Why aren't the Democrats talking about Immigration?

Email Print posted by bobo1 02/01/2008 12:03:42 PM EST

Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit
Now I'm ready to catch some Hell...

I noticed this developing in another posting, so I decided to address it in a new one...


The question of immigration is a growing problem for all of these candidates, but especially for the Democrats. Now, I have been listening to the show and reading these postings for a while, and I think the one thing that stops me from developing into a full fledged Liberal is Immigration.

To start off, I'm in Arizona, where this issue is forefront on most voters minds...

Illegal Immigrants need to leave this country. NOW. Citizens are struggling enough getting decent jobs and decent pay in this country (especially in my state), and we dont need the added competition from low wage, unskilled workers literally flooding our job market and overwhelming our support systems (schools welfare etc)

Now before you libs start rambling on about Racism and Bigotry, please take a moment to look at how other nations handle illegal immigration. Enough said there. We are by far the most compassionate and tolerant nation in terms of what we allow illegals to get away with in our country. I suspect only Scandanavia might have a more liberal record in this regard.

Now before you La Raza types start spewing your venom, let me say that I personally want all Illegals gone. Folks, it aint just Mexicans we're dealing with here. The people coming and staying on H1 Visas for high tech high paying jobs are also undercutting our foundations. This is not a Mexican thing, for me anyway...


If this current administration had shown us anything, it is that the establishment and maintenance of the rule of law has been forgotten in this country. What the Hell are we debating, arguing and sometimes dying for if the rule of law has been obliterated?


The Democrats better be wise to the growing angst and economic depression that is arising in part to this immigration problem. There are a lot of angry and confused people out here who have seen their livelihoods and way of life taken away from them by greedy businesses who depress wages and jack up taxes. Voters are very upset that no one except for pundits like Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchannan are addressing this issue.

Am I saying that Illegals have caused all of the economic issues of late? Of course not, thats just stupid. But in places like Arizona, its so prevalent and obvious what needs to be done, but there are few bold enough to say it. Corporatism is the real enemy here, but thats not something the general public can latch onto very easily.

I welcome your thoughts and would like to continue this discusion. Thank you.

< Most Liberal Senator | Jill Pike: What are you doing? >
 Display:
Why aren't the Democrats talking about Immigration? | 73 comments (73 topical, 0 hidden)
Pattern Recognition (none / 0)
Tancredo made illegal immigration the focus of his campaign and it never got off the ground. Giuliani was flying high until he accused Romney of employing an undocumented landscaper at his mansion. Giuliani's campaign crashed and burned. Romney acts tough on illegal immigration, yet he's losing to the "amnesty" candidate. Does anyone sense a pattern here?

by Twba on 02/01/2008 12:32:04 PM EST

Well... (none / 0)
I sense that Tancredo was nuts before he ran. I sense that Romney's problems have to do with the fact that he looks like a full sized Ken Doll and cant decide on what he believes (and the fact that many Americans believe he belongs to what they consider a cult doesn't help either) . I sense that Giuliani was too busy hiding his mistress from the Taxpayers of NYC and in general he was a maniacal dictator as mayor.

What I am really sensing here is that Illegal Immigration is becoming the new Third Rail of Politics, and just like the other third rail (Social Security), its not going to go away because people are afraid to discuss it on a national level. This is the kind of festering problem that explodes into unc ontrollable conflict. 

The American people better start growing some huevos and start discusiing the problem instead of deflecting it away as you seem to be doing.

Thanks

by bobo1 on 02/01/2008 12:39:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Immigration (none / 0)
The Republicans who adopted the nativist line have plenty of flaws, but the amnesty candidate has just as many flaws.

In 2000, Bush won the nomination despite being soft on immigration and even stammering in Spanish on many campaign stops.

Illegal immigration is not a winning issue, even on the Republican side.

by Twba on 02/01/2008 01:48:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes, Corpratism *Is* The Real Enemy Here (none / 0)
not the people who (understandably) come here (we'd do the same if we were in their situation).

I've written several times that I'm unhappy with both parties on illegal immigration.  On one side you have xenophobes and racists and on the other, pandering for the Latino vote.  Both ignore the REAL issue which is that this is not an illegal immigration problem (I use the term because it's the common phrase), but rather, it's an illegal *employer* problem.

Like I said in the other thread, before Reagan there were less than 2 million undocumented workers in the US compared to over 13 million today.  It's not like we *had* a fence that was torn down, right?  It's all about enforcement at the employer level and not driving down wages, benefits and working conditions while still ensuring we have a stable supply of workers (note: not the same as a surplus of workers, critical distinction).

PS---I actually thought Obama struck a decent balance between not being a right-wing racist/xenobophobe and not being a left-wing amnesty panderer, as you can see here..

by ihavenobias on 02/01/2008 12:54:06 PM EST

Yes, I meant "xenophobe" (none / 0)

by ihavenobias on 02/01/2008 12:55:12 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I believe you. (none / 0)
But your original spelling was more entertaining.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/03/2008 10:57:39 AM EST

[ Parent ]
this is why (none / 0)
The reason the Democrats aren't talking about it is because the issue of immigration is just not that big a deal.  But in any case, in the debate, they did talk about it. So whatever.

by yturks on 02/01/2008 01:00:02 PM EST

Well... (none / 0)
yturks, Im glad to hear that you have found an insulated part of the country in which wage supression and low paying jobs have not gotten to you and yours yet. I am interested in knowing where else in the country that Corporatists and their minimum wage jobs haven't wrecked any basis of a decent living wage yet, so i can move there and get a decent paying job.

I just love seeing reports like "74,000 new jobs were created this quarter..." when a closer examiniation concludes that most of those jobs are minimum wage McDonalds type jobs, and that those who found those jobs have 2 other jobs to try and support their families. Yeah, thats real economic growth and stability...

And no, they didn't address the issue with any sort of reality at the debate. They said they understand blah blah blah and will continue to do nothing. Hillary Clinton even made some underhanded referrence that those of us who do talk about Illegal Immigration are living in some parallel universe (I dont remember the whole quote, it was toward the end of the debate).

The Democrats will probably win this year, but I hope they realize that its not because of their stands on issues like this. its simply because people are tired of being fucked over by Republicans. If Liberals and Democrats want to REMAIN in power, they better get off their ass and understand that this economics stuff IS THE ISSUE, and that the Illegal immigration debate component of it is the most easily accessed to the masses and potentially the most dangerous part of it.

As I tell my students, most wars begin when people reach their hands into others peoples pockets and start screwing with their money, taxes and livelihoods. You dont think a "no big deal" scapegoat type movement wont develop- into full fledged Balkanization? Better think again and browse through any World History Book to see this pattern over and over again.

Thanks.

by bobo1 on 02/01/2008 01:34:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Do you realize how right you are? (none / 0)
"...and that the Illegal immigration debate component of it is the most easily accessed to the masses and potentially the most dangerous part of it."

Now, I'll tell you why you're right.

Tomorrow morning, reread your message above from the point of view of someone who believes that the immigration issue is a cover for the very woes you outline.

That's the dangerous part.

Because it is so very easy to shift the discussion away from the economic inequalities of the policies of the corporations and their lackeys in the governement to the "immigration issue"

My friend in Phoenix sent me an email he received yesterday from an anti-immigrant group, complete with quotes from Tancredo and Rush, claiming outrage over Resident Aliens being included in the stimulus package. It ragged on about these illegals getting benefits. My friend asked me if their getting benefits bothered me.

I told him what bothered me was that he was buying a load of crap and not doing any research on his own. My first wife and son are both Resident Aliens. R.A.'s go through the entire process; waiting, getting a visa, paying out a relative fortunes in fees, more waiting, getting a sponsor (maybe even a job!), and then when they arrive in the States, they get a Green Card. They pay taxes and Social Security, are 99% great additions to our country, and LOVE America.

So, no, it didn't bother me that they would share in any stimulus giveaway.

But how many thousands - millions? - of people are going to read that crap and not have someone around who knows better? I don't blame them; why should the normal citizen know even the most rudimentary aspects of the immigration process? They're already here. But the bigots - yes, bigots - don't care. They don't WANT anyone to know the truth or their ball game is suddenly in the bottom of the ninth.

"Illegal immigration" does present problems, certainly, but they are not the heart of the problem. They are a symptom.

by MedfordTim on 02/01/2008 02:04:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree... (none / 0)
Thanks for your response. I agree whole heartidly that the real issue here is economic to the core. I hope you read my response to Gregory so i wont get to much into it again. I could not agree with you more that the most dangerous component of this issue is the radicalization and Balkanization of our Citizens. Its truly scary what people will believe and follow.

Again, thanks

by bobo1 on 02/01/2008 02:39:33 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Republicans (none / 0)

Some (not McCain) of the Republicans favor legal immigration.

 

The Democrats all favor illegal immigration. 

by acroso on 02/01/2008 03:25:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree (none / 0)
The key thing though is that it's not that much of an issue for most Democrats in particular.  The economy sucks, so we're looking for people to blame it on.  The immigrants themselves are certainly not the root cause of that.

by Spencer on 02/01/2008 05:09:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
One more thing (none / 0)
If corporations are the enemy, why should we punish the immigrants?  It's not really fair to throw them out just so average Joe dumbass could feel like we did something. 
It always irks me a bit when people say "they need to go." as if it were that simple.  Not even to get into the logistical problems of a mass deportation, they are a part of our economy.  You can't just throw them out and expect the economy to just deal with it.  It's complicated, and I don't know if there are ever going to be solutions for this.  Which is why I don't really think about it that much.

by Spencer on 02/01/2008 05:20:00 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Because they don't know what to do. (none / 0)
They certainly don't want to sound like the neo-fascists who want all "illegals" rounded up and deported.

Democrats like Clinton and Obama can only triangulate on the issues and on immigration they have a hard time doing that and don't know how to do it well. They want to be for immigrants but against "illegals". Then they are both for building the stinking wall.

If you think Lou Dobbs and Pt Buchannan are addresssing this issue then you are looking the wrong direction. These bigots are not "addressing" the issue, they are advocating racism.

No citizen is struggling to get a decent job because of immigrants. WE are struggling to get decent jobs because of the people like Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan who argue for Republicans.


People don't leave their homes becasue they are happy, they leavve because they are hopeless. Here's my plan to deal with the immigration problem:


1. Stop putting immigrants in jail and instead put people who employ workers without proper papers in jail.
2. Repeal Taft-Hartly Act..
3. Repeal NAFTA and WTO.
4. Adopt a minimum living wage not a poverty minimum wage.
5. No trade agreement with any country that does not allow unions to organize fairly.
6. No trade agreements with any country that doesn't have a minimum living wage.
7. No trade agreements with any country that has more than 6% unemployment.
8. Increase border patrols but do not build a wall because it is too damaging to the enviorment and movement of wildlife.



by Gregory Wonderwheel on 02/01/2008 01:52:21 PM EST

hear hear! (none / 0)

and good for you for including #8.  Jaguars have actually begun coming back to the states from Mexico in the far SW corner of New Mexico (they were formerly found  there).  Animals like this need to be able to make long-distance movements.  Building a wall completely ignores the science of ecosystem management and the need for movement corridors, especially in a world where the climate is changing and species may need to make latitudinal adjustments in their range.  wonky, I know, but I'm a biologist.

the employers are the criminals in my mind.  don't blame the victims.  we would do the same if we were in their shoes--nobody is entering illegally for fun. 

by desertpear on 02/01/2008 02:05:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree with Grogory's list (none / 0)
Especially #1, as I said in the other thread (where we nearly hijacked the poor thing).

Another thing that would help: put pressure on Mexico to stop ridding themselves of the discontented poor by encouraging them to come up here illegally.  Patrolling that border on BOTH sides would go a long way.  By letting them essentially chase the opposition north we're in essence helping prop up the corrupt regime down there that creates so many people desperate enough to pay a coyote for a chance at something better here.  Think we can get our government to do something constructive like that, maybe?

SAM: What's new, Normie?
NORM: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer.

by Spinny on 02/01/2008 02:20:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree and disagree with you... (none / 0)
Thanks for your post, Gregory. its nice to see people actually think some of these issues through.

Let me start off by agreeing with you on many points: NAFTA, Taft Hartley and WTO need to go. They were established so that rich Multinational corporations could get richer without concern for the lower classes. Im not gonna get specific about who to trade with and at what percentage, but I absolutely agree with you about livable wage versus a poverty wage. Now how doable that is is another debate for another strand.


I also agree we dont need to put illegal immigrants in jail. We need to put them on buses or planes to their country of origin. I heard a story here out of Arizona that the Feds sent some guy back to Turkey or Kazikstan FIRST CLASS in order to deport him. If we are capable of paying for that, we could subsidize normal passage to their destination country.

We should put employers who hire illegals out of business and in jail. i agree with you on that. Here in Arizona, we are working towards that, and despite all of the negative media it gets, I can tell you from personal observation that the illegals are leaving the state in droves. I work at a school and I have lost at least 10 kids over the past few weeks due directly to this new enforcement. Most of the kids willingly tell me they are going back to Mexico/Guatamala etc. Its a first step in relieving some of the stress on our systems caused by the influx of population.

There have even been blurbs on local radio that the Sonoran state government in Mexico is telling Arizona "Don't send them here because we cant feed or shelter them!" Thats an aside to the fact that they are mostly Mexican Nationals returning.

Now to my one major disagreement with your post. I said that only pundits like Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan are addressing the issues. I do not agree with you that they are racists or bigots. Lou Dobbs has been married for over 20 years to a Hispanic Woman. Just because they dare to tread where others wont, dont accuse them automatically of being racist. David Duke is a racist, Ron Paul and many of his supporters are racists. Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan are not racists in my view, they are speaking the truth, and the people who do not want or like to hear the truth drop these racist monikers on them to deflect the real issue, economics.

This is exactly why I fear this issue is being clouded and we are Balkanizing as a nation. The more people play the race issue when it concerns this, the more emboldened each side becomes, and again, history has already taught us what happens next.

Again, thank you for your reply and I look forward to blogging with you in the future.

by bobo1 on 02/01/2008 02:34:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
So you live in AZ? (none / 0)
When Cheryl and I vacationed there last January (a year ago), we noticed an insane number of accidents on the local traffic reports.  BTW, we were about in Tempe.

At any rate, we mentioned this to a local waitress who went on to rant about all of the illegal immigrants who don't have licenses and get in lots of (hit and run) accidents.  She was especially mad because her mom was supposedly involved with a hit and run with an II (how she knew if it was someone who was legal or illegal, I don't know).

I'm curious to know what *you* think about this?  Is that a common belief in AZ or was this girl in the minority? And either way, is there any factual evidence to support this or is it mostly anti-immigrant hype?

by ihavenobias on 02/01/2008 04:32:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well... (none / 0)
Now I dont work for DMV, but I can tell you that there is an extremely high rate of Traffic accidents involving illegals here. The hype as you call it, is absolutely true here.

I am a schoolteacher in a middle to low income part of Phoenix, and I can tell you with confidence and evidence that at least 30-40% of my kids are illegal or one step from illegal. Many of them were born here, but their parents are not of legal standing. My fellow teachers in more inner city Phoenix would tell you their rates are probaly closer to 50% illegal.

I don't know what else I can say about factual evidence to support hype. All I can tell you is that in many parts of this city and state, it really looks and runs more like Mexico than America.
 
There is a high rate of Balkanization here, and now with the economic downturn and the housing bust, tensions here between Latinos, Blacks and Whites are on the rise. We are all competing for the same crappy low wage jobs, and when a business will pay $3 an hour for an illegal under the table as opposed to paying $7-8 dollars for a legal citizen, theres no contest on who gets the job. People around here are really pissed in some cases.

Thanks for your input!

by bobo1 on 02/01/2008 04:47:28 PM EST

[ Parent ]
If you live in Az you dont read the papers (none / 0)
A state law goes into effect on Tuesday that targets employers who hire illegal immigrants.The law, passed days after a federal immigration overhaul died in the U.S. Senate in June, punishes first-time violators who knowingly hire undocumented workers with a 10-day suspension of their business licenses.

A second offense means they lose it.

The measure also requires employers to use an online federal database, dubbed "E-Verify," to check the employment eligibility of new hires

by Chinese Democracy on 02/01/2008 06:29:11 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Awesome (none / 0)
That's great for AZ.  And that is EXACTLY how we need to approach this issue:

Go after the employers, NOT the employees.

by ihavenobias on 02/01/2008 06:45:19 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Totally agree (none / 0)

I can't fault people who come here illegally to work if they see it as the best opportunity to help their families. If the jobs weren't here for them they'd have no reason to come. The only way to cut off the jobs is to nail the employers.

by pmdtrans on 02/01/2008 07:45:17 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree but... (none / 0)
Hey, I'll be the first one to say get the employers, but that does not directly address the issue of the surplus amount of people already here competing for the few jobs there are.

I personally dont see it as totally impractical to round up these illegals and ship em back to wherever they originate from. I can give you addresses and street corners where you can literally find dozens and hundreds of illegals looking for day labor. A couple of paddy wagons and a few Greyhounds would send a clear message daily to getting rid of people who dont belong here. This new law that has gone into effect is step one,  but clearly not the end.

I understand the desire for them to be here. Hell, if a country offered to take care of me, to give me free medical care, free prescription meds, food stamps, quality education for my children and money that has 1000% of the value of my own money, who wouldn't come? I'd be there in a damn heartbeat.

The fact remains that they dont belong here. period. If I go to mexico and try to work there illegally, I would be deported or jailed without hesitation. As I stated previously, I dont believe in jailing illegals (what a further waste of taxpayer money!) it wouldnt cost nearly as much to transport them back and build whatever barriers than to keep feeding schooling and supporting them.

So in conclusion, yes, nail the multinational corporations and businesses that employ them. But we need to decrease the surplus population that is already here. That is the most humane thing to do for all of us...

by bobo1 on 02/02/2008 01:09:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Really? (none / 0)
"I personally dont see it as totally impractical to round up these illegals and ship em back to wherever they originate from."

Twelve million people?  Families with children?  Pets?  Spread across the country?  How do we make sure we get the all?  How do we make sure we don't get the wrong people (news carries several stories of legals rounded up, even deported by mistake, right now)?  How do you manage that many people's forced transport, even if you can verify accurately where you're supposed to take them?  Do you have any idea the scale of such a thing?  Think boxcar loads of Jews during the Holocaust if you want an idea of how large a thing you're contemplating.

SAM: What's new, Normie?
NORM: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer.

by Spinny on 02/02/2008 10:52:43 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Whoa Dude... (none / 0)
Now thats its morning and I am somewhat sober again, let me straighten a few things up when it comes to your response, Spinny...


First of all, you're right, we are never goin to remove all of them...but the fact is right now we aren't trying to remove ANY of them, and thats what needs to change.


On any given day here in Phoenix, one can go to several areas of our city and find large groups of "suspected" illegals standing around looking for work. They congregate around Home Depots and Lowes waiting for construction crews and homeowners to pick them up.

Why cant we START by picking the obvious violaters up, perhaps in unmarked roving trucks (like the way most of them come into the country in the first place) and start processing them for deportation.

If they have families - and many do - you process them as well and ship em out. I'll start another thread in time about that whole 14th Amendment birthright thing. Thats the next step to deal with.

Pets - Are you fucking serious? these are not people living in the white picket fence houses - As Hillary Clinton tells us, these are the people "in the shadows". Well the Democrats are right, ITS TIME FOR THEM TO COME OUT OF THE SHADOWS AND GO HOME!!!

If the people have authentic papers, then they wont be shipped. But if not, laws like the Arizona and Oklahoma versions will punish business, but they will also impart the message to the illegal worker - WE DONT WANT YOU HERE - GO HOME AND FIX YOUR OWN COUNTRIES!!!


Now, I really dont appreciate your underhanded comment that ties the deportation of these people to Nazi Germany in the 30s and 40s. The Germans removed people because of who they were, not because they were supplanting workers and supressing wages. thats the kind of rhetoric that becomes dangerous and causes real issues of violence and chaos.

This is an economics issue by and by. Dont you think if this situation were reversed and Americans were invading Mexico/Canada and using their resources, draining their social services and supressing their wages that they would have no problem kicking all of us back across? hell, Mexico doesn't even have welfare for their own citizens! They actively advocate for people to come here to collect off of your tax money.

It has to stop (or at least slow down considerably). When the inscription on the side of the Statue of Liberty said "Oh give us your tired and your poor, your huddled masses yearning to be free" She was not giving an open border pass to have us absorb all of the uneducated, unlawful people from everywhere in the world!

This will be our economic undoing.



by bobo1 on 02/02/2008 12:05:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Here's the best take on this issue (none / 0)
from someone who's progressive cred cannot be called into question.

He is NOT a racist of xenophobe, yet he manages to recognize that this is a very real issue.

Again, best take I've seen on this issue.

by ihavenobias on 02/02/2008 12:42:21 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Good Article... (none / 0)
Thanks for that link. I appreciate Mr. Hartmann's take on the issue, and I agree with most of what he is saying. People need to realize and understand that this is Economics 101 and as Cenk always says

"ITS THE MONEY, LEBOWSKI!!!!"

thanks again...

by bobo1 on 02/02/2008 12:55:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I wasn't invoking Godwin's Law, no. (none / 0)
I was only pointing out the one, single clearly applicable case where a government tried to forcibly ship millions of people somewhere else.  I purposely left out the term Nazi, matter of fact.  Don't attribute "underhandedness" to something when you should be able to readily admit the example is perfectly apt.  That's how many people we're talking about, here, crammed into buses and, yes, boxcars--do the feds have millions of buses handy?  I think not.  And yes, pets.  They are renting homes, raising kids, and keeping pets, just like anyone else.

Hell, the next step is where do they go?  Now we're talking about creating massive refugee camps just over the border, peopled by millions.  Similar camps after disasters which house hundreds of thousands end up humanitarian horrors of disease and famine.  Let's ratchet that up another order of magnitude, shall we?

I still say you're being naive about the scope of the task you espouse.  Your problem is they're competing unfairly for labor by commanding a ridiculously low wage.  Legitimize them and force the employers to pay them the same as a local would command and now the playing field's level.  If the locals still can't compete, well, that's their problem.

SAM: What's new, Normie?
NORM: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer.

by Spinny on 02/02/2008 02:07:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I agree except that you're missing one key point (none / 0)
It's not JUST the fact that they command such a low wage (and lack of benefits and safe working conditions) that's the problem WRT driving down wages and benefits overall, etc.

It's also a surplus of labor.  Economist s have known this for a very long time. As David Ricardo noted when he wrote On Profits, as the labor supply goes up, wages go down, and vice versa.

Now, obviously we don't want an extreme labor shortage, which is why total and mass deportation is NOT the solution (in addition to all of the other reasons this is absurd, inhumane and impractical). 

But IMO, one role of government should be to discourage such a surplus of labor to prevent so much poverty, especially the reduction of the "working poor".
 
I'm not saying super crazy regulation, but cracking down on illegal employers (who will be forced to pay a decent wage and possibly have some benefits and safe working conditions) and ensuring the minimum wage is reasonable (to set the floor) just to name two ways they can do it.

by ihavenobias on 02/02/2008 02:27:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's an excellent point, yes. (none / 0)
You're entirely right.  I'm backing off my idea we should get into the business of busing guest workers here wholesale.

I still say the solution is kill the demand.  If employers can't cut corners by hiring illegals for slave wages any longer, their attractiveness goes way down, and the attractiveness of someone who is here legally, speaks the language well, and so on, goes up.  The market for illegals slowly dries up and there's no longer incentive for them to come here except via some sort of sponsored work program to fill a job that needs them.

I far prefer that to rounding up millions of people and forcing them somewhere.

SAM: What's new, Normie?
NORM: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer.

by Spinny on 02/02/2008 02:32:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yep (none / 0)
Now where do our views on this fall on the political spectrum?  I feel like these views are actually "moderate" because I disagree with the approaches of BOTH parties and prefer what we're talking about here.

It's annoying, because I don't side with the fence buildin' xenophobes nor do I side with the common liberal position which ignores the very real issues discussed above. And if I dare suggest that this IS an important issue a lot of progressives dismiss it out of hand and assume I've bought into republican propaganda (ironically since I think they've often bought into lefist propaganda to some extent).

At any rate, aside from Thom Hartmann I don't see many media figures taking this approach.  They tend to be to one extreme or the other.  Lou Dobbs starts off decently but ends up crashing too far to the right by seemingly making it personal and also talking about fences and such (which I disagree with).

by ihavenobias on 02/02/2008 02:41:29 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We're misfits without an island (none / 0)
I'm one of these evil, dreaded "moderates" who sees validity in various arguments from both extremes, as well as everyone in between.  My politics are a la carte.  I'm a Recovering Republican (sort of like Cenk) with a bleeding heart and a capitalist's soul.  I usually hang out in places that aren't so consistently left (or right, I like a mixed bag) but Cenk's podcast drew me in and so here I am.  I think I'm just liberal enough to keep from getting thrown out the back door--only just.  ;-)

SAM: What's new, Normie?
NORM: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer.

by Spinny on 02/02/2008 03:01:50 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Well, I'm clearly more progressive (none / 0)
on *most* issue. As I've written before, I was raised in an apolitical family and generally had apolitical friends other than one liberal/rebel type who I didn't take too seriously most of the time, politically speaking.

But I started paying attention more after 2000, then really in 2004, and then REALLY in 2006-present.  I always had naturally socially liberal views but more recently have researched and listened quite a bit (to various voices although I've since found some favorites, i.e. Thom Hartmann) resulting in more progressive economic/domestic positions overall (on trade, the role of government, etc.).

But I don't want socialism or communism! I want controlled capitalism.  This all or nothing approach is bullshit. Why does it have to be 'get rid of corporations' or 'let them do whatever the fuck they want, average person be damned'? 

That's a false dichotomy (and framing I often see from the right or even people who believe they're moderate), and IMO, while it's obvious to Cenk (to use one example) that foreign policy has gone WAY to the right over the last 7 years, it's less obvious that domestic/trade/economic policies have *also* gone much further to the right (since Reagan, not just since 2000).

I don't want to get too far off topic here though, so I'll save the rest for another thread!

by ihavenobias on 02/02/2008 03:17:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'm agreeing lots (none / 0)
I'm going to leave it at that because the paragraphs are now so thin it hurts my brain to read them. :-P

SAM: What's new, Normie?
NORM: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer.

by Spinny on 02/02/2008 04:45:49 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yeah, I mentioned that once and someone (none / 0)
told me to change the settings.  But I would ask why the default settings are like that to begin with?  There has to be a better way (or at least a better default).

Uh oh...I just complained about TYT, publicly!  It's ok though because this is a minor non-issue that I didn't start a thread about.  I actually think a constructive "what would you like to see on the website to make it even better" discussion could be good.

by ihavenobias on 02/02/2008 05:08:02 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok...but (none / 0)
First of all, thank you for your reply. i appreciate thought invoking discussion.

Ok, I will agree with you that taking this on is a massive task. I think a lot of people, though, who think of this assume it will be done in like 2 months or something ridiculous like that. Of course, this is not humanly possible. We don't need a million busses - we just need to start using the ones we have, along with cars planes and boats.

What Im saying is that we need to begin the process and gradually over the course of years straighten up our own economic situation. By decreasing the availability and need of low wage labor (by laws like Arizona and Oklahoma are a start, not the whole solution) we will begin to ween ourselves off the sweet milk of $2 workers.

As I tell my students often "No matter how monumental the task, it cannot get done if you dont start doing it!" Procrastination is an issue with Middle Schoolers, and that has grown to affect our Federal government as well. We oput things off, put things off until it festers and turns bad.

If you would like, I could go on several rants about our US History and how we have put things off, but Im sure you dont want to hear it so I wont. I will just say that events like the Civil War and Pearl Harbor dont start off with a bang - they start because nobody wants to talk about whats causing them in the first place...

To address your next issue "Where do they go?' They go back home. I do not advocate the establishment of refugee camps et al - We are already supporting them, why should we pay more to incarcerate them and subject them to the humanitarian disaster you describe. i agree this should not be done (just look how well its working for the Palestinians)


If we secure the border and ship people back to where they belong, the other countries will be forced to change their ways and deal with their own issues. To most destinations of our illegals, there wont be that big a dent. For example, if we send the people here illegally from India and Pakistan back (the illegal H1 Visa people), they would be absorbed without much to do because their population is so massive in the first place.


The only cases in which it may cause massive civil strife and possibly war would be in Central America and Mexico. But honestly, Im not trying to sound crass here, but they need a good revolution to clean up the bad blood in Mexico. They have been festering way too long under dictatorial regimes that drive people here in the first place, Hard times yes, but as the Joker once said "you have to break some eggs to make an omlette".

On the most part, though, i think you and I agree on a great many things. I absolutely want these business and rich people to stop hiring illegals. The draw is the major problem. I also want the states to step up and shut off the tap these people suck our money from. As long as they feel welcome, they will keep coming in droves. Turn of the sweet milk of opportunity to them, and maybe (just Maybe) they'll realize they have to fix their own countries mess just like we have to step up and fix ours.

Thanks again for your postings. I appreciate your input!

by bobo1 on 02/02/2008 02:39:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Group hug! (none / 0)
We're getting into skinny zone here.  Heh.

I'm not as passionate as you about this issue, obviously.  I have a strong dislike for the idea of rounding up anyone and forcing them someplace else, except for people I consider to be "real" criminals.  I have a lot of "libertarian" viewpoints (just enough to piss off my liberal friends), and I believe the solution here is a marketplace one, where if the right steps are taken the demand will dry up and the illegals will have no incentive to come.

The problem is the government doesn't want to take the proper steps.  The Repubs are in the pockets of the companies who want the slave-wage labor.  The far left is all about the plight of the poor oppressed worker.  The libertarians are all about let the marketplace do everything.  It ends up being a bunch of yapping, some empty gestures designed to pacify folks for the next voting cycle, and the greedy corporations lurk in the background pocketing yet more profits while nothing of substance gets done.

Hammer the employers.  Force wages for even illegals to be comparable.  Their attractiveness over time will fade and then so will they.  It seems logical to me, at least.

SAM: What's new, Normie?
NORM: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer.

by Spinny on 02/02/2008 02:57:54 PM EST

[ Parent ]
WRT your characterization of the far left here (none / 0)
I wouldn't say it's "far left" to worry about workers/the poor/middle class being screwed!  I'd say that's a plenty moderate concern. :)

On the immig. issue, I think the far left is more about racial inequality and going too far in thinking that simply raising illegal immigration as an issue automatically involves some race based, xenophobic motive (which on the right I agree it often does).

Politically speaking, "the left" doesn't want to alienate latino voters, and in fact wants to court them, hence their often watered down solutions that don't really solve anything.

by ihavenobias on 02/02/2008 03:09:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Im sure its about racism (none / 0)
I'm glad you added (on the right it usually does) In my opinion the only reason the conservatives bring up immigration is to galvanize the racists. I think they like the cheap cheap labor and aren't to serious about doing anything about it.

The left is the center

On a side note. Karl Rove is joining fox news? Now Im convinced they are totally fair and unbiased.

by Chinese Democracy on 02/02/2008 03:19:14 PM EST

[ Parent ]
All generalizations are false (none / 0)
Including this one.  Heh.

Okay, my "left" comment was meant to imply that some  would put the fact that the people coming up here are doing it because they're desperately poor and have nowhere else to turn would outweigh any potential damage they might be doing to our own economy.  My take is somewhat more moderated, in that I think both issues are important but the first one isn't our problem--it's the problem of the (for example) corrupt Mexican government.  Keeping our economy (in the form of our people--us, Americans, in our own country--not having unfair competition for jobs) from getting screwed is our problem, and that's where I believe we should be exerting energy.

I have some degree of "America first" in me, and I tend to be against us meddling in the affairs of other countries except as needed to secure our own nation.  Adventuring in Iraq, or playing cop for the rest of the world...not so much.

I think we can achieve that kind of focus without stomping on people, or becoming knee-jerk jingoistic assholes in the process, which separates me from the right wing.

SAM: What's new, Normie?
NORM: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer.

by Spinny on 02/02/2008 03:58:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wal Mart (none / 0)
The only big company I remember them going after was Wal Mart and I think all they did was sweep a store for illegal workers but didn't really come down on the company?  Not sure.

by Chinese Democracy on 02/02/2008 01:40:58 PM EST

[ Parent ]
agree and (none / 0)
isn't it odd that in all the Republicans proposals for immigration reform they didn't emphasize employer sanctions or in most cases never even mentioned it as an option. Makes me wonder how serious they are.

by Chinese Democracy on 02/02/2008 02:41:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
It's very simple IMO (none / 0)
the party is split between racists and xenophobes and greedy corpratists.

The wealthier republicans want to maintain and grow their wealth and they know exploiting cheap labor helps that quite a bit.  On the other hand a lot of the average joe republicans resent all of these "brown people" coming in (etc.).

Granted, there is also a level of real concern about wage/benefit supression (that I share and have explained in more detail, suggested reading for those who dismiss the idea out of hand) but they make it personal and mistakenly blame the people rather than those who exploit the labor (i.e. they blame the supply rather than the demand).

by ihavenobias on 02/02/2008 02:47:55 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Hey Chinese Dude (none / 0)
If you had read my earlier postings, I believe I referred to the law (that went into effect a few weeks ago by the way) several times. Thanks for reading before you post.

Anyway, To answer another well thought out postings of yours earlier in the day, Obama paid what we like to call "lip service" to the issue during the debate. Just because one says the word immigration doesn't mean the issue has been discussed. in fact, neither of these Democrats have much to say about anything important...
 
Like I said earlier, either Obama or Hillary is gonna win, but it wont be on their issues. Both of them want Amnesty, and that isnt going to sit well with the people of my state or anybody who gives a shit about the future.

Thanks...

by bobo1 on 02/01/2008 10:37:39 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Are you the one that posts drunk on scotch? (none / 0)
No I didn't read your post unless you where the one referring to illegal immigrants getting all the crap jobs.

Obama liked  to do what I call lay out his basic beliefs on immigration in the time allowed during a debate where the answers are timed.

by Chinese Democracy on 02/02/2008 12:15:36 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Actually... (none / 0)
Well, its White Russians for me tonight, but like I told Ken, even loaded I think I still make more sense than you.
 
You seem somewhat bitter this evening over some of my comments. I apologize if I have offended you, that really wasn't my intent.

I guess with an Oxymoron like "Chinese Democracy" though, you might have more important things on your mind than me. Oh well...Happy Posting!

by bobo1 on 02/02/2008 12:47:22 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The Dude Abides (none / 0)
Bobo protects his caucasian.

Careful man, there's a beverage here.

by KenTX on 02/02/2008 01:10:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Dude... (none / 0)
It probably wont surprise you to know that I love that fucking movie! Right on man!!

by bobo1 on 02/02/2008 01:20:27 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Ill explain it for you. (none / 0)
Well let me put it as simply as I can. Since you are posting drunk. Your opinion on how much sense you think it makes is irrelevant.

by Chinese Democracy on 02/02/2008 01:42:01 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Dude, you are an unhappy little man... (none / 0)
Now coming to you cold stone sober, I can say without hesitation that you are a sad and unhappy little man. I have taken the liberty to go back and read your contributions to the most current postings for the last few weeks and I can honestly assess (remember, i'm a teacher, assessment is what I do) that you are somewhat of a dumbass without a lot of thought and without many logical processing skills. And although I will never impede on your right to expression and free speech on this blog or any other device, I will ask that you get a life, get a clue and go be unhappy somewhere else.

Remember, even loaded, I still make more sense than you. You can't imagine what I am capable of when sober.

Have a great day!

by bobo1 on 02/02/2008 01:56:18 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I hope you arent older than 15 (none / 0)
Are you in highschool?

by Chinese Democracy on 02/02/2008 02:26:10 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ah (none / 0)

don't mind him. He is the TYT self appointed Sheriff and he goes under cover a lot (he has a lot of user names). He has has his eye on you and you have collected quite a few infractions so far.

1. He has decided you are not an uber liberal.

2. You have fraternized with Ken.

3. You have disagreed with him.

4. You are guilty P.W.I. (Posting While Drunk).

He will be giving you eviction notices any day. 

by z1p101 on 02/02/2008 02:36:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ok Ill respond (none / 0)
  1. I dont care who is uber and isnt uber.
  2. Fraternizing with conservative trolls is up to the poster. I choose to ignore them completely.
  3. No, I disagreed with him. Phrases like balkanization of America annoy me.
4.Posting while drunk might work for some people but obviously doesnt for others. I hope you are drunk?

Im not a self appointed anything. I am not going undercover and I am not using several different screen names.

Who are the one who has taken on the role of sheriff since there was no post to you  about you or involved you in any way.

by Chinese Democracy on 02/02/2008 02:54:43 PM EST

[ Parent ]
good lord! (none / 0)
How many lies can we count in this single post? You left off the one about never having blown an organic flute.

by KenTX on 02/02/2008 03:30:20 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ken (none / 0)

as hard as I laughed at "good lord!" subject heading and the first half of your post, did you really need to bring up the flute thing?

Can't we all just get along? 

by z1p101 on 02/03/2008 01:44:26 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Thanks for the Heads up (none / 0)
I had no idea I had to register myself with the Sheriff. I now consider myself duly warned and notified. Thanks for your assisstance, neighbor!

by bobo1 on 02/02/2008 02:56:35 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Arizona passed a good law. (none / 0)
Oklahoma passed a better law.

Oklahoma is actually arresting people.

The states are solving the problem of illegal immigration, one at a time, and theses issues will be on the ballot in November in many states.

Candidates like Hillary Clinton might find themselves exposed.

by KenTX on 02/02/2008 12:59:24 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Psst Ken (none / 0)

I don't know if acrroso has told you yet but Hillary is running against McShamnesty.

Dude, new play book. 

by z1p101 on 02/02/2008 01:16:23 AM EST

[ Parent ]
You're right on again... (none / 0)
Maybe I've had 1 too many tonight, but again, you are right. The States are going to have to listen to their CITIZENS and take a stand for the rule of law in our country.

Thanks again for the Lebowski clip. That really brightened my day!

by bobo1 on 02/02/2008 01:24:38 AM EST

[ Parent ]
ya (none / 0)
Start sending money to Norm Coleman and other endangered Republicans....te few good senators we have is about the only thing stoppign Shamnesty,

by acroso on 02/02/2008 10:56:40 AM EST

[ Parent ]
They did talk about it (none / 0)
Both Obama and Clinton talked about immigration last night. The best part was Obama saying that the Republicans blaming a majority of our problems on Illegal immigration was just wrong and then explained how.

by Chinese Democracy on 02/01/2008 02:24:10 PM EST

My plan (none / 0)
Lock down the border, for security purposes as much as anything else.
Register and legalize everyone who is already here.
Get serious about stopping border crossing (tasers, tranq guns, whatever else it takes that isn't going to kill people).
Start investing in Mexico to stop the motivation for people to come over here in the first place.

by jarett on 02/01/2008 03:52:16 PM EST

border (none / 0)

And how do you propose "locking down the border" if you oppose fencing....and that 370 miles of one layer fencing isn't going to do it either.

 

But to me, a sea to sea border fence means nothing if we're not going to enforce the law, and we're going to give amnesty to 20 million illegal aliens. ...why bother with fencing if we can't enforce existing laws.

by acroso on 02/01/2008 05:54:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
We already tried that in 1986 (none / 0)
Sure make em legal (again). That'll fix it just like Ronnie Reagan did in 86. Yeah OK...

Plus, our money is already investing in Mexico. Where the Hell do you think the illegals send most of their money? Investment banks? Tax revenue? To pay for the services we provide? It goes back to their families back home at 1000% of their moneys value.


Do i blame them? Hell No! Is it right? Hell No! and it needs to stop.

Will it stop? no, because the Democratic party is visibly salivating over all those potential new voters.

We are so screwed...

by bobo1 on 02/02/2008 01:14:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Republicans (none / 0)

We have about 40 votes to just...barely...just barely...stop an amnesty in the senate right now.

 

Norm Coleman is on his way out in Minnesota...seing how Frankin is polling better than he is....so if we continue to tke losses this election...we really are screwed. 

by acroso on 02/02/2008 05:17:33 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Buchanan (none / 0)

Buchanan seems to be coming around to Ron Paul

 

Down with McCain by any means possible. 

by acroso on 02/02/2008 05:26:48 AM EST

are you just being funny? (none / 0)
Do you actually believe that Ron Paul has a chance in hell of becoming president?

by Chinese Democracy on 02/02/2008 01:44:04 PM EST

[ Parent ]
not now (none / 0)
not anymore....but he has a good chance at helping to derail McCain in the general.

by acroso on 02/02/2008 05:03:13 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I dont (none / 0)
Yea but then what are you stuck with? You think Romney is going to do anything about immigration?

by Chinese Democracy on 02/02/2008 10:42:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Yes (none / 0)

Yes Romney would be very good on dealing with illegal immigration....but he's not going to win....McCain is seemingly unstoppable right now.

 

What Ron Paul and hopefully others can do is derail McCain in a general election. It would be nice if Bloombug would run too.

by acroso on 02/03/2008 04:25:16 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The Problem Already Has Been Solved. (none / 0)
I'm pissed.  I thought this was a progressive forum.

The only ideas I've heard here that come close to solving the problem are getting rid of NAFTA, Taft-Hartley, and the WTO, which create the kind of problem we're trying to solve.  But that isn't nearly enough to actually solve the problem.

E-Verify?  Yeesh.  E-Verify is probably the worst of the proposals.  You want to trust a national real-time database?&nb sp; First of all, it will contain errors.  Second, checking will take time.  Third, when the message comes back "there was an error in your submission, please call..." the applicant will not get hired no matter that they were born here of twelfth-generation American parents.  Businesses will not take that kind of risk, and they won't even try to resolve the error.  And,  ;finally, the last thing we should be doing is encouraging our government to build such a database.  It's be beginning of a tyranny the likes of which you have not even dreamed.  The only other alternative I can see is a national ID.

And shipping illegals back?  One person here said it wouldn't cost as much as paying the benefits we're paying now.  That's utterly ridiculous.  He made it sound like the IRS and HUD are mailing checks out to people who come here illegally as soon as they cross the border.  Rubbish.  It would cost hundreds of billions of dollars to send 12-20 million people back home.  Where the hell are we going to get it?  And the only similar population displacement this planet has seen is widely recognized as the worst human disaster that we have ever foisted upon ourselves.  It's a completely stupid idea.

But Europe has already shown us how to solve the problem.  Yes, I know.  "Not Invented Here", and all that.  What works for others certainly can't work in America because we're so unique.  Blah, blah, blah.

Get over it.

When they were forming their European Union, they were worried that people from poor areas would flock to richer areas.  It would have caused a huge strain on their struggling newly-united economy.  So what did they do?  They INVESTED in the poorer areas, making it unnecessary for people to move.  And what happened?  Everybody made money, and now they're on the verge of supplanting the U.S. as the strongest superpower.  And when consumption in the rest of the world picks up a little making our over-consumptive/under-prod uctive economy less important, they will.

It's not the people who are here illegally that are the problem.  It's not the employers who are the problem.  It's the greed that needs divisiveness in order to exist that is the problem.

Progressives: Please keep your eye on the ball.


by Juarez Traveller on 02/03/2008 11:34:57 AM EST

You are correct. (none / 0)
The problem has indeed already been solved, by the state of Oklahoma.

No more jobs means no more Mexicans.

Other states are currently analyzing similar laws.

by KenTX on 02/03/2008 12:25:26 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Dude... (none / 0)
I wrote the original blog entry that started this thread, so first I want to thank you for your response. This was the kind of discussion I was hoping for.

OK - I agree that WTO Taft Hartley NAFTA need to go. I agree that Greed is the ultimate motivation behind all of the economic events that we as a nation face. And I even agree that the illegals themselves cannot solely be blamed for the woes that their being here causes. I have addressed the issue of gradual deportation in an earleir response, so I wont get into that again.

That being said...

The EU comparison does not fit for various reasons. First of all, people living in the EU are still very nationalistic in terms of identity and cause. How many riots in France and Germany have been tied to Nationalistic identity?

Secondly, yes the money is the same, but that just eliminated complicated exchange rate issues and unifies their economic base (mostly against us). In that sense, the EU probably did the right thing, but it wasnt for the benefit of all. It was to the benefit of the Elite (please examine European History to see through this transperancy)

Have you ever investigated how illegal workers are dealt with in the EU, places like France and Germany? Have you ever tried to get work in the EU as a foreigner (assuming you are an American) Talk about clampdown!

The poor didnt move because somebody reinvested in their areas, the poor didnt move because they were regulated to the point that it wasnt worth their effort!!! Romania, Poland and most of Eastern Europe are doing better now, granted, but it wasn't by the good graces of Western Eurpoe!

The EU formation was a good thing for some people. It certainly wasnt this utopia you put it out to be. We did an EU formation about 230 years ago - It was called the Constitution and the formation of our national government! Each state uses the same money, each state has autonomy to a point and is covered by basic human and economic principles under a federal system. The EU is just now in its infancy in terms of these issues. Talk to us in about 200 years to see how they deal with illegals.

I'm sure that Cenk can tell you some fun stories about how Turks are dealt with in Germany, especially if they are considered "illegal".

Am I to suppose by your argument that we should join into this "union" type status with Canada, Mexico and the Carribean (As Bush sr and jr have pushed for years)? We should use the same money and accept people into our economy "because its the humane thing to do?" Being Progressive is one thing, but that is to quote Bill Clinon "a complete Fairy Tale".

If we are to maintain any sense of national identity, if we are to stop the Balkanization of our peoples to the point of economic collapse, we need to start implementing policies that limit the power of the wealthy, and we do need to come together as the masses of common people to put things right again.

This immigration issue, as I have stated before, is just a microcasm of the larger looming economic issue - too few people having too much power, and the rest of us letting them have it because its easier than doing something about it.

Thanks for your input.


by bobo1 on 02/03/2008 01:23:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Why aren't the Democrats talking about Immigration? | 73 comments (73 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: