn’t register was that SS registration is just a trap to catch those who oppose it. When I turned 17 I got a postcard in the mail informing me that I could register at age 17 and must register within one(? It’s been a long time) month of turning 18. When I turned 18 I got a postcard informing me that I must register within one(? It’s been a long time) month of turning 18. When I was 18 1/2, I got a postcard informing me that I hadn’t registered and was subject to prosecution. I got another of those when I turned 19. Even as a 17 year old I thought, “If they know that I haven’t registered, why don’t they just register me automatically at 18 and if I want to get my name removed have me go through some sort of application process? They’re just setting us up.”
But to your larger and current point, you’re correct. Selective Service registration is pretty meaningless and there’s not much point in not registering unless you’re going to be a visible protestor against it.
Ron, I find it very strange that you selectively quoted a sentence which followed exactly what you’re asking for – a position by the candidates that I’m criticizing – followed by asking me for something that I already gave.
Let me repeat from the OP:
Jut:
That McCain and Bush were somewhat pro-immigration and got slapped for it from the base proves, not contradicts, that the Republican party is anti-immigration. In the current crop, Rubio has also been forced to move far away from his past immigration positions in order to align himself with the base.
Saying Democrats march in lockstep, at the same time that there’s a major debate within the left over Sanders’ position on immigration, is silly. And Obama has (unfortunately) deported many more immigrants than any prior President. But no matter how much he toughens up enforcement, Republicans will still use the “Democrats will never enforce the law, we won’t get fooled again” line – because that line is nothing more than an excuse to keep out immigrants, and is entirely unresponsive to facts as they happen.
Except that in practice, as Cruz’s statements and record shows, Republicans will always find an excuse to avoid reforming the legal immigration system, which is in desparate need of reform. It’s like saying you’re in favor of highways but always finding an excuse, however flimsy, to not fund highway maintenance bills.
Note on statistics: Any comparison of deportations across administrations is fraught with statistical problems, because the term “deportation” hasn’t had a legal meaning since the 1990s, and because the precise details of law and rules used by ICE and other agencies seems to change every few years regardless of who’s president. So it’s always a bit of comparing apples to oranges. See here for a discussion.
But by most of the measures used by scholars (see the politifact link above), the Obama administration has increased deportations a lot, and during a time when overall immigration has been moving down. The claim that Obama hasn’t been enforcing immigration laws in general is partisan nonsense.
And not for the first time (as someone well to the left of the Democrats), I wish that we had the imaginary Obama that right-wingers describe, rather than the actual Obama. :-p
Jut again, but on another subject:
I’ve seen several people (including conservatives) argue that the candidates favored by the Republican establishment – Rubio especially – got softball questions compared to the grilling that the establishment-hated Trump got. I haven’t reviewed the questions with this in mind, however, so I don’t know if I agree with it.
In a way, I think it doesn’t matter? Because if the format is a softball format – that is, a format that leaves the candidates free to pivot onto stock or tangential answers, rather than being repeatedly pressed to answer the question as given – then ANY question in effect becomes a softball question. And I will be shocked if the Democrat debates – or the Republican debates, as they go on – are formatted in a way that makes it very hard for an experienced politician to dodge a question.
Three points, Amp.
First, I think it is not fair to say that because the base opposes “amnesty” that the party opposes reform (or immigration-sorry I really should avoid responding on my phone). There are really 4 positions:
The Rule of law crowd: deport them all and close the border. Cruz is probably closest to this.
The Enforcement crowd: deal with the people here but only AFTER the border is closed. I think this is closer to Jeb and the evolved position of Rubio.
Comprehensive Reform crowd: deal with reform and enforcement at the same time. This was Bush, McCain, and the gang of eight.
Then, there is the let them stay, no enforcement open borders type.
There are not many Republicans in the last one, but there are many spread across the other three (more so than Democrats, I would guess). There is no clear consensus among the Republicans about the best course.
Second, you are right about apples and oranges on deportations. My understanding is the books are cooked a bit. For Obama, deportations are not just actual removal proceedings, but include instances where people are caught near the border and simply returned to Mexico. That is my understanding anyway.
Finally, I don’t recall it specifically, but I thought they asked Rubio a tough abortion question. And, I hope the upcoming debates don’t allow spin the way you suggest. Yes, there was some evasive answers, but I was delighted to see Kelly call Trump on his shit and not let him out easily. I just hope his subsequent whine fest wakes people up to the fact that this “breath of fresh air” is just a narcissistic blowhard.
-Jut
That’s also the way the Bush administration counted.
And, of course, the measures showing that Obama is deporting more than any prior president include not just the administration’s numbers, but the numbers of many independent experts on immigration.
Whether he’s deported more than any president or is second to Clinton or whatever, there’s no reasonable case that Obama has been generally refusing to enforce the laws. (Especially when you consider that the total number of people trying to get into the US has been much lower recently). So the “we can’t trust Democrats because we know they won’t deport anyone or turn people back at the border, and THAT’S why we’re against immigration reform” argument is fact-free nonsense.
Me too. But I can’t remember a single presidential election in which I thought the debates were really excellent and made it hard for candidates to dodge questions, so you’ll understand that I don’t feel optimistic on this front. :-)
I would disagree with this proposal. My position is that no one who has illegally entered the United States should be eligible for citizenship. Period. I can see provision for a process wherein such a person can gain permanent resident alien status – but citizenship? Never.
Why is that disproportionate and vindictive? A repeat offender getting a more severe punishment, that seems also geared towards inhibiting people considering a repeat offense, seems pretty standard in our criminal justice system.
I see no justification for equating a refusal to grant illegal aliens citizenship and heavily punishing repeat offenders with being generally anti-immigration. That simply makes no sense to me.
JutGory, what do you mean by “close the border”? If you mean “halt all immigration, legal or otherwise”, I’d like to see you cite where Cruz, Jeb and Rubio have adopted this as a position.
Amp, what I have seen regarding deportation vs. returns is that during Bush’s first term ICE did a lot of returns without filing formal deportation orders, but that during his second term and continuing into Obama’s administration this stopped and everyone got formally deported.
Why? Why is it in desperate need of reform? And what changes to the immigration system do you think would represent reform?
The bottom line on enforcement:
Obama increased “removals” but reduced “returns.” This means that his overall deportation numbers are down to the lowest level since the 1970s, while he has classified the largest number of deportations as “removals” in history.
Given the near total collapse of interior enforcement, the most likely explanation is that the is giving people who are caught at the border a legally more intense form of deportation, then counting it essentially as if it were interior enforcement.
It’s also not accurate to say that the Gang of Eight Bill would require “potential immigrants” to wait 13 years. They would get provisional legal status (a work permit) in 6 months or less. The 13 years is for getting citizenship – and contrary to public opinion, that isn’t the big prize here, getting to stay is.
And talk about how much the Gang of Eight bill would increase enforcement is also misleading; lots more money would be spent on the border patrol, but there would be no guarantees that they would adopt policies designed to reduce illegal border crossings. And there would be no requirement that border crossings be reduced prior to people here illegally getting some form of legal status.
The Gang of Eight bill was “legalize first, then increase enforcement.” This formula was tried in 1986, and the enforcement did not materialize. We won’t be fooled again.
MJJ: I would hardly call a report by an extremist anti-immigrant organization to be “the bottom line on enforcement.” Has their analysis been replicated by a mainstream organization or by peer-reviewed academic studies?
If more people are caught at the border and given legal consequences (as opposed to being turned away without any additional consequences or a record of their name being kept), how is that not border “enforcement”? It’s nonsensical – and a blatant attempt to massage the numbers – to claim that only one kind of deportation counts (i.e., whichever type makes Obama look worse).
Politifact has a good summary of the issues MJJ is referring to. The fact is, the details of immigration are always changing, and should always change, in response to facts on the ground, and in response to improved procedures. But unscrupulous organizations like FAIR and CIS (which was an offshoot of FAIR) can always use these changes to manipulate the numbers, by saying “oh, this thing isn’t exactly like it was 12 years ago, therefore it shouldn’t count.” If you’re going to take that view, then the only fair conclusion is that it’s not actually possible to compare administration to administration, because the inputs (the number of undocumented immigrants trying to get in, and where they’re coming from) and outputs (the current policy response) are never identical. Or to say “let’s make the best comparisons we can given these flawed numbers,” which is what legitimate scholars do. Your linked report, in contrast, was an exercise in cherry-picking.
The bill required the
enforcement agenciesHomeland Security to submit detailed plans to Congress explaining how the policies adopted would reduce undocumented immigration, including illegal border crossings. The idea that the bill didn’t require any actual border enforcement or action against immigrants is ridiculous.It’s not as draconian a trigger program as the far right would prefer, but to claim there were no requirements is not reasonable.
Finally, it’s not just good for immigrants when immigrants come to the US – it’s good for the US as well. Giving people provisional residence after six months is a feature, not a bug.
Amp:
They bill themselves as pro-immigrant, but anti-illegal alien. In reading through the 11 stories currently billed on their website, 9 concern issues devolving from illegal entry and residence in the U.S., one on corporate abuse of the H1-B visa system and one on alleged abuses of the EB-5 visa system. Their main focus seems to be on illegal aliens, not legal immigrants. This does not sustain your claim that they are anti-immigrant.
Let me reword that, Ron.
If more people are caught at the border and given legal consequences (as opposed to being turned away without any additional consequences or a record of their name being kept), how is that not border “enforcement”?
I’m sorry, I must have given the impression that the issue was that the number of returns is down. No, the issue is that the total number of deportations (returns plus removals) is down. Obama reduced returns by far more than he increased removals.
It’s nonsensical – and a blatant attempt to massage the numbers – to claim that only one kind of deportation counts (i.e., whichever type makes Obama look worse).
Actually, no, Obama is the one claiming that only one kind of deportation (removal) counts. Claims that enforcement is being reduced is based on counting BOTH types of deportation.
It’s not as draconian a trigger program as the far right would prefer, but to claim there were no requirements is not reasonable.
Let me rephrase my statement. There would be no requirements that illegal border crossings actually be reduced for the legalization process to keep going. Essentially, all the bill requires is that a plan be submitted, and if it does not work, another plan is submitted. So there is good reason to suspect that all we would get in terms of enforcement is a lot of talk.
Finally, it’s not just good for immigrants when immigrants come to the US – it’s good for the US as well. Giving people provisional residence after six months is a feature, not a bug.
That’s not the argument you used in your initial post. Your initial argument was that the bill was not amnesty because it subjected immigrants to a difficult 13-year process.
If you want to argue that amnesty is good, then argue that. But I do not think it is fair to argue that the Gang of Eight bill actually addressed the concerns of people who wanted to reduce future illegal immigration. What it did primarily is give the impression of addressing these concerns, but without any concrete guarantees that effective enforcement would actually be adopted, and without making the legalization part in any real way contingent upon effective enforcement.
RonF @22:
It would be better phrased as “secure the border” or “build the wall.” Basically, it would be to stop the flow of illegal immigration.
-Jut
Amp, what would you consider a mainstream organization? And why would CIS not qualify as such?
You say that the immigration system is in desperate need of reform. I don’t know if I’d use the word “desperate”, but I would agree that reform is needed. I also don’t know if you consider border security as part of the immigration system. In any case, I’d like to know what you think would be the proper measures to take to reform the immigration system.
JutGory – so, by “close the border” you don’t really mean to close it – you mean secure it against illegal entry. I would suggest then that using the term “close the border” helps support the false narrative that those candidates hold an “anti-immigrant” position when in fact they do not.
Amp @20:
The deal in 1986 was that amnesty was granted to people who were present in the U.S. illegally in return for securing the border. Amnesty was granted, but the border was not in fact secured. And when, in response to this, a bill passed granting authority to build a wall such as those used successfully in other countries to keep people from illegally entering the country, subsequent Democratic-controlled Congresses refused to fund it – which was viewed as legitimate by Democrats then, but when the GOP tried to use the same action to halt Obamacare all of a sudden it was an illegitimate tactic. This is why those who have paid attention to the history of this issue don’t trust the Democratic party, especially as the number of people in it who openly favor open borders and oppose strengthening border security has increased.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
RonF, CIS was founded by an honest-to-goodness white nationalist. I think that’s enough to disqualify it as a mainstream organization.
CIS may not be credible, but criticizing its founder’s views is a terrible way to make that argument. Margaret Sanger was a founder of Planned Parenthood; PP is still a worthwhile organization.
I think there’s a difference, CopyLeft; at the time, Sanger’s eugenicalviews were mainstream, even slightly progressive compared to the racism of the time. CIS was founded in 1985, Tanton is still alive, and as far as I know CIS has never denounced any of his racist statements.
On the one side, you have people who achieve things, get patents and push technology forward; on the other side, you have people who can’t really do any of that so they get their self-pride from out-elbowing others in being sensitive about triggering and micro-aggressions.
Is this sort of like how kids think that teachers live at the school? “Complaining about that shirt is all I’ve observed them doing; therefore that must be all that they do.”