I Think John McCain Did Well At the Debate
The Nativists Are Restless
By Erick Posted in 2008 — Comments (72) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Yesterday Mark I wrote that he thought John McCain was finished as a Presidential candidate. Part of the problem, according to Mark, was McCain's response on immigration to Tom Tancredo.
Having witness Tancredo's remarks and McCain's response, I actually think that was one of the best responses McCain made during the debate and, for the first time, I saw him instilled with renewed energy and passion.
I disagree with McCain on the Immigration Bill, but I think his comments, following Tancredo's veiled xenophobia, were right on the money. Make no mistake about it, were Tom Tancredo President of the United States, Dora the Explorer would be deported.
Read on . . .
Here's what John McCain was responding to:
BLITZER: Congressman Tancredo, would you advertise for your campaign in Spanish? Specifically, I am referring to the highly publicized comment you recently made that Miami was like a third world country.
TANCREDO: Right. Yes, exactly.
No, I would not advertise in Spanish.
Believe me when I tell you this: The preservation of the English language is important for us for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is because it is what holds us together. It is the glue that keeps a country together -- any country. Bilingual countries don't work, and we should not encourage it.
And even in the bill that Senator McCain is pushing he says that it supports English-only or official English.
He doesn't go on to tell you that, of course, he says that we're going to codify President Clinton's original plan, original executive order signed, that said all papers produced by the government have to be in various languages.
No, it is absolutely wrong. English is the language of this country. And you know what? We should not be ashamed of that. It's a good thing.
And it holds us all together, regardless of where we come from, regardless of our backgrounds, our histories. It doesn't matter. We need that thing to hold us together.
Here again is John McCain's response:
Now, first of all, before you people get all bent out of shape and resort to polysyllabic hyperbole about national sovereignty, the end of America, etc., etc., etc. let me say that I agree that our national language should be English and I agree that we should take active steps to ensure immigrants learn English.
But Tancredo's prior statements and other statements in the debate before this moment went beyond that. Tancredo has maintained the position that immigrants pouring into our country will destroy this country. He may not use those words, but that's what he means. And he is fixated on hispanic immigrants as the problem.
The present immigration bill requires immigrants on the path to citizenship to learn English. It prioritizes the path to citizenship for those who speak English. It's headed in the right direction. I think it should mandate English as the national language, but it is not a deal breaker for me.
What I have a real problem with, and what I think John McCain was speaking to, is the xenophobia perpetuated by Tancredo and others who fear a conspiracy to create a a North American Agenda, a conspiracy of the Bush family to stack the deck for a George P. Bush presidential bid, a conspiracy involving Bush saying America instead of "the United States of America," or some other nonsense.
There are a lot of vocal people out there who are against this immigration bill. I oppose it too. But there are, in the midst of those of us who oppose this immigration bill for a host of issues, a segment who, at the end of the day, just don't want a bunch of hispanic immigrants in this country. The rest of us need to weed them out.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Hillary v. Obama — Comments (6) »
I Think John McCain Did Well At the Debate 72 Comments (0 topical, 72 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Who volunteered for McCain in 2000 (until Bush won the nomination), AND as an aspiring immigrant (I was a foreign student in 2000, now I'm an H-1B worker waiting for a Green Card), I was greatly moved by McCain's response to Tancredo.
I can't disagree more with Tom Tancredo. His claim that bilingual countries don't work flies in the face of my personal experience growing up in India. Sure, multilingual countries have special problems, and India has dealt with at least one minor secessionist movement based solely on language (the Tamil movement back in the 60s).
But on the whole things have worked out well. India's problems are caused by a bad economic system, not by being multilingual and diverse. In my opinion, with no malice or intentional disrespect towards the Congressman, Tom Tancredo is simply afraid of what he, I think, hasn't known much - the joy of diversity.
... but I could be wrong. How many indigenous languages are there in India? Are all government documents printed in each and every single one of them, in their own unique alphabet, etc.? i.e. Hindi, Gujarati, Urdu, etc.?
My experience in many African countries is that while there are many different indigenous languages, there is always one official language of education and administration, in some cases English (Uganda, Kenya, Nigeria, etc.), other cases, French (Benin Republic, Mali, Cameroun, etc.) and two (Angola and Mozambique) cases Portuguese. This is not to say that no other languages are spoken or allowed to be spoken, as (I think) cacophonix subtly implies Tancredo wants to see happen, i.e. ban the speaking and learning of other languages.
Tancredo is not my favorite Republican, but I do believe that he is right that there needs to be one single official language in the United States. And furthermore, I do believe this has nothing to do with fear of "the joy of diversity" as cacophonix so memorably puts it.
Unity (E Pluribus Unum - out of the many, One) is far more important than the so-called diversity the Left celebrates.
In fact, it is precisely because of the need for unity and the fact that the number of languages that would need to be catered to are so many, (Nigeria has 250 different languages alone - 400 if you count the various dialects within the languages) that so many African (and Asian) countries have chosen to have an official language. And to avoid resentment, they usually pick a foreign one like English or French, even if one tribe is a clear majority of the nation's population.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
The constitution of India has 22 "scheduled" languages allowed for intra-state official business, and 2 "national" languages - Hindi primary, English secondary - for inter-state official business, although the use of one of those 2 (Hindi and English) is encouraged even for intra-state business.
Hindi is declared in the constitution as the national language, but English is allowed as a secondary national language and government documents are typically printed in at least two languages (Hindi and English) and in many cases in 3 or 4 languages (those two, plus a couple of locally spoken languages). The national civil services examination paper is printed only in Hindi and English, as far as I know, but a candidate may answer in any of the 22 scheduled languages.
Education in India (public as well as private) is imparted in the local language. People with an English education (about 5-10% of the population, I would guess) have an advantage in moving up (going abroad, or getting a well-paying service job - the infamous outsourcing) but there are plenty of jobs for people who don't know English also.
As to how many languages there are - the 1991 census identified 114 "languages" with thousands of dialects. At the time 18 of those were scheduled languages as per the constitution, and of the 96 that weren't scheduled, many were spoken by millions of people; some only by tens of thousands.
"Unity in Diversity" is an official slogan of India - quite different from "E Pluribus Onum", which might translate to "Unity FROM Diversity", but that difference is significant. India is yet a young country - only 60 years of independence from an oppressive colonial government - so we'll see what difference, if any, it actually makes.
But my original point was to refute Tancredo's statement that "Bilingual countries don't work". Sorry, that's just flat out wrong. You might argue it is more expensive to make it work, you might argue it is more difficult, and you might have a point. But the statement that Tancredo makes is flat wrong. Bilingual countries work, and they can work pretty well.
I said:
Education in India (public as well as private) is imparted in the local language.
should be
Education in India ... is *often* imparted ...
But here is the question. Why do we want to create a bilingual country? What is the point?
And why do we want to do this against the will of the people by letting in millions of immigrants illegally and with no controls?
What are the goals of the people who are doing this? Before you attach Tancredo for trying to defend our country, lets ask about the motives of the people who want to change the country!
You may call Tancredo Nativist. The old term was Patriot.
Can speaking English be a patriotic concept for citizens of the US? I think the old 'term' was red coat.
A nation decended from English colonists is going to have English as their primary langauge. As English is the language that has stuck with America throughout her history and is inextricably entangled with her cultural heritage, I would think that wanting immigrants to the United States to speak English would not identify you as an apologist for King George the Third, if this is what you are in fact implying. If it isn't, then excuse me for misunderstanding, but calling someone a red coat because they favor English as a national language is a little ridiculous, I think.
____________________________________________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling
You missed my point, I hope. Calling someone an American patriot for speaking English has no logical junction. In fact, I think if one uses this as an example, they demonstrate with evidence a nationalist bias. In otherwords, recognizing and being proud of American historical accomplishments is less important than simply forcing everyone to conform to a single national identity
where he said that merely speaking English was enough to make one an American patriot.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling
Requiring every American citizen to functionally speak, read, and write English may be practical , but it is in no way patriotic. The motivation for requiring a national language is a nationalistic ideal not a patriotic ideal - a significant distinction.
The motivation for requiring a national language *in a country of immigrants* is a nationalistic ideal not a patriotic ideal - a significant distinction.
digress
What is the percentage of people in the upper and/or middle classes who speak neither English nor Hindi in India?
It's not so much that a bilingual nation cannot work, it is that a nation that tolerates a segment of its population being unable to communicate in the primary language(s) of education, politics, business and administration does them absolutely no favors.
In fact, it sentences them to a ghetto existence - a life of hardship and poverty until that segment integrates itself with the larger community.
This is one of the major differences between conservatives and liberals on diversity. Conservatives are perfectly happy with the fact that people with names like Adedare Onafowokan, Ali ibn Al-Muwallid, Suneetha Tiwary, Arturo Fernandez, Takashi Ishido and Sven Henriksson can all call themselves Americans.
It is precisely this mix and match of cultures that made America what it is today ... but at the same time, it is even more because people who came from all over the world deliberately chose to consider being American more important than where they came from ... and this is even as they honored their origins.
That's the difference at the heart of it; the Right believes that being an American is far more important than where you come from. The Left places far and away more importance in race, sex, sexual orientation and ethnic origin than national identity or loyalty.
In other words. For the Right, Unity comes before Diversity. For the Left it's the other way round.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
on the point that a permanent underclass is not going to work.
I saw a study a couple of weeks ago (though I can't find it right now) that only 10% of Indians were considered fluent Indian speakers. OTOH, I have seen figures as high as 29% for how many Indians "know" English, although that knowledge might be nothing more than a few important words. The rest do not know English at all.
About a third of the population is considered a native speaker of Hindi. Of the rest, I am guessing (and this is just a quick educated guess because I need to get back to work) that about half do not know/understand Hindi, many of whom are passionately *against* learning Hindi because Hindi is considered a sign of North Indian domination.
India's middle class is about a third of the population - geographically and culturally spread out in the country. So let's collect these guesses. A third of the country in the middle class, two thirds that speaks Hindi and 10%-29% that "knows" English. What is the right intersection between these sets? I don't know. Certainly there are many Hindi speakers who are *not* in the middle class (especially from the two populous but languishing Hindi-speaking states of UP and Bihar) - I would be surprised if more than half of Hindi speakers were middle class denizens. I think fluency in English almost guarantees movement into the middle class, but "knowledge" of a few words is no special advantage.
But there is a sizeable segment of the middle class that doesn't know Hindi, knows English only barely, and still is very connected to the country and is doing well economically. I won't argue that knowledge of more than one language is not an advantage - it is, and fluency in English even more so. But is there really a need for an "official" language, despite there being one in the constitution of India? I don't think so.
OK, back to work with me. Thanks for letting me indulge!
... there is a sizeable segment of the middle class that doesn't know Hindi, knows English only barely, and still is very connected to the country and is doing well economically.
No doubt. Just as there are people who are doing well in the United States who can barely manage to ask the time of anyone who cannot speak Chinese, Spanish, Yiddish, etc.
But I would bet that as a demographic, they don't do nearly half as well as people who are similarly situated in every other way apart from their ability to speak Hindi and/or English. Try to find out some more and come back - write a diary about it.
Anyways, it seems like you're the type of liberal/Democrat that would be very welcome in these parts.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
there's a dialect for almost every village in India. That could make traveling and asking for directions rather dicey in the rural parts.
Using India as an example of multicultural harmony is just whack. The creation of modern India was accompanied by huge etno-religious progroms, and ethnic divisions (made more complicated by the caste system) continue to create division and violence throughout the country.
Mass immigration will fundamentally change the American national character. This country, against the wishes of its citizens, will be transformed into a Latin American country. Why is this a good thing? What is so horrible about this country that it needs to be radically changed?
And second, when you import an underclass, you are going to get bad economic policy. These people aren't widgets, they are people, and they vote. An ethnically conscious and economically disadvantaged minority is going to vote for socialism and big government.
In 200 years, when Chinese historians wonder "What happened to the United States?," they will record that guys like Tom Tancredo tried to stop the dispossession of the American people, John McCain enabled it, and the phony conservatives excused it.
is showing again, Erick. Dora the Explorer? Do you have the slightest evidence to back up your outlandish claims? If so I'd like to see it. In fairness this is not as OTT as similar claims I've seen here to the effect thet Tancredo was the reincarnation of Henrich Himmler and wanted to institute euthanasia. But it's close.
Tancredo has maintained the position that immigrants pouring into our country will destroy this country. He may not use those words, but that's what he means. And he is fixated on hispanic immigrants as the problem.
Well, yes. If you want to make an argument to the effect that he is wrong, you should do so. That you instead resort to name-calling suggests that you cannot.
The present immigration bill requires immigrants on the path to citizenship to learn English.
Nonsense. Immigrants are already "required" to learn English, and this is widely ignored. The country is full of people who are not literate in English. Some of them are not even literate in their native language.
But there are, in the midst of those of us who oppose this immigration bill for a host of issues, a segment who, at the end of the day, just don't want a bunch of hispanic immigrants in this country.
Why do you want a "bunch of hispanic immigrants" in the country? How about taking a crack at articulating your reasons.
The problems with a "bunch of hispanic immigrants" have been gone over here at Redstate for years now. I won't bother to repeat them here unless you ask for them.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
"there are, in the midst of those of us who oppose this immigration bill for a host of issues, a segment who, at the end of the day, just don't want a bunch of hispanic immigrants in this country. The rest of us need to weed them out."
oh, brother! Its a shame that some Republicans just can't resist the urge to call their opponents racists.
Not deportation. Exile. Dora needs to be exiled. She is vile, and it has nothing to do with her ethnicity, language, national origin, legal or illegal status, or anything but the fact that next to Caillou, there is no more irritating program on TV and she. Must. Be. Stopped.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
-American Idol
-any music/dance show (what were Evander Holyfield and
Emmitt Smith on again?)
-anything w/ Tom Bergeron
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Everyone wants to paint Tancredo as a Xenophobe. He was misquoted on his debate comments by almost everyone. He did not say that we should stop legal immigration. He said that we should catch our breath and have a moritorium (or something to that effect) on all immigration which makes a lot of sense to me. At the very least, let it continue on a slow case-by-case basis.
Tancredo, and some of us other xenophobes, are trying to salvage what's left of our culture and sovereignty. McCain, and his accomplices, want to squander it for whatever his/their motivation/agenda is. I guarantee you it's not because he/they give a damn about hispanics.
McCain did well in the debate if your a liberal. He should be on the democratic ticket. He's finished as a Republican.
Would a moratorium apply to immigrants married to US citizens? How about immigrants who are sole caretakers for disabled US citizens?
Why would it be beneficial, for this country, to temporarily cease all immigration? Are we on the verge of collapse from a population explosion? Do we risk compromising what made this country great? While I support tightening quotas for the southern border, I support it because I believe our immigration policy is not balanced and we need breathing room to properly digest our latest immigration wave. I am guessing here though that we disagree fundamentally on the immigration wave itself: I think it's a good thing for the country; you perhaps think it's killing America. Correct me if I put words in your mouth.
My wife is an immigrant. The process we went through for her to live in America was long, expensive, thorough, and fair; and all along the way people were kind and wonderful to deal with.
Like most phenomena, immigration is not a binary choice - it's a matter of quantity as well as quality.
This means that the current, very heavy, rate of legal and illegal immigration into the US is different from a more controlled pace of immigration.
There is also the question of where immigration comes from. Taking in a million highly-trained Indian engineers will cause very different outcomes compared to taking in a million uneducated farm laborers from Mexico. This is evident from reading up on basic social statistics - low-skilled immigration makes society function less well. Crime goes up (The US Hispanic crime rate is roughly 3x the white crime rate), educational standards drop, welfare use goes up, etc. This is obviously not good for America.
Add in ethnic nationalism ("La Raza") and politics take a hit as well, as more energy is poured into the race-baiting industry. Especially when Mexicans become the majority population in areas of the US that they have an historical claim to.
Finally - this situation won't solve itself. Hispanic assimilation metrics are not very encouraging (stretching back three generations, with generous parameters).
A good post I think. McCain's response was a solid one, and does strike at the heart of what this debate is about.
The America we've built is the greatest country in the world, and this recent immigration wave, as with all the others of our history, will only make us stronger.
English should continue to be the language of our nation, incentives for immigrants to learn English and assimilate should be maintained and reinstated (where they were dismantled). Our way of assimilating immigrants over the past 200 years is remarkably effective and fair. Don't change what works.
English should continue to NOT be our official language. Why do we need it now when we've gone so long without it? I believe it compromises individual freedom far too much, which is why our founding fathers never adopted it.
And, just to head off the inevitable, it is simply not the case that immigration in the past ten or twenty years is far greater than other periods of immigration comparatively. The wave of immigrants we experienced from 1890 to 1925 was far greater, and had a far greater impact on American social fabric, than anything that has happened recently.
So, who's for deporting the Russian Jews of Brighton Beach because they stubbornly refuse to assimilate?
In my neighborhood, small town Minnesota, the majority of folks are greatly concerned about immigration of all kinds. They are concerned and angry because their neighborhoods are changing, because they are afraid of their culture being swept aside by some different. I don't think it's racist. One might argue it's xenophobic but I don't think it's necessary to make that distinction. A great segment of American culture does not want to change, does not want to adapt to a changing world, because they are afraid of losing their identity, losing what makes them American. The goal here is to understand their concerns and help them come to the understanding that their identity will not change. America will evolve but prevail.
Being American has never meant being part of a particular ethnicity, it means being a citizen of a Republic protected by the greatest laws man has ever devised. That's what makes us great, it's not blood that makes us American, it's our belief in freedom and liberty.
We should not celebrate diversity, we have an obligation to tolerate it. Toleration is a responsibility of ours because it underpins principles of democracy, freedom and liberty.
I do think border security is the most pressing problem with the immigration debate. I think we should be working right now to restrict the flow of immigrants from our southern border. Not because we simply don't want them, but because this recent wave has run its course, it's now time to take stock of the new neighbors we have, to begin the process of making them citizens. This is fits the pattern of our history.
Who has the right to be American? For so long we have rightly shown the world the greatest of our democracy and freedoms, have led the free world as a beacon of reason and equality. We can't rightly expect this will NOT attract everyone and their uncle to this great land. The demand is no doubt high. So, this is a serious and legitimate question that should be debated: who has the right to be American? If we do not answer this question by ethnicity, religion, nationality etc, then what do we answer it with?
"Incentives for immigrants to learn English and assimilate should be maintained and reinstated (where they were dismantled)"
This will not happen, at least not quickly. The ideology of multiculturalism is now terribly pervasive in US society, and will remain so for the forseeable future.
"The wave of immigrants we experienced from 1890 to 1925 was far greater, and had a far greater impact on American social fabric, than anything that has happened recently."
The size of the population effect is very considerable, especially considering the large fertility differential between latino and "anglo" populations. Also, the question is of course in what direction the immigrant influx will shift social balance. Mexican-american (the dominant immigrant group) social statistics are rather depressing, as are assimilation metrics over the generations.
This in turn means that immigration will yield larger inequality, substantially more criminality, more income transfers and more racial strife. Why is that a good deal for america?
Thanks for your response. These are excellent ideas which certainly consideration.
"This in turn means that immigration will yield larger inequality, substantially more criminality, more income transfers and more racial strife. Why is that a good deal for america?"
It's not good for America. Thankfully, it's also an overstatement. When the Irish began their mass exodus to America they were by and large (and substantially moreso than Hispanics today) poor, hungry, uneducated and carrying little but an empty potato sack. The perception that the Irish were drunk criminals was alarmingly pervasive back then. The story of Irish Americans is one filled with violence and racism, social ostracizing, and lots and lots of hard work. They are now integral to the success that is America. They represent some of the core principles of what it means to be an American. And they also high a higher fertility ratio than Americans during that time.
I certainly have more hope in Hispanic Americans than to just assume they are and will be an unbearable burden on our society. I see Mexicans in my town everyday. They are some of the hardest working individuals I've ever met, and that's saying a lot considering Americans work more hours than anyone else in the world. So I have hope.
"The size of the population effect is very considerable, especially considering the large fertility differential between latino and "anglo" populations."
Yes, indeed, that's why I support a clamp down on our southern border. But it is still no where near levels of population effect at the turn of the 20th century. Check the numbers.
We have throughout our history welcomed immigrant laborers who had little more than a change of clothes. The American system has made a great deal of them wealthy and successful. Another large number of them returned to their home country.
I like to think that this American system is strong enough (and attractive enough) to make good men better, to give the poor laborer a chance to prove himself. Isn't this what makes us different than Europe?
On pervasive multiculturalism, here I agree with you. I think our society has slowly grown to value diversity over family, difference or similarity-- when in fact our society should value core traditional principles (nation, family, god), individual rights, AND NOTHING ELSE. I haven't much hope on this, but I do think America is headed for a change. A watershed moment is coming when we realize tolerating diversity does not mean scanning your own chicken in a Target store or being refused a cab because you have a six pack of coors. Rather obscure examples but I hope my point came across.
certainly warrant consideration, I'm sorry, and sorry too for the countless other errors I will not find
The problem with your argument is that well, the Mexicans aren't the Irish. For while there are indeed immigrant groups that have assimilated rapidly, there are many other examples around the world (and in the US) of groups that have never fully integrated, and remain distinct from the majority population.
Empirically, Hispanic assimilation isn't at all as rapid as Irish assimilation (And Mexican assimilation is likely to be worse still). It sort of stalls out after generation two, and stats on income and education simply aren't too hot compared to US natives after that.
In the best case, the US gets to enjoy higher crime and more poverty for at least four generations - thats a very long time. Why should the US settle for that deal?
I have to say that I am sad to see Tancredo exit the race so quickly. As one of his many constituents who hold him in very high esteem, I hope he remains Colorado's 6th District U.S. Representative for a long time to come. I am appauled at the outrage over Tancredo by self-proclaimed "conservatives." Fact is, if we had 535 Tom Tancredos in Congress, this country would be in a whole lot better shape and its future wouldn't look so bleak. U.S. Reps. Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, Steve King,James Sensenbrenner are rock solid on the border and we need many more like them in Congress or our nation is doomed.
EVERY SINGLE ILLEGAL ALIEN IS A CRIMINAL. They shouldn't be shown any compassion whatsoever (and certainly shouldn't be pandered to.) We shouldn't be educating them (or their American-born children); we should NEVER give them medical care even under the most dire of circumstances (and should criminally charge those physicians, therapists, nurses, etc. who treat them and take away their medical licenses.)
We need Congress to overturn the 6-2 Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) which grants birthright citizenship to nearly any person born in this country regardless of their legal status. Children of illegal aliens born in this country are NOT "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (of the United States) so they should not be granted U.S. citizenship. It is well past time for Congress to fix this travisty.
On September 5, 1780, John Adams proposed that English be made the national language of the United States. Tragically, this attempt was defeated. We must make English the ONLY national language of the U.S. We should stop catering to these anti-American felonious monsters who are invading our country (in violation of Article IV Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution.) We need a fence and we need much stricter immigration laws. Following 9/11/2001 the U.S. government cannot afford to be ignorant about who is in this country and for what purpose. Illegal aliens need to be dealt with as harshly as possible. If illegal aliens what to be reunited with their families they should go back to their respective countries. Period. No amesty-an ENFORCEMENT ONLY immigration policy will be the only thing that saves this nation from destruction.
...that the opponents of birthright citizenship have the ability to muster the 2/3rds majority necessary to override the inevitable veto of any law overruling Wong vs. United States. Note that I agree that Congress has the Constitutional authority to overrule the Supreme Court, if explicitly done; then again, Congress has the Constituional authority to mandate that we all wear our underpants on our heads.
Even if such a thing were to take place, this would not in point of fact affect the existing native-born children of illegal immigrants, who are in point of fact American citizens by both settled law and your own admission (since you want to change their status going forward). Ex post facto laws are explicitly banned by the Constitution, which means that:
1). Those kids have all the rights that you do.
2). You don't get to take them away just because you don't like current immigration policy.
Now, I have done the elementary courtesy of assuming that you do not, in fact, wish to strip American citizens of the franchise - or that you at least have not contemplated the Pandora's box of making a person's franchise dependent on current political opinion. If this courtesy was misplaced, I suggest that you never, ever, ever give me reason to suspect it.
Moe
PS: This is not a conversation. This was very nearly a homework assignment.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
we should NEVER give them medical care even under the most dire of circumstances (and should criminally charge those physicians, therapists, nurses, etc. who treat them and take away their medical licenses.)
OK. Sure.
I definitely agree with the post. However, how do we go about identifying the illegals from the non-illegals?
Do you want us all to be carrying around a 'citizenship card' (i.e., passport) to every medical treatment center, because a driver's license does not seem to suffice (since illegals get it anyway)? I mean, businesses must make sure that the person that they're hiring is legally in the United States for fear of prosecution. A lot of illegals in the United States carry forged or stolen documents. If an HR person at a business cannot determine what's fake and what's not, than how is the lady who is sitting behind the sliding glass window at your dentist's office determine it? And how far do you want to take it? What about grocery stores? Should we have to identify ourselves as legal residents in the United States before we buy our gallon of milk? While I definitely agree with your stance, these are legitimate questions that need to be resolved.
That's why we need my immigration plan. See this post. It's the common sense solution.
You seem like a decent man so I will only take issue with your ideas.
"Who has the right to be American"? The answer to that question is those that are born here (by legal citizens) and those who were invited in and swore alligence to America.
I can't speak for all conservatives, but I fell confident is saying that no one wants to deport anyone who's here legally. So your Russian jews are safe as long as they were invited in.
English should absolutely be the official language in this country. If one doesn't know engligh then we should not to spend our tax dollars printing in multiple languages. How many different buttons would you like to press on a phone to find your language of choice? My answer is NONE.
I don't agree that we have an obligation to tolerate diversity. I'm interpreting your definition to mean different cultures. How's that working out for France and England? No thanks. I want people who I conduct business with to speak plain english so I can understand them. If they want to speak Russian, let them go back to Russia.
Finally, our greatest laws know to man are not being enforced so what exactly do they mean to you?
Thanks very much for your response.
"I can't speak for all conservatives, but I fell confident is saying that no one wants to deport anyone who's here legally. So your Russian jews are safe as long as they were invited in."
Well thankfully they are safe, but since you do not tolerate diversity I'm not sure how that shakes out in the end. If you've ever found yourself down at Brighton Beach, nearly every sign is in Russian. Old ladies yell at you in Russian, people ask for directions in Russian. Would they really be safe under your vision of America? I think what you are advocating is forceful assimilation, and if so, then you must go ALL THE WAY. Force the Amish into cities and make them turn on light switches. Force Hispanics, Somalis, Russian Jews - everybody- to speak English at home, in the workplace and wherever they go. You must see this does raise complications with individual liberties, right?? Where is the freedom in this policy? Can't an AMERICAN CITIZEN speak whatever language they choose??
Forceful assimilation also means coming to terms with a definition of what American is, so that everyone can thereby be forcefully assimilated to this definition. I think you can see the problems here.
I do believe assimilation is key, it has allowed a melting pot of different nationalities to become ONE nation, under God. That's a beautiful and important thing. Look how far we've gotten with that ideal WITHOUT forceful assimilation, without English as an official language. Doesn't that say something.
One quick comment about France and England. Immigration policies in these countries are disastrous because essentially what these countries are doing is 'celebrating diversity' (whatever that means) without giving immigrants real avenues to assimilation, real opportunities to move up the social and economic ladder. What are the young Muslims in Paris burning cars for? Because the want to eliminate France as a country? or because the want a job that allows them to move up, they want an education that means something?
Immigration has been successful in this country for hundreds of years because once you get in the door a real life can be made with hard work, blood, sweat and tears.
I'm very impressed. I've never seen a straw man beaten so hard - you whaled on him good and hard.
I think what you are advocating is forceful assimilation, and if so, then you must go ALL THE WAY. Force the Amish into cities and make them turn on light switches. Force Hispanics, Somalis, Russian Jews - everybody- to speak English at home, in the workplace and wherever they go. You must see this does raise complications with individual liberties, right?? Where is the freedom in this policy? Can't an AMERICAN CITIZEN speak whatever language they choose??
You can let him go now ... I think the straw man's dead.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
"Immigration has been successful in this country for hundreds of years because once you get in the door a real life can be made with hard work, blood, sweat and tears."
In case you didn't notice, the US is now a modern western welfare state. Extrapolating wildly from two major immigration periods from vastly different sources (mostly NW Europe, some from S Europe) isn't a terribly impressive data set.
Also, your constant repeating of how "diversity is strength" is, well... very slogan-esque. Hint: "diversity" is not a binary choice, but a continuous variable. In practice, most people prefer to live in relatively non-diverse areas, with people who are much like themselves.
"In case you didn't notice, the US is now a modern western welfare state. Extrapolating wildly from two major immigration periods from vastly different sources (mostly NW Europe, some from S Europe) isn't a terribly impressive data set."
Well, thankfully, we aren't France yet! We are still the greatest work oriented, can-do meritocracy in the world. Yes FDR was very busy, but there's a reason that immigration doesn't work in Europe and (gulp) does work for us (like I will get away with saying something like that?).
On statistical extrapolations and analysis, in addition to the Irish stated above, we also had many many laborers from Europe who represented the very bottom of the social scale at that time. Hungarian miners headed for the coal shafts of West Virginia; Polish factory workers on to Chicago; South slav farmers after fertile soil in the midwest-- on and on. Yes, they came from different sources, but the point here is NOBODY but America gave them much of a chance, and a good deal of them made it, at least to the point they had a modest house and stable family, which is my definition of the American dream. You assume Hispanic Americans can't get there? I think you're underestimating them.
BUT I can't stress enough, I don't think you are a racist or espouse racist thoughts, I think that's a ridiculous assertion (not that anyone made it I'm just clarifying). What we are talking about here is a fear of cultural shifts, of America ceasing to become America. And those are valid concerns, not racism.
"Also, your constant repeating of how "diversity is strength" is, well... very slogan-esque. Hint: "diversity" is not a binary choice, but a continuous variable. In practice, most people prefer to live in relatively non-diverse areas, with people who are much like themselves."
I'll watch my grandiose repetition, I can only imagine how annoying I may sound. I stress this because America is the most diverse country in the world. We are built from the backs of immigrants, legal and illegal. These are important facts we must keep in mind.
That minority protection, affirmative action and the welfare safety net means that far fewer who immigrate and then fail professionally or academically will leave?
Still, theoretical discussion on assimilation is sort of moot - it's empirics that matter. Even using the most immigration-friendly sources (and a pretty "optimistic" methodology), assimilation of Hispanics to the anglo norm just isn't happening. Even looking over a hundred year timespan, at distinct cohorts. The actual situation for Mexicans today is likely to become even worse. (I blog on this here
Again, you sadly don't have a lot of faith in our Hispanic population or in America.
I didn't say the Irish were Hispanic, did I? I said the Irish immigration has a lot of parallels with Hispanic immigration today. That is what I said. Prove to me I'm wrong.
I like to read old newspapers. I'm amazed at all the negative things people said about the Irish back when. How they had no chance to succeed, how they were bringing down and destroying America.
But the most amazing thing is: I read almost the same thing right here, nearly word for word, except nobody talks about the Irish.
Folks who don't believe Hispanics today can succeed and be a part of America will find themselves on the wrong side of history. And embarrassingly so.
This is the issue I think will handicap the Republican Party for years to come.
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future
"Who has the right to be American"? The answer to that question is those that are born here (by legal citizens) and those who were invited in and swore alligence to America.
People don't get invited in. They work very hard and pray and fill out dozens of forms and pray some more until miraculously, they won the lottery. That's how they get in. I think you might be underestimating the demand.
Who has the right to be an American? (in order of precedence)
-People born in America
-People who apply legally and have family connections or unique skills sets
-People who apply legally
-People who are here in America, have family ties, and are not felons
The last one is the disagreement perhaps. Though I am under the impression that the larger issue here is whether or not immigration itself is a good thing for this country. I think a lot of people are hung up on that and unsure. But let's stick with illegals.
Illegal immigrants should be allowed to navigate the system of punitive measures and processes to be an American citizen because the other two options are untenable. Other options: sacrificing civil and individual liberties in this country to go about the great illegal immigration hunt that will deport 12 million people from America, including the countless others that are daughters sons sisters brothers mothers and fathers of illegals who are CITIZENS and will not or will choose not to stay (I know many of you think that's a great thing, but there's a fundamental disagreement; and I bet all of you might change your tune if it effected you personally).
The other option: ignore the problem. That's the way I see it and the reason I believe immigration reform is the answer. And yes, believe it or not, I'm a conservative. I've written little in the past here because I was afraid I would be attacked.
But I must say on this note I am completely impressed with the civility of the debate on RedState and the freedom for unconventional conservatives to write freely about what they believe. That said, I'll try to tone it down a bit, stop threadjacking, and keep my posts succinct and to the point.
The extent that legal immigration is good for all concerned is a legitimate political question. While I lean toward a more closed border, I don't have any great quarrel with any moderate position.
But I don't see the connection between demanding reasonable assimilation and saying Hispanics are bad for America. That McCain attempts to make this link does not speak well of him. I'm more than a little tired of having Republicans being accused of racism by other Republicans, barring actual evidence.
But I don't see the connection between demanding reasonable assimilation and saying Hispanics are bad for America. That McCain attempts to make this link does not speak well of him. I'm more than a little tired of having Republicans being accused of racism by other Republicans, barring actual evidence.
I think that the problem is that the anti-illegal-immigration side has attracted a fair number of folks with an axe to grind (on race). It sometimes makes it difficult for folks with legitimate disagreements with the bill to be heard.
As reflected below, I personally believe that Tancredo's a hysteric on the issue of immigration, and not at all serious about either the problems it poses. He's a demagogue, but I certainly won't call him racist. But I don't dispute that there are a good many folks who have legitimate, thoughtful concerns about this bill or about immigration generally. Unfortunately, the loudest voices in the debate are not always the most sensible ones.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
for kindly making a oil-on-troubled-waters post, but this is exactly the kind of statement I object to:
".. the problem is that the anti-illegal-immigration side has attracted a fair number of folks with an axe to grind (on race)."
Where's the evidence of this "fair number" of folks? I mean, I'm sure the KKK doesn't approve of the current immigration bill, but I wouldn't consider them a significant portion of the opposition.
Where's the evidence of this "fair number" of folks? I mean, I'm sure the KKK doesn't approve of the current immigration bill, but I wouldn't consider them a significant portion of the opposition.
Couple/three points --
First, one doesn't have to be an out-and-about hooded Klansman to have an axe to grind on race. Indeed, one needn't even be a prototypical WASP (or even white) to have an axe to grind on race. That said, the KKK has seen its numbers grow considerably as a result of the immigration brouhaha.
Second, the VDare folks -- and VDare bloggers & associates -- certainly have been vocal in the mix (including Sailor, Malkin, et al.). Whether you think VDare is a racist or nativist organization, it's certainly fair to say that they have "an axe to grind on race."
Third, I did say a "fair number" -- not a majority, not even a large minority. And I think that's indisputably true, even leaving aside points 1 and 2 above. A fair (and quite vocal) number of folks are primarily bothered by the fact that the majority of illegal immigrants in this country are Mexican or of Latin American descent. Whether that's because the speak Spanish or have a foreign culture is, in some ways, irrelevant -- the fact is that these are stand-ins for ethnicity of the immigrant.
(And, to be clear, "ethnicity" is a better word than "race," and I apologize for any confusion.)
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
"Whether that's because the speak Spanish or have a foreign culture is, in some ways, irrelevant -- the fact is that these are stand-ins for ethnicity of the immigrant."
The problem is that ethnicity matters, as any social survey (the GSS, the Census, BoJS stats) will quickly tell you. Ethnicity predicts education, crime, poverty, etc. with a reasonable degree of precision. For instance, it is a virtual certainty that increasing Mexican low-skilled immigration into the US will:
- Increase crime
- Increase inequality and poverty (meaning more transfers, welfare use, etc.)
- Worsen educational standards substantially
- Create more ethnic politics, affirmative action, etc.
This, in turn will not happen if instead the US takes in, say, Indian highly educated engineers. So, why should the US do low-skill immigration (of any kind)? Is there an answer beside righteous indignation?
Yeah, exactly.
Case in point:
Low-skilled workers were brought to the United Kingdom from Pakistan for the textile industry. When the industry collapsed, all these low-skilled workers were out of a job. So what did they do?
1. Take up public housing. Essentially creating Muslim ghettos in the outskirts of cities such as Manchester, Birmingham, and Leeds.
2. Sense of hopelessness ensued with these Muslims believing that the government is systematically excluding them by housing them in ghettos.
3. These Muslims eventually become terrorists, such as those responsible for the London mass transit bombings in 2005.
High-skilled workers from India to the United States do not have this problem. Why? First and foremost, the median Indian-American household in the United States makes approximately $68,000 annually in salary, this is over two times the national average (compared to $46,000 nationally and $49,000 for whites). This high income (and its corresponding education) makes them more likely to not have qualms about the society in which they live. Therefore, they are less likely to get involved in crime, drugs, and terrorism. In addition, because of the high income attained by Indian-Americans, most will assimilate into the American culture.
I'm worried that with these low-skilled Mexicans, etc., that we will create these 'ghettos' and things such as crime, poverty, and the chronic welfare dependence (and perhaps even terrorism) will flourish. That's why only the best and brightest should be allowed in -- and then only LEGALLY. Not the current bill that supports amnesty.
"I'm worried that with these low-skilled Mexicans, etc., that we will create these 'ghettos' and things such as crime, poverty, and the chronic welfare dependence (and perhaps even terrorism) will flourish."
A valid concern no doubt. But America has given many poor, low-skilled immigrants a chance to succeed. We have a pretty good track record. Those who don't make they cut, they generally don't stick around too long.
That said, I think people with unique and highly desired skill sets should be up a few notches on the point system. We are, afterall, a meritocracy.
"Those who don't make they cut, they generally don't stick around too long."
Erm, the US free health, welfare and social security system is much, much better than Mexico's.
More importantly, what you predict is going to happen, isn't happening. Empirically. Which, in the end is all that matters.
I favor comprehensive reform, but admit to some doubts about this bill. Thus, I certainly can understand Erick have doubts grave enough to oppose the bill as currently written.
Incidentally, although I certainly have no problem making English the official language of the US, the suggestion that a single national language is required to hold a country together is somewhat silly. Switzerland has four official languages (German, French, Italian, Romansch). It has somehow survived as a nation longer than the US. The UK - bithplace of English - has six official languages (English, Gaelic-Irish, Gaelic-Scots, Welsh, Scots, Ulster Scots). It somehow manages to function. Belgium has at least 3 languages (French, German, Flemish). It too remains intact. Canada survives with 2 languages and a minority that wants to secede. Spain survives with at least 3 langauges (Spanish, Catalan, and Basque) and, historically, two minority regions that want to secede (Catalan and Basque).
None of this is to say that language is not important. It is not nearly as important, however, as Tancredo and others suggest -- and Tancredo's zeal on the matter of Hispanic immigration suggests a xenophobia that is unbecoming of a Presidential candidate. It may not be a good idea to make Spanish an official language of the US but it hardly would be a watershed event -- and it takes a special kind of stupidity (or malice) to suggest otherwise.
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Fun examples of how diversity fosters political harmony!
"The UK - bithplace of English - has six official languages (English, Gaelic-Irish, Gaelic-Scots, Welsh, Scots, Ulster Scots)"
The UK is currently coming apart, with Scotland getting ever more autonomy.
"Belgium has at least 3 languages (French, German, Flemish). It too remains intact."
Precariously so. Belgium is one of the most-likely-to-splinter countries in Europe, and has no national identity beyond chocolate, Tintin and the local soccer team.
"Canada survives with 2 languages and a minority that wants to secede."
Canada survives as a nation because the Government has been successful in narrowly defeating several secession attempts by referendum. (By somewhat quasi-democratic means)
At least they don't have to do that martial law thing so often these days though.
"It may not be a good idea to make Spanish an official language of the US but it hardly would be a watershed event"
"Spain survives with at least 3 langauges (Spanish, Catalan, and Basque) and, historically, two minority regions that want to secede (Catalan and Basque)."
Indeed. What is a bombing every month or so?
And these examples are of relatively prosperous groups! Hispanic social statistics in the US are dreary - as are assimilation statistics. By siple calculation, massive Mexican immigration into the US will hence make it a worse place to live for those who cannot afford to insulate themselves from the effects. (How many people who go on about the benefits of "diversity" actually live in an average minority (black/hispanic) neighbourhood? Not many.)
The UK is currently coming apart, with Scotland getting ever more autonomy.
Local rule is a bad thing? In any event, there won't be dissolution (Sean Connery's desire for it asside): The SNP is getting votes because of a backlash against Labour.
Precariously so. Belgium is one of the most-likely-to-splinter countries in Europe, and has no national identity beyond chocolate, Tintin and the local soccer team.
You forgot beer. And I really can't take the "most-likely-to-splinter business seriously. It survived two world wars that, logically, might have pitted its three constituent parts against each other.
"Spain survives with at least 3 langauges (Spanish, Catalan, and Basque) and, historically, two minority regions that want to secede (Catalan and Basque)."
Indeed. What is a bombing every month or so?
The Catalans haven't bombed anyone since, what, the 1800s? And ETA has formally abandoned violence (we'll see if it has staying power, trust but verify as always.)
For we have a peculiar power of thinking before we act, and of acting, too, whereas other men are courageous from ignorance but hesitate upon reflection.
Well argued, von. To imply the Belgian union is precarious is absolute folly. This is an example of federalism that works.
And these are all examples of successful decentralization power. Where are the conservatives on this issue??
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future
"Can't an AMERICAN CITIZEN speak whatever language they choose??" What????? OMG, this truly is the site for neocons (liberal republicans) who are lacking in spine.
Previous immigrants came invited (visa) and they were most certainly coerced to learn English and adopt American values and customs.
Look boys and girls, this whole debate on illegal immigration is a bit of a ruse. The real issue is whether or not a sovereign nation has the right to open or close it's borders, to allow more or less and indeed from which feeder nations.
Everything else is (are?) weasel words.
The USA is a geographic, historical nation and territory. It is NOT just an abstract "idea". Muslims, Hindus and many 3rd world cultures, like Latino have a different perspective and different values. One difference, they are much more clan-like.
Will things improve for the USA? Not likely. The open borders traitors in the Democrat and Republican party will continue to sell out the American people to import more and more slave-like workers and future voters.
Tancredo was right. Lawrence Auster agrees. John Derbyshire agrees. Mac Johnson agrees. Legal immigration needs a "time-out". Foreigners do not have a God-given right to "migrate" to the USA. It's our home. That's why adults have locks on the doors of their homes. Most Americans favor reducing LEGAL immigration. Most Americans favor English as the official language.
Most DC beltway boys are just that --- boys.
Nessus
You want http://www.polipundit.com: they'll be more than happy to listen to you explain how people on the other side of this policy position are actually traitors.
Ta.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I didn't say that I had any problem with people speaking another language. We teach that in our schools. I have a problem with my tax dollars printing everything in multiple languages. Also, if everyone spoke a different language, we wouldn't be able to communicate with each other. That would be disasterous.
I agree with your definition of Americans except the last. People who are here legally are absolutely invited in. The rest have sneaked in and are here illegally. That's the law. It's not my law. There's no debatable issue with that.
I'm not against immigration. I'm not a racist although I don't want America to become a hispanic culture. I want to preserve 200 years of tradition and cultural advancements. Call me a protectionist if you will, but not a racist.
If the government wants to increase legal immigration to say 1million per year, fine. Then, all illegal aliens have to return to their country of origin and be invited to return in an orderly and legal manner. Do that and shut down the southern border, then we can discuss reform.
Finally, America belongs to Americans. We get to decide the important issues affecting our country. The backlash that you're hearing about this debate is America saying "no" to the politicians, who by the way, could care less about hispanics. Their interest is in no way related to the average citizen.
I appreciate your words Cajun.
My point with Russian Jews in Brighton is that, if we had an official language in America, these folks would be breaking the law by posting signs for their bakeries, dentist shops, groceries etc in Russian. I think this is an unnecessary impingement on one's freedoms. Moreover, you say they would be fine here, because their legal residents. But they have a different language and traditions, and you say that diversity would not or should not be tolerated. How do you reconcile this? Should they be forced to assimilate?
"I'm not against immigration. I'm not a racist although I don't want America to become a hispanic culture. I want to preserve 200 years of tradition and cultural advancements. Call me a protectionist if you will, but not a racist."
Agreed. And I don't think you are a racist. I think you are an individual generally concerned about the preservation of your culture. And that's commendable because we see people who care so little about their culture these days, and sadly couldn't even tell you accuratley what their culture is.
American Citizens are the vast majority in this country, and will remain, so naturally, logically, American culture will prevail. Sure the identifiers of that culture can change, are changing, but I look out the window and see a very American country - hardworking, clean and ordered, excellent customer service - those things don't change.
just very quickly: I can't say enough how much I see a natural connection between Hispanics and conservatism. The Republican Party can lead generations to come, and stick to their principles, by embracing Hispanic American culture.
"Sure the identifiers of that culture can change, are changing, but I look out the window and see a very American country - hardworking, clean and ordered, excellent customer service - those things don't change."
How do you know? Certainly, social stats on the impact of unchecked low-skill immigration disagree with you.
Question: How many anglos live in majority hispanic or black areas?
Answer: Not too many, and those who do are leaving at high rates.
Hell, natives are leaving *California* - the nicest state in the US - in large numbers. What does that tell you?
My point with Russian Jews in Brighton is that, if we had an official language in America, these folks would be breaking the law by posting signs for their bakeries, dentist shops, groceries etc in Russian.
No. And this is one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen.
Pay attention, Bill; making English the official language of the United States will not, under any reasonable circumstance make it illegal for anyone to speak in another language, write a sign in another language or even run a business where the language spoken is another language.
I have lived in countries which have official languages, countries with far less of a history of freedom than the United States and this doesn't happen ... so why would you think that this would happen in America?
Where in the name of all that is Holy did you get the nonsensical idea that if English is made the official language of the United States, that police would be walking around arresting people for being multilingual?
What possible logic did you use to arrive at this conclusion?
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
Isn't this what it comes to if we choose not to tolerate diversity?
Not tolerating diversity, to me, means not allowing individuals to live diverse lives. Right? No? I'm not putting words in the poster's mouth, he/she explicitly said 'I do not tolerate diversity'. I'm just thinking out loud on what the consequences of that might be.
Perhaps it's the dumbest argument in the universe to you. That's tragic, because I think it's a fundamental argument on individual rights. Conservatives used to protect individual rights.
_______________________________________________
History is all that will help us with the future
My comment was solely about your contention that if English is made the official language of the United States, people would be thrown in jail or fined for speaking or writing in any other language.
That is simply not true and has absolutely no logic to it. And from what I've seen so far of your posts, I've come to believe you know for certain that this is not true.
George W. Bush: He's A Folder ... Not A Fighter.
Re: Moe Lane # 21
I don't believe that Congress will disallow birthright citizenship to American-born children of illegal aliens, just that they should. I'm not sure that the president would have anything to do with Congress's reinterpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment (in accordance with Section 5 of Amendment XIV.) The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hollingsworth v. Virginia (1798) that the president has no role in the amendment process. I take that to mean (and possibly incorrectly) that the president would not be able to interfere with Congress's reinterpretation of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment. I'm just not sure, however. Either way, we should return to the original intent behind the privileges or immunities and citizenship clauses as interpreted through the Slaughter-House Cases (1873) and Elk v. Wilkins (1884), which would obviously mean American-born children of illegal aliens are NOT citizens of the Uited States because they are NOT "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
Re: Jeff Emanuel in # 22
There is absolutely no right to healthcare found in the Constitution. Surely, you know this. If doctors, nurses and therapists treat these illegal aliens, they certainly should have their licence to practice medicine taken away and be criminally prosecuted. They are aiding criminals and should be punished, not commended for doing this. In my mind, a physician who treats an illegal alien is no less of a law breaker than an employer hiring an illegal alien to work for them (which should also be subject to criminal prosecution.)
Emergency rooms across the country are closing down due to fact they are required to treat illegal aliens who then cannot pay. We would have alot more hospitals open in this country if illegal aliens were NEVER treated. ILLEGAL ALIENS ARE ALL CRIMINALS. Illegals should NEVER be given the luxury of being treated in our hospitals, no matter how dire the circumstances. Currently, any physician except for ER doctors can refuse to treat patient. There must be legislation passed to extend this luxury to Emergency room doctors as well.
That the right to life is protected by the Constitution and healthcare could be seen as protection of that right.
Now, I believe it is the duty of a physician, nurse, or other doctor who knows his/her patient is an illegal alien to report it to the government like they would (or should) for any other criminal. Any doctor who fails to do that should have his liscense revoked/suspended.
-------------
"The Nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten."
--Calvin Coolidge
Anyone can claim to be a conservative (Bill). Conservatives believe in the rule of law. Those who break the law should be punished. Deportation for ILLEGAL immigrants is just punishment. Yes, even if they are a sole care giver to a disabled geriatric. Even if they have ten children born in the USA. Even if they are poor and hungry, feed them and send them home.
The irish didn't swim across the Atlantic and sneak around looking for shelter and jobs. They came through proper immigration. Arrival, application, health inspections/ quarrantines, background checks to the extent of the times and not all were accepted. This cannot be used to compare the current ILLEGAL immigration problem.
Establishment of an "official language" does not imply all other languages to be outlaw.
As for "tolerance" being an underpinning of democracy you are wrong sir. Democracy is rule of th majority with no respect to the minority. Much of your tripe about what it means to be an American is psychobabble feel good mush.
As a Republic, we are based on the rule of law. Of course rules are bent and twisted, but most conservatives try to live by these rules, and understand the consequences if they don't. I believe illegals have broken the law in a big way, and the fake ID's, non payment of taxes, etc just compile the laws broken. There is a rason most Americans HATE lawyers until we need one), they try to circumvent the law. That is a big problem with this bill, it seems to take the law and toss it aside as though it doesn't matter. Americans have a problem with the thought that citizens would be in jail for many of these actions. Assimilation is another problem, and unless you live in a town with this problem and have a child in school, you may not grasp the severity of the problem. Welfare and benefits are another, back in the old days these didn't exist as immigrants were left to make it on their own. We took a long break from immigration in 1900's as people could only come if vouched for. It was Mr. Kennedy who led for the changing of our immigration laws to favor 3rd world countries. Also, allowing too many people from countries that are not democracies does create a problem because they don't understand how the system works. This bill has truly very little merit if you take away feelings. If politicians didn't manipulate the framing of this bill and illegals themselves to a "heart wrenching" story, there is no legal point anyone would take seriously. Controlled legal immigration is very acceptable to Americans, not what has been happening. Although over the top in many ways just like Ron Paul, both are very needed as voices because they both have valid points regarding central issues to way government runs and has handled things lately. This bill was bad in so many ways, but mostly because American Citizens were never really considered in the equation. Middle America has sat in their living room bitching about laws, but going along with it for 40 years, and that's what caught Congress off guard. It's been awhile since THE PEOPLE actually told them they are wrong, and were not just going to wait for the voting process to show our distain for this bill and what you're version of America should be. Everyone has a special interest group to represent them, except the middle class and finally they got off their ass and showed that THEY are the loudest and most powerful special interest group, and that Congress better start paying attention to them. I suggest watching Jeff Session's closing statement to the Senate tonight regarding the bill. It was the most accurate assessment of the bill to date by any politician and I would personally do anything to keep this man in office. HE is a great American and representative for this country, and Alabama should be proud to have found such a man.
The trick of exposing Tom Tancredo is that you end up having to use language that the left (and its allies in guys like Sen. Graham) often uses against ALL opponents of illegal immigration.
But seriously, if you want to know all you need to know about Tom Tancredo you just have to look at his PAC: Team America (first).0
Technically the PAC is the work of Bay Buchanan and Tom Tancredo, but Pat Buchanan's name just happens to appear all over the place. And he's not the only controversial figure they promote on their front page: Steve Sailer (he of this probing of "Jewish influence" in America) is there, too. (Yeah, HaroldHutchison and Moe Lane: I now see that he's an evilcon... heh, in searching for an appropriate Sailer link I ran into the RS thread where I got banned :-)
These people aren't anti-illegal immigration. They're against all net immigration. And that's a politically and socially dangerous thing for the border security crowd to get assocaited with.
So I wish Senator McCain the best of luck in trashing Representative Tancredo, even if I won't vote for the Senator under any circumstances.
Note: the people linked there can't help their being linked there. I don't hold them accountable for being linked to by the PAC. I hold the PAC accountable for who they link to.
"It's illegal isn't it?" -- Rep. Sonny Bono
performance. To be such a godawful speaker, he even waxed eloquently at times. But all the GOP primary voter will remember down the road is that McCain supported this legislation and it bore his imprimatur. So in an ironic twist, the debate performance also sealed McCain's fate. So I agree with Mark I's larger point, and am even a participant in an office pool as to when McCain drops out of the primary.