Paul Ryan: Legalization Before Border Security

Rep. Paul Ryan

Byron York reports that Rep. Paul Ryan is leading the way to get an immigration bill passed in the House of Representatives. The House bill Ryan favors has the same legalization before border security sequence as the Rubio immigration bill passed in the Senate.

York quotes from a Ryan interview with Sean Hannity where Ryan affirms:

Hear what I say. What we’re talking about in the House is we’re saying, people who are here undocumented, because we realize we cannot deport 11 million people and find them and deport them, so we want to put them on a probationary status, that’s the kind of thinking we have here, and they can’t get out of that probationary status, they can’t get legal permanent residence, which is what Chuck Grassley was talking there*, until these border efforts are made, until the border is secure, until the E-Verify set up.
[emphasis added]

York summarizes Ryan’s position: "First, comes the legalization, and then come the measures to secure the border."

Hannity was skeptical and challenging. “My sources have been telling me, congressman, that you guys are considering a five-year temporary legal status, and then if the border security measure is not met in five years, that that would be revoked.”

“That’s right,” Ryan said. “That’s right.”

“I don’t believe that would ever happen,” Hannity shot back.

Certainly Sean Hannity is right. If you're not going to deport them now, you certainly aren't going to deport them in five years for something that is not their fault (lack of border security). Paul Ryan knows this, and it doesn't say much for his integrity that he pretends revocation is a real possibility.

Temporary legal status has the same practical effect day-to-day as permanent legal status. With no true "revocation" trigger "temporary" becomes de facto "permanent".

Ryan asserts that one cannot secure the border without "a workable legal immigration system". He then implies that a workable system somehow necessitates legalizing 11 million illegals.

“Because in order to secure the border, you have to have a workable legal immigration system that people who are trying to come to this country to work have a way of coming here legally,” Ryan said. “You can’t just seal it off, you need to make sure that people can come here legally and we also have to remember, we’ve got 11 million people in the country who are undocumented who either overstayed their visa or crossed the border illegally. What are we going to do? We’re not going to be able to find them and deport them. We have to find a way of dealing with this population, we want to do it in a way that respects the rule of law, and puts them at the back of the line, so that everybody who did things right — ”
[emphasis added]

But, of course, there is a current legal immigration path and there has been one since 1790. U.S. borders have never been totally sealed off to immigration. Secure borders do not mean and have never meant no immigration. Secure borders only mean much diminished illegal immigration.

The real issue is the 11 million people who are, according to Ryan, "undocumented". Ryan says that since we can't deport them, we need to find a way to make what they have done legal. If we send them to "the back of the line" it will show that we and they respect the law. This is like letting those who didn't pay for a ticket to an event get to go in anyway but at the back of the line. It's not much of a punishment and not much of an incentive for anyone else to buy a ticket next time. 

Just as the 1986 immigration bill didn't fix the system when it legalized 3 million illegal immigrants, temporary legalization will not fix the system that allowed 11 million more "undocumented" immigrants in. The problem has almost quadrupled since 1986 (3 million to 11 million). What are the chances of it quadrupling again in 25 years under the Rubio-Ryan immigration plan?

With fuddled thinking like that shown by Paul Ryan and Marco Rubio, some of the Republican silver-tongued young guns are looking more and more tarnished.

Palin Pushes Back Against Amnesty Arguments, Supporters

Former Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin pushed back against the narrative that Republicans can only win if they win more Hispanic votes by voting for immigration amnesty. Palin points out that Mitt Romney lost in 2012 because working class Americans (Reagan Democrats) stayed home.

The former Republican vice presidential nominee reminded Republicans on Sunday in her Breitbart News piece [here] that these working class Americans are the voters who, despite their dislike of Obama, sat out the 2012 election because they did not think Mitt Romney was one of them or would fight for them.

"These would be the same blue-collar working class voters of every ethnicity who chose to sit home in 2012 instead of turning out to vote in the swing states we needed to carry in order to stop Barack Obama’s promised 'fundamental transformation' of America," Palin wrote. "I note this just as a helpful reminder to those who believe the hyperventilated new hype claiming that conservatives need to support this bill in order to win future elections. That’s 100% wrong."

Stephen Bannon and Tony Lee point to Byron York's analysis that even had Romney won 70% of the Hispanic vote he still would have lost in 2012.

Romney needed less than 400,000 votes to win in 2012. But, according to a Center for Immigration Studies report 4.7 million fewer whites (4.2 million of them without a college education) voted in 2012 than in 2004.  These non-voters include the Reagan Democrat profile.

Bannon and Lee conclude:

For Republicans to win back the majority and the presidency, they need to win the so-called Reagan Democrats and a new generation of working class minorities who will have to become Reagan Democrats 2.0. They need to win over the father who got laid off from his manufacturing job and has a child who did everything society said to do--go to college, get a degree, find a decent-paying job in the technology industry--and now may meet the same fate his father did when the labor market is flooded with an influx of cheap immigrant labor brought to do jobs Americans supposedly do not want to do.

Palin understands and appreciates those in the working class and their contribution to America's greatness as well as to Reagan's conservative electoral success.

Not afraid to call to task those she supported in 2010 who have flip-flopped on the necessity for border security before legalization, Palin calls for primary challenges for Marco Rubio and Kelly Ayotte who changed their position from 2010 campaign promises and voted for the immigration bill.

On Tuesday, Palin fired back, specifically mentioning to Breitbart News that she would like to see Rubio (R-FL) and Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) primaried for turning their back on voters and supporting the Senate's amnesty bill even though they promised they would put border security before amnesty while campaigning in 2010.

“Conservatives are getting ready for the 2014 and 2016 primaries. We have long memories, and there will be consequences for those who break campaign promises and vote for this amnesty bill," Palin told Breitbart News. "Competition makes everyone work harder, be better, and be held accountable. This applies to politics, too. No one is ‘entitled’ to anything."

She continued, "Rigorous debate in competitive primaries allows candidates the opportunity to explain their flip-flops. So think of contested primaries as a win-win for politicians and their voters."

"Every politician should be held accountable for breaking their campaign promises," Palin said to John Gibson on Fox News radio on Tuesday. "They turned their back on the American public, so why should they not be held accountable?"

Palin also hints at the demise of the Republican Party:

Folks like me are barely hanging on to our enlistment papers in any political party – and it’s precisely because flip-flopping political actions like amnesty force us to ask how much more bull from both the elephants in the Republican Party and the jackasses in the Democrat Party we have to swallow before these political machines totally abandon the average commonsense hardworking American. Now we turn to watch the House. If they bless this new “bi-partisan” hyper-partisan devastating plan for amnesty, we’ll know that both private political parties have finally turned their backs on us. It will then be time to show our parties’ hierarchies what we think of being members of either one of these out-of-touch, arrogant, and dysfunctional political machines.

Democrats Played Marco Rubio Like a Fiddle

UPDATE: Though voting for the failed Cornyn security amendment which required real measurable border security progress before granting legal permanent status, Senator Kelly Ayotte was one of 14 Republicans who voted for the immigration bill despite the lack of provisions requiring measurable border security success before legal permanent status and citizenship. Thirty-two Republican Senators voted against the bill.

From Byron York:

"Menendez told me that Rubio's role was to 'work over the conservative universe, particularly the conservative opinion-maker universe,' in order to 'neutralize them' and, in some cases, 'proselytize them,'" the New Yorker's Ryan Lizza reported recently, referring to Democratic Gang member Robert Menendez. The leader of the Gang, Democrat Charles Schumer, "was delighted to have a Tea Party conservative who could sell an immigration bill to the right," Lizza wrote.

The plan worked brilliantly. Conservative talk radio hosts who might have instinctively opposed immigration reform as conceived by Schumer gave Rubio a respectful hearing and a lot of room. When Rubio told them the bill would secure the border first, they believed him.

Later, when it became unavoidably clear that, in fact, the bill would first legalize millions of currently illegal immigrants, and only after that start the work of securing the border, some conservatives began to express skepticism, disappointment and opposition. But Rubio's neutralization campaign had bought the Gang precious months to write the bill and gather momentum before conservatives began to realize what was actually in it.
[emphasis added]

Marco Rubio let himself be used not only a stalking horse but a Trojan horse. If Rubio was so easily manipulated by Senate Democrats, is there any question that Rubio would be putty in the hands of real opponents like the Russians or Chinese?

And then there are the conservative thinkers who trusted him. What is this spate of supposedly sensible conservatives becoming groupies over Rubio like Ann Coulter with Chris Christie and Mitt Romney?

Willamette Week Scoops Oregonian Again

If you have been following the unfolding of the story of the Oregonian's cut to four day home delivery, the excellent reporting of Willamette Week stands out.

Willamette Week gave a heads up on the coming change almost a week before the Oregonian announced its own news.

Though one understands holding back on personal news until you are ready to reveal the information, it doesn't say much for your reporting skills to wait almost a week after someone else has revealed it and then have to update the news article on your own news.

Oregonian Media Group to launch with digital, print products
By OregonLive.com
on June 20, 2013 at 10:00 AM, updated June 21, 2013 at 7:41 PM
[emphasis added]

Aaron Mesh at Willamette Week sniffed out the coming change on the basis of a trademark application.

On May 17, the Oregonian Publishing Co. filed an application with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office for protection of a new brand name: Oregonian Media Group.

The delay between the May 17 application and Mesh's June 14 story might indicate an inside source at the Oregonian was a big help in putting the pieces together.  Still, its impressive that Mesh latched on to the slim hint in the "new brand name".

Willamette Week has scooped the Oregonian big time on the Neil Goldschmidt scandal which resulted in a Pulitzer Prize, the Sam Adams/Beau Breedlove affair and cover up, and just last year the assault story regarding mayoral candidate Jefferson Smith. The Oregonian's home delivery story scoop is just another success for Willamette Week's superior investigative reporting skills, but this time embarrassing the Oregonian for not being on top of its own story.

More Head Scratching News from the Oregonian

In announcing the change from daily home delivery to a four day home delivery system and a three day newsstand only print edition, the Oregonian reports that its circulation is made up of about 90% home delivery and 10% newsstand sales.

The Oregonian currently delivers to 170,000 homes daily and sells 15,000 papers a day at newsstands, said Kevin Denny, the paper's vice president of operations and circulation. The Oregonian prints 263,000 Sunday editions with 30,000 of those sold at newsstands.

The home delivery change should result in a 90% drop in sales income three days of the week since the Monday, Tuesday and Thursday editions would result in a fractional 15,000 papers sold on those days rather than the normal 185,000.*

Publisher N. Christian Anderson III has pointed to a savings in home delivery costs as part of the limited home delivery strategy.

PBJ: If the newspaper isn't delivered daily, why not stop printing daily?
Anderson: We still have a large single-copy audience and wish to continue to serve that audience without the expense of home delivery on those three days.

But, the question remains whether dropping 90% of sales on the non-home delivery days will not cancel out any positive effects of delivery savings--not to mention that 10% in newsstand sales does not seem to be a particularly large single-copy audience.

Before the home delivery changes, the Oregonian employed 650 people.

Anderson declined to say how many of The Oregonian's 650 employees would lose their jobs in coming months. Editor and Vice President Peter Bhatia told newsroom employees that the reductions would be "significant." But he said there would be new hiring as well.

Willamette Week has counted up 95 people who have been laid off so far--about 15% of Oregonian employees.  The newsroom was taking the biggest hit losing a quarter of its staff.

UPDATE, 7 pm: Sources tell WW that The Oregonian has laid off about 95 employees in the last two days—at least 45 in the editorial department. That number, which is reportedly near final, would represent one quarter of a 175-person newsroom.

Despite this 15% to 25% loss in staff, Anderson has promised "enhanced" editions for the Wednesday, Friday and Sunday home delivery newspapers.

The Oregonian will continue to be published daily and sold at outlets in the Portland metropolitan area and elsewhere in the state and southwestern Washington. Home delivery will be Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday, and include the Saturday edition as a bonus. The Wednesday, Friday and Sunday editions will be enhanced with more content than current editions while the Saturday newspaper will have news and a strong emphasis on sports content, along with classified advertising. Those home delivery subscribers that choose the three-day subscription option will also have access to a digital edition seven days a week. Subscribers will be informed of the new rates in early August.
[emphasis added]

Anderson has not explained how the Oregonian will be able to maintain its current seven day print publishing schedule (though with only a 10% print run three of the days) and enhance and expand the edition on three of those days in light of the 25% cut in newsroom staff.

A sales strategy that includes a 90% drop in sales three days a week, no matter how much is saved in delivery costs, and a 25% cut in newsroom staff as precursor to enhancing and expanding the newspaper do not seem to promise success. How Advance Publications, Inc. (owner of the Oregonian) has penciled this out as a winning strategy is anyone's guess.
_____
*The Alliance for Audited Media data for March, 2013, has Oregonian daily circulation at about 229,000 and Sunday circulation at about 304,000. Some of the difference could be due to Oregonian digital circulation, which might account for the 10,000 difference in the Sunday figure. But, the 45,000 difference in the daily figure can hardly be due to digital subscriptions.

H/T MaxRedline

Oregonian Owner Advance Publications Reversing Move to Digital in New Orleans

Advance Publications, Inc., owns Newhouse Newspapers which owns the Oregonian and the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

A little more than a year ago, in May of 2012, the Times-Picayune announced it would be going to a mostly digital format with print publication three days a week.

The nola.com article quoted Ricky Mathews, the president of NOLA Media group, as saying, “Our best path to success lies in a digitally focused organization that combines the award-winning journalism of The Times-Picayune and the strength of NOLA.com.”

But, the outcome has not been so good for the Times-Picayune.  In fact, the newspaper is retreating back to a print version (TP Street) for the days the Times-Picayune is not available.  Kevin Allman reports:

After going to thrice-weekly publication last fall as part of its move to a "digital newsroom" . . . , [the] NOLA Media Group announced in April it would return to printing a news product on the days that The Times-Picayune was not printed.

That tabloid print product, which was named "TP Street," was largely greeted with dismay in the newsroom and confusion and derision elsewhere . . . when it was clear that the move was a retreat to daily printing.

Adding to the confusion was NOLA Media Group's statement that TP Street was a response to subscribers' demand for a paper — but TP Street would not be delivered to subscribers, but available only on news racks for an additional price."

Further complicating matters for Advance Publications and NOLA was the fact that the print newspaper vacuum created by the Times-Picayune cutting to a three day a week print publication schedule drew in a new print newspaper competitor, The Advocate New Orleans Edition. Allman continues:

That non-delivery plan, Gambit learned several weeks ago, has also been reconsidered as NOLA Media Group pondered the possibility of returning to daily delivery of a daily print product with the name Times-Picayune, effectively positioning the physical paper where it was a year ago before the "digital transition" — albeit a physical paper with a severely damaged brand and new competition in the form of The Advocate's New Orleans edition.

Apparently, Advance Publications/Newhouse Newspapers has learned that digital switching and three day a week print publishing isn't all pony rides in May even if you do get rid of a lot of staff.

Thus, the Times-Picayune is heading back towards where the Oregonian is going: a print edition every day, but no home delivery for three days.

Advance Publications is trying to find a workable middle term between going digital and maintaining print, but seems to have focused more on defending turf rather than innovating.  The Oregonian venture of four print days for delivery, but seven print days on newstands, and trying to ramp up digital appears to be a falling between two stools. Not one thing or the other and not a likely plan for success.

Oregonian Cutting Home Delivery to Three Days (Four, If You're a Good Boy)

UPDATE: A significant reason for continuing the newsstand print version is the profitability of single copy pricing.

PBJ: If the newspaper isn't delivered daily, why not stop printing daily?
Anderson: We still have a large single-copy audience and wish to continue to serve that audience without the expense of home delivery on those three days.

Heading off new print competition is another factor.
__________

Oregonian digital edition

MaxRedline has his usual great heads up post. This one is about the Oregonian's cutting back to a home delivery print edition of Wednesday, Friday and Sunday (and Saturday as a bonus). The cutback will be implemented October 1st.

The Oregonian explains:

"The Oregonian will continue to be published daily and sold at outlets in the Portland metropolitan area and elsewhere in the state and southwestern Washington. Home delivery will be Wednesday, Friday, and Sunday, and include the Saturday edition as a bonus."

Willamette Week (which broke the news of the impending change last Friday):

"The Oregonian confirmed this morning that the paper will reduce print delivery to three days a week.

"Publisher N. Christian Anderson III informed staff just before 10 am that the paper will continue to publish seven days a week, but will only offer home delivery on Wednesday, Friday and Sunday, with the Saturday edition apparently delivered with Sunday papers. He also announced that newsroom layoffs are beginning immediately.

"Anderson told staff this morning that the company will inform them by Friday morning whether they are being laid off.

"'The newsroom was just told there will be 'significant layoffs,' w/some new hiring for digital,' reporter Anna Griffin wrote on Twitter at 10:51 am. 'Somebody open the bar tab.'

"Staffers were told they could be offered severance or take new jobs at a recently formed company The Oregonian Publishing Co.

"Anderson also told the staffers the paper will move out of its iconic downtown building on Southwest Broadway to new offices."

Interesting that the Oregonian business model is based on a seven day print edition to be sold at outlets but not to home subscribers. It doesn't seem likely that their money hemorrhage is coming just from home delivery costs, so the home delivery cut is a head scratcher if they are continuing to produce a daily print edition.

It would make more sense to completely cut out three print days than just stop home delivery on those days. The actual physical materials and process of printing the paper is likely to be 1/5th or more of the cost of getting the paper out in a print format. But, if you are going to publish anyway, there is the loss that comes per unit with limited production of an edition rather than mass production.

Along with cutting home deliveries nearly in half, the Advance Central Services owners are significantly cutting employees. So salaries and employee benefits seems the real savings the Oregonian owners are going for now.

Another thing that doesn't add up is that though they are cutting staff they plan to expand the content of their Wednesday, Friday and Sunday editions.

"The Wednesday, Friday and Sunday editions will be enhanced with more content than current editions while the Saturday newspaper will have news and a strong emphasis on sports content, along with classified advertising."

Quality content expansion is not likely when you're significantly cutting staff.  Nor does it seem likely that "enhanced" content will attract new subscribers when the Oregonian is cutting down on print circulation (via 40% less home delivery).

There's a lot here that doesn't add up.