Is Brownback "Bad on Immigration"?
McCain-Kennedy Revisited
By Leon H Wolf Posted in 2008 — Comments (77) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
First off, apologies to all for the level of 2008 content. Blame it on the recess, and the recent election. Second, as everyone surely knows by now, I'm an ardent Brownback supporter, so let that color your judgment however it will. However, I wrote this piece back before I had any such axe to grind, and I still think the analysis contained therein is valid today.
The primary point of this post is to answer criticisms (heard frequently) that Brownback is not an acceptable Presidential candidate because he is "bad on immigration." By that, people mean that he voted for the McCain-Kennedy bill, which is generally derided as an "amnesty proposal" or a "horrible immigration bill." These characterizations are simply false, as I will attempt to lay out below the fold.
It is obvious to any that Sam Brownback is not a Tancredoite (or even nearly a Tancredoite) when it comes to immigration, and I'm not trying to claim that he is. However, the characterization of Brownback as someone who is "bad on immigration" is simply unfair, at least insofar as "bad on immigration" is not defined as any deviation from Tom Tancredo's platform.
More below...
Just by way of review, Brownback has been castigated for voting for a bill which required:
1. Requires the Commissioner of Social Security to set up a national electronic database to verify the legal status of all employees. (Sections 402 and 403, generally). The demands for this system are detailed, and leave the Commissioner with very little discretion.
2. Employers must affirmatively verify that every employee is legally entitled to work in this country. Failure to do so subjects the employers to double civil penalties (Section 406), and also subjects them for criminal penalties of up to five years. (Section 701(m)(1)).
3. No illegal immigrants who were not residents as of May 2005 are eligible to obtain nonimmigrant status under the bill. (Section 701(b)(1)).
4. Those who wish to obtain nonimmigrant status are required to pay a $1,000 fine, get a background check, and leave after six years. (Section 701(i)(3)(A)).
5. Those who wish to stay after the six year period must pay an additional $1,000, pay their back taxes, learn English, undergo a health exam, and educate themselves in American history and civics. (Section 702).
So - strict employer verification, $2,000 fine, learn English, no recent immigrants eligible for the program. I don't want to rehash all of my very lengthy analsysis from months ago, but suffice it to say, the bill was plenty sufficient to give an administration that was reasonably committed to immigration enforcment all the tools it needed to deal effectively with the problem of illegal immigration. Certainly, there remain questions about the level of enforcement, but those are executive questions, not legislative ones. In other words, the proper object of skepticism is not the bill which Brownback voted for, but rather the willingness of Bush to enforce any such bill with meaningful measures.
I want to also point out something that is very important about the electronic identification system, in particular. One of the great failings of the IRCA in 1986 was that (according to judicial construction) it required an employer who was supposed to verify the employment eligibility of an applicant to have actual knowledge that the documents were fake, and that an employer who merely had constructive knowledge* could not be held liable under IRCA. What this effectively meant was that it was effectively impossible to prove that an employer had violated IRCA, so long as he could prove that the employee showed him some document which purported to be valid, no matter how obviously preposterous or fake these documents were. McCain-Kennedy imposed an affirmative obligation upon the employer to electronically verify, and imposed what appaeared to be a strict liability standard for failing to do so. It is difficult to overstate the fundamental difference between a provision requiring actual knowledge and one which imposes strict liability. Insofar as there are complaints that the INS is still an inept organization, etc. etc. - those are not problems which can yet be laid at Brownback's feet. McCain-Kennedy was a plenty good bill.
As I said at the time, the one failing with the bill was that it did not have some sort of physical barrier or fence to go along with its many other good provisions. However, since Senator Brownback subsequently voted for a fence, I am not sure how he can be faulted for that. In fact, even the folks at ABI (who generally detest Brownback) grudgingly admit that Brownback has been a good Senator when it comes to border control issues. As far as I'm concerned, those are the most important ones.
Once again - if being an immigration stalwart is the first thing you look for in a candidate, then Brownback may not be your guy (I don't know who is, at this point, since we know virtually nothing of where most of the candidates stand on this). Jon Sandor, I know you're out there, and I know that Brownback probably never gets your vote. However, I don't think it's fair for those considering a broader spectrum of issues to dismiss Brownback because he's "bad" on immigration, based on the word of people who have generally not even read the legislation he is damned for supporting.
-------
*Constructive knowledge is a legal doctrine whereby actualy knowledge does not have to be proved, because the law assumes that a person knows the fact in question, based on information available to him at the time, even if it cannot be proven that he actually knew. This doctrine applies in a lot of contexts both criminal and civil. It is relevant to the current discussion because under IRCA, the SSA sent out a bunch of booklets describing what social security cards and other valid identifications were supposed to look like - watermarks, formatting, etc. In the wake of IRCA, the INS brought a lot of enforcement actions against employers who had accepted Social Security cards which were clearly fraudulent. The problem was that IRCA required that the employers have "knowledge" that the documents were fraudulent before penalties would attach. The INS argued that the courts should hold that the employers had constructive knowledge, since they had these books they could easily have looked in to determine that the IDs were fake, but the courts refused, and summarily stripped IRCA of much of its bite.
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Giuliani Fundraiser Disappoints — Comments (13) »
Is Brownback "Bad on Immigration"? 77 Comments (0 topical, 77 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
A well written piece.
It doesn't change how I feel on the immigration bill (if it doesn't require a return to Mexico, I won't like it) or how I feel about Brownback, but I did learn a few things.
social security benefits for those who had paid into it, these are stolen numbers!!! He and the rest of the GOP could not have knocked out that provision? They chose to vote knowing full well that was in there. I give no passes on a yes vote for a bill laden with give-aways to illegal's. I also am not foolish enough to buy into the the enforcement part either as there has been no enforcement of the laws already in place and so with this "new" bill all of a sudden the government will do the right thing, yeah right.
Peace through superior fire power:)
and identity theft--just described differently. I won't even get into the fire sale on American citizenship or the status adjustment issues.
Brownback is unfit to be in the Senate. I hope Kansas GOP primary voters send him that message after his pathetic single-digit presidential run.
Yes, except for the part where they have to pay their back taxes, and pay a $2,000 fine, it's just like amnesty.
In case it wasn't sufficiently clear in the OP, I know that there are certain people for whom nothing short of Tom Tancredo is acceptable, and this post was not intended for those people.
So, if you read the numerous provisions of this bill (or don't read them, which is more likely) and come away thinking, "Omigosh! Amnesty! I could never support a person like that!" please understand that this comment will be the only response from me on that subject.
------------
Fnord.
in prison wish they could have gotten out of trouble for document fraud, tax evasion, and identity theft for a $2,000 fine and payment of back taxes. Wow. What a tough, fine president this man would make.
I in fact did read the bill, and encourage everyone to do so. It was an atrocity. And I look forward to writing a check to Brownback's primary opponent if he runs for re-election. If I recall correctly, even the directors of this site came out against the Senate bill because it was so extreme.
As for Tancredo, no, I don't support him although he would be preferable to something like Brownback. In fact, I could support someone like Rudy with whom I disagree on immigration issues since he doesn't also support amnesty for felonies. My money is the good senator drops out long before the issue of his presidential nomination gets to Kansans.
I'll put money right now that if this amnesty ever goes into place the number of people who actually pay the fine could be counted on one hand. The do-gooders will argue that it poses an undue hardwhip on people just strting a new life in America and/or its unAmerican to put a pricetag on something as deeply meaningful as this; or some such nonsense. The Congress will create a special taxpayer fund using your monay to pay the fine for those that can't pay -- i.e. any and all illegals.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
Hats off to you, JSteele!
In 1995 I had my wallet stolen from a locker at Bally Health and Fitness. Fortunately I was quick to act and put a hold on all my accounts and notified the credit bureaus to block applications for instant credit (no thanks to Bally, by the way). Aside for my initial loss of some irreplaceable momentos that were in my wallet, I consider myself lucky. However, for the last 11 years, I've spent countless hours blocking fraudulent credit applications and navigating around my own roadblocks when I legitimately applied for credit. It has been more than a year since I've had someone try to steal my identity, but dadgummit ten years of this was horrific! And I still live in fear that someone will succeed in getting past my best efforts to keep my identity secure.
To think that any illegal alien who has put any American in the same situation as me or worse, perhaps even having ruined their credit or even caused the victim to be falsely arrested, can be absolved of this sort of crime for a pittance in the name of government expediency as a favor to corporate interests is an outrage.
And that's only one of my lesser concerns.
I read the bill. It was a mess and if it rises from the dead, it will cause an even greater mess, rife with fraud, that makes Simpson-Mazzoli look like an exercise in perfect government. Our Federal Government has not proved capable of managing such a complex, contrarian, unenforceable, costly boondoggle in my near-half-century on this earth. It will create the largest new component to our bloated bureaucracy since the Great Society. And we just do not know what the long-term effects will be to our economy, our culture and the location of the political center by which new law and policy is set. I cannot imagine the political center moving anywhere but significantly to the left if the Senate bill's provisions become law.
If you melted down Norman Mineta, decoded his DNA and turned it into legislation, you'd end up with something only about half as unfeasible and onerous as the Senate bill.
"It never hurts to remind those who would vote for your opponent to vote...on Wednesday" - TMYN Blog
We could get a heck of a lot more than $2k a head if we went that route. I'm thinking it could fetch 6 or maybe even 7 figures.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
If you restricted the auction to people who have lived in the United States since May of 2005, and made paying back taxes and learning English terms of the auction, you just might not.
------------
Fnord.
So crossing here illegally and working here illegally counts in their favor? If we are going to get into the business of selling US citizenship, I'd rather sell it to people who didn't already show their willingness to break our laws by coming into the country illegally, buying fraudulent documents, working under stolen identities, and not paying their taxes.
The $2000 isn't any kind of punishment. It is simply selling something for FAR under it's market value.
If I offer a car thief the chance (but not the obligation) to buy forgiveness for their crime, and the chance to keep that brand new Lexus they stole, if they are simply willing to pay a $5 fine, would you seriously consider that punishment? Do you think we might see a lot more stolen cars in coming months and years?
There's no way this thing can be sold as anything other than amnesty. I'm not a single issue voter so I could live with somebody who is bad on immigration (like the current occupant of the WH) as POTUS. But I don't see how McCain-Feingold can be spun as good by any stretch of the imagination.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
If we are going to get into the business of selling US citizenship, I'd rather sell it to people who didn't already show their willingness to break our laws by coming into the country illegally, buying fraudulent documents, working under stolen identities, and not paying their taxes.
I don't think anybody, even Tamar Jacoby, wants America to get into the business of selling citizenship. I have heard the suggestion made that we ought to consider selling green cards via an auction. I can't say I deem this a worse idea than requiring would-be immigrants to win the DNA lottery, as we do now. At least with an auction the government would make some money. A green card, of course, does not confer the right to vote, and may be revoked if the immigrant breaks the law.
As for me, I, too would rather not give an advantage in the immigration process to anybody who has broken American laws. But I'd also rather not have 12 million illegal residents living amongst us. Unfortunately, we do.
I'm just pointing out that is what McCain-Kennedy did. And it sells it for much less than the market value. Some people are willing to pay $2-10k just to get brought here illegally, without a green card. They'd be willing to pay a lot more for citizenship.
As for those that are already here, enforce the employment law and that problem will take care of itself. If people who came here illegally for work can't get work, most of those will go back home. The rest, who are content to stay here with no job and no benefits, should be manageable for deportation.
I don't have much problem with the Pence plan specifically because it did require that everyone leave, go through a screening process, and have an employer sponsor them if they want to come back.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
we do not know how long these people have been in the country, or how much money they have made and how much in taxes they should have paid.
Given the way the US tax code works, and likely reported income of the typical illegal worker, we will probably have to give them money under the EITC. And I'm not joking when I say that.
I find it hard to believe that the same people who regard it as cruel and inhuman to deport illegal aliens will find it acceptable to fine poor Americans $2000.
Jon. I agree with the points you made in your post.
Sen. Brownback was an original co-sponsor of the McCain-Kennedy amnesty plan for illegal aliens.
A majority of Senate Republicans voted against S.6211. On the other hand, nearly every Senate Democrat voted for that bill which would have rewarded millions of illegal alien lawbreakers with legal status and a path to citizenship.
Though Cong. Tancredo is the only Republican mentioned by name as having a diffferent view with regard to illegal aliens than Sen. Brownback, far more Republicans than Cong. Tancredo have a sharply different view from Sen. Brownback about how to address the problem of illegal immigration.
Cong. Tancredo joined the overwhelming majority of House Republicans in strongly supporting H.R.4437. The approach of H.R.4437 was an enforcement first approach with no amnesty. Sen. Brownback's approach includes rewarding millions of illegal aliens with legal status and a path to citizenship. The overwhelming majority of House Republicans reject the Brwonback approach.
Sen. Jeff Sessions repeatedly called S.6211 an amnesty. Sen. Vitter called S.6211 an amnesty for ilegal aliens. They, like Cong. Tancredo, do not believe millions of illegal aliens should be rewarded with legal status and a path to citizenship.
I disagree with the contention that "we know virtually nothing of where most of the candidates stand on this". Senators Brownback, Hagel and McCain have all cast dozens of immigration-related votes, including many votes specifically related to illegal aliens. Cong. Hunter has probably cast scores of votes related to immigration during his time in the House. His approach, like Cong. Tancredo's, is that illegal aliens should not be given legal status and a path to citizenship. He strongly supported H.R.4437. Guiliani, Huckabee and Romney have all given many statements related to immigration.
Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Barbara Boxer, Diane Feinstein, Patrick Leahy, Charles Schumer and Barabara Mikulski all joined Sam Brownback in voting for S.6211. On the House side, the notion that illegal aliens should be given legal status and a path to citizenship is supported by Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Charles Rangel and John Conyers. All of them voted against the bill, H.R.4437, that Cong. Tancredo and the overwhelming majority of House Republicans suppported. During 2006, approximately one hundred and five (105) members of the House were also members of the Immigration Reform Caucus chaired by Cong. Tancredo, including approximately four (4) Democrats. His approach to illegal immigration is supported by dozens of Republicans in the House.
Sen. Brownback seeks to reward millions of illegal aliens that have intentionally violated federal immigration laws against illegal entry with legal status and a path to citizenship.
www.smashleftwingscum.com, www.tancredo.org and www.tancredo4prez.blogspot.com
Brownback is bad on immigration. I was an early supporter of his until he announced his support for the amnesty plan.
An amnesty it is. Or call it a slap on the wrist program if you like. Why have any citizenship component to it at all? If its truly supposed to be a guest worker program, let them work and then go home. So its clearly more than a guest worker program. And here is where I can't support those who propose this. Including mr. brownback.
At the swift packing plant out west, there are lines of Americans out the door to apply for jobs previously held by the illegals. This proves the falsity of yet another lie, that they are jobs Americans won't do. So perhaps we need a lot fewer "guest workers" than we currently have in this country.
Brownback is very wrong on immigration.
I fear that I must agree with Bob on this one, Leon.
Ten million new Latino citizens will have immense consequences. Their presence here in the United States itself is hugely consequential, inasmuch as their (many) children born here are automatic U.S. citizens, forever. In 1965, the U.S. was nearly 90 percent white. Today the figure approaches 70 percent -- and more chillingly, the figure for small children, 60 percent. Those small children are the U.S. population of tomorrow and, Leon, it doesn't stop there. 50 percent, 40 percent, 30 percent, 20 percent, 10 percent status are all coming for U.S. whites.
This isn't immigration; it's genocide.
Mr. Brownback has committed no unpardonable sin by making a serious mistake on the immigration bill, but he needs clearly to understand that it was a serious mistake. I do not think that he does understand this.
I support the view explained here. I think that you and Mr. Brownback should, too.
This isn't immigration; it's genocide.
That is hyperbole we don't appreciate around here. Words have real meanings. "Genocide" certainly does. And that statement is out of line.
I don't think noting the inexact use of the word "genocide" captures the truly offensive and unacceptable elements of the post involved.
It's a nice hook on which to hang, though, don't you think?
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
It's so far past the line, the line is now a myth.
I have no idea why the first guy on the scene isn't banning you outright for that line, but let's just say if I'm the first guy on the scene the next time you trot out that kind of silliness, it'll be the last thing you post here. We cool?
-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.
"In 1965, the U.S. was nearly 90 percent white. Today the figure approaches 70 percent -- and more chillingly, the figure for small children, 60 percent."
I think this pretty well sums up where the anti-immigration folks are coming from. Most bother to put on a bit of veneer ("our culture" or "our traditions") but every once in a while someone comes right out and puts it on the table.
The not-so-subtle accusations of racism towards a large portion of the GOP and users of this site. I don't care what color illegal immigrants are, or where they are from, if they are illegal, they shouldn't be here. And we should not be rewarding them for their law breaking. That only encourages more law breaking by people hoping to get in on the next one. Or people hoping to get in on this one by using fake documents to retroactively move their residency date back.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
The poster above obviously does care about color. His horror at having brown skinned children in this country is explicit. He doesn't express any distinction between little brown skinned children that get here legally versus those that are here illegally; he's just concerned that the country is not as white as it used to be.
That's not subtle racism. That's explicit racism. It has nothing to do immigration laws or violating laws. It has everything to do with not wanting more non-whites in this country.
In my opinion, many opponents to immigration share the same concern, but are more politic in revealing their prejudices. I may be wrong, but so long as folks are basing the case against immigration on what the percentage of whites in this country is, you might expect someone to take note. I have a right to my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.
Your comment generalized from that one person, to others. That's where you went too far.
And again, in your last paragraph, you did it!
Prove it or go crawl back to the DU.
--
Run like Reagan!
I have some significant exposure to how legal brown skinned hispanics get treated by people with a bee in their bonnet on this issue, which informs my opinion, but it's not something I can produce reliable statistical or judicial proof on. It's an opinion. You can't prove or disprove opinions. I may be wrong, and you are certainly entitled to your own opinion based on your own experiences.
I don't know what the DU is, btw.
the comment says nothing about illegals, it explicitly says citizens. This is why siding with the tough immigration advocates often leaves me feeling like I need a shower.
I'm with Thomas on this.
He's right about that poster, but he was wrong from here:
I think this pretty well sums up where the anti-immigration folks are coming from.
He took this one guy and generalized to others unfairly.
--
Run like Reagan!
I take issue when people applies a motive of racism to anyone who supports a particular position (or almost anyone who supports a particular position).
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
what he did any more offensive that those who accuse people with a different view on immigration of "selling out our culture" or some such nonsense.
I suppose you can cherrypick just about anyone's commentary for things to be upset about but he's right on the poster in question and he's right about the motives of a lot of those adhering to a hardcore anti-immigration view.
To tar a whole group of people with accusations of racism based on their position on an issue? That will certainly take the level of discourse down a few notches. This is every bit as bad as those on the the other side of being "quislings." Something that, IMO, shouldn't be accepted or defended either.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
that isn't what is being said in the least. I think you cherrypicked one sentence out of two long posts to fire up your outrage-o-meter. If the global low-immigration=racism argument had reappeared then I'd be with you. But he didn't.
Just as an experiment, though, count the number of posts bashing this guy and the number bashing the guy he responded to who equated immigration on non-whites to genocide.
Count the number of posts defending racism guy and the number of posts defending genocide guy. And no, I was not defending genocide guy in the least.
He has made that racism accusation again and again... in at least 3 or 4 separate postings in this story alone. This is not an isolated occurrence:
I have some significant exposure to how legal brown skinned hispanics get treated by people with a bee in their bonnet on this issue, which informs my opinion, but it's not something I can produce reliable statistical or judicial proof on. It's an opinion. You can't prove or disprove opinions. I may be wrong, and you are certainly entitled to your own opinion based on your own experiences.
I just thought it was inappropriate to tar at least half the readers of this blog with the "racist" brush. I thought RS standards were much higher than that. I guess I was wrong, since apparently this kind of behavior earns the defense of the mods.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
with the quote you pulled. How in the world does recognizing the obvious make you, personally, a racist or people who want our laws enforced racist?
It doesn't.
If the statement doesn't apply to you, and I would be shocked if it did, I don't see why you should be upset by his stating the obvious.
Now you may know the readers on this site better than I but I really doubt that half of them discriminate against Hispanic citizens, or Hispanics in general, because they feel our immigration policy is looney. Because I agree with you on immigration and I don't feel offended by a single thing he's said.
The comments shouldn't apply to me or half of the RS audience but he chooses to apply it to us with statements like this:
I have some significant exposure to how legal brown skinned hispanics get treated by people with a bee in their bonnet on this issue
Now "have a bee in their bonnet about this issue" is open to some interpretation, but I would interpret that to include anybody who cares a good deal about this issue. That would be a very large population of people he is tarring with the racist brush, since illegal immigration ranks up there on the list of concerns.
Since illegal immigration is also on my lists of concerns, and not at the bottom, I would assume that applies to you and me as well. I just don't like being called a racist when I'm not one.
I don't think it's helpful to throw that accusation around just because some troll came on here to make a racist point, any more than it would be helpful to tar everyone on the other side as "quislings" if some random troll came on and made comments about how the southwest belongs to Mexico and should be returned to Mexico by any means possible.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman
I was trying to follow Moe Lane's suggestion that we lay off this, and besides Streiff was being more eloquent that I am capable of being, but since the topic has not completely died:
My statements were overbroad. Not all people concerned about the immigration issue are racists. To the extent I spoke badly and wrongly, I apologize, and wish to be more clear.
There are non-racists who have a legitimate concern about our territorial integrity. They feel, legitimately in my opinion, that the least a real country ought to do is control its own borders. Some, but not all, of those with this concern would be happy with much higher levels of legal immigration.
There are non-racists who object to rewarding law breakers. Again, they may not object to immigration by folks of any particular racial or ethnic background, but they do have a problem with jumping to the front of the line people who lied, cheated and sometimes stole to get across the border. Again, I think this is a legitimate concern.
There are non-racists who have other legitimate concerns about the immigration process. I won't try to catalog them all, but there are other legitimate reasons to be concerned that immigration happen legally, not illegally.
There are non-racists who want a lower level of immigration. They aren't worked up about the ethnicity of those coming in, legally or illegally, but want to take care first of those already in this country. I tend to disagree with their preference on the level of immigration, but I recognize that many of them are pure of heart and well intentioned.
Then, there are racists. We had one in this thread. He got called out for misusing the word genocide, but none of the non-racist folks concerned about immigration issues saw fit to challenge his racist argument. That bothered me.
He fits, sadly, into a long tradition in this country of injecting racial concerns into immigration issues. We've had country quotas that were explicitly racially driven. We've had a consanguinity system that had a strong racial subtext. We have people opposing raising legal immigration levels based on the racial characteristics of those who might come in. It's not new, and it's part of the immigration debate landscape. You can trace it from the Know Nothing party that thought Irish immigration would bring the country down, to early twentieth century activists successfully working to cut off immigration from Asia, down to some of the folks engaged today.
Then, there are racists who may not realize they are racists. They express it terms of culture or historical norms, but, in some cases, what they don't like is the prospect of a non-white America. Some of them - not all of them - are disturbed by a picture of a nation of small-d democratic, flag loving, barbecue eating, NASCAR watching folks who look unlike the European stock that dominates today. Some of these people don't even realize what it is about the picture of the future that bothers them; they just know it bothers them.
These are some of the circles we can throw down on a Venn diagram chart relating to the immigration issue. They don't overlap completely. They aren't all the same size. No one, so far as I know, has good data that would allow us to say how big each circle is or how complete the overlap.
I have an opinion - I think there is more racism going on om the anti-immigration movement than some other people here think. I don't think that based on one post from someone that I believe does not represent the Redstate value system. I think that based on real life observations and first hand stories related to me, all of which by their nature are anecdotal and unreliable. All the same, they are what I have to go on. I think that guy was explicit; I think some other people in that movement have their engine revved by some of the same concerns.
I don't mean to attribute that to anyone particular at Redstate. It's never really very easy or proper to make judgments on other people, and it's pretty much impossible online. To the extent anyone thought I was talking about them specifically (other than the guy who wrote the post at issue), please understand that I did not intend to single you out.
So there we are. I shouldn't have written words that implied I was talking about every anti-immigration activist. To the extent I wrote words that could be read to apply to a startlingly high number of anti-immigration activists, that is indeed my opinion, which is only one guy's opinion and which might be wrong.
Fair enough, as long as we all recognize that one doens't have to be anti-immigration like Tancredo to be anti-illegal immigration, anti-'comprehensive reform,' and anti-Brownback.
--
Run like Reagan!
In discussing immigration on other sites, I encounter a lot of people who are explicit about the fact they they support Mexican immigration because they hate blacks. I'm not going to make the leap and suggest that all immigration fans think that way, but the sentiment is certainly out there.
In light of which, its worth noting that their are plenty of "brown-skinned people" who take the supposedly racist line on this question. Among them are Michelle Malkin, LaShawn Barber, and Tom Sowell. The last is also an economist, and the economic arguments against our current immigration policies strike me as so overwhelming that its hard to understand how anyone on the right supports it.
Diversity can be very divisive. Look at Iraq. Look at the balkans. Is your head in the sand?
So what is the advantage to the United States for white Americans to become a minority in their own country? Is it a good thing? Is the balkanization of the United States a good thing? Is this what your goal is?
Is it a good thing for the black community to become the second minority group in the United States? Is this your goal? Why?
Our culture has been dominated by the old English, though there were pockets of spanish and french influence. They are quite different whether in law or anything else. Is it a good thing to completely revise the culture with such a huge influx of people from a spanish cultural decent?
Further, all this being done without our vote, or the vote of our elected officials, but by people illegally coming into this country. No controls, no screenings, no plan so far as I am aware of. Is this to be imposed on us? By whom?
Part of why the melting pot worked and assimilation worked in the past is because the influx of immigrants was controlled at a level that allowed it to work. And the people coming wanted to be Americans, not to remain irish or dutch or whatever they were. Many if not most illegals have clearly shown they don't want to be like that. They have stated they want to bring Mexico here.
It's time folks like you were put on the defensive. What really is your goal? Do you want the whites to be a minority in their own country? Blacks to be a second class minority? Why?
Is your goal to evade US labor laws by bringing in illegals and then exploiting them? If you hire american citizens, will you have to pay a legal wage and legal benefits?
Do you want to make a mockery of US law to pursue some "international law"? Is your goal to destroy the sovereignty of the United States? A great power by definition has to control its borders. Do you harbor ill against the United States?
No more of that racism garbage. Why don't we hear what you really think?
I recognize and respect that RedState's editors have the right, even the responsibility, to set bounds on debate in their forum. I think that they have made clear that they feel that I passed those bounds today. I might have chosen another word than "genocide." Accept my apology at least for this.
Bob, if you would e-mail me off-line through my RedState contact link, I would appreciate it.
It's always been with us.
In 1965, the U.S. was nearly 90 percent white. Today the figure approaches 70 percent -- and more chillingly, the figure for small children, 60 percent. Those small children are the U.S. population of tomorrow and, Leon, it doesn't stop there. 50 percent, 40 percent, 30 percent, 20 percent, 10 percent status are all coming for U.S. whites.
Actually, it's just as much the effect of whites' aversion to having babies as it is a matter of immigration. Even if immigration were ended, the percentage of the the US population that is non-white would continue to grow for many years. As it stands now, most projections predict that caucasians will dip below 50% of the US population not long after the midpoint in this century. I don't see what the big deal is. If, when you talk about how "chilling" this is, what you're really voicing is your fear of America's traditional European heritage being lost (a valid worry in my view), it seems to me perfectly obvious that, for the most part, it is the descendants of these same Europeans, and not the descendants of hard-working Guatemalans or South Koreans, who stand on the commanding heights of the post-modernist Movement to Subvert America's Traditional National Culture.
Anyway, I give the Left's chances of maintaining a near monopoly of Hispanic votes moving forward from 2006 about the same odds I would of its doing the same with Greeks and Poles moving forward from 1906. Which is to say very slim odds indeed. The sundry inadequacies and lunacies of leftist philosophy -- combined with its penchant for overreach -- in my view guarantee a competitive environment for the votes of the descendants of today's developing world immigrants over the long term.
When it's your "demographic" that's being pushed out, it's pretty chilling. Ask the previous occupants of the United States how well mass immigration worked out for them. Or ask the former black and white ("Anglo," as we are called) residents of Southern California. Or ask the long-time residents of Colorado and Idaho who've been displaced by all the people fleeing California. People bring their loyalties and cultures with them. These can be erased, sometimes, assuming the host society has the will and numeric preponderance to do so, but as you point out, this is a society that lacks such will, suffering from the same loss of nerve (pace the American triumphalists) since WWI as the rest of European civilization, and is rapidly losing numeric preponderance in any event. Indeed, perversely, any demonstration of such self-assertion results in a torrent of vicious calumny toward the speaker and rapid exile to the outer darkness. Well, only in some instances, of course. It's all well and good for Ray Nagin to wish that New Orleans should remain a "chocolate city," but the statement that America should remain predominantly European is apparently ineffably wicked. I suppose this is all fabulous if you are, or fancy yourself, so secure that you can view the sweep of history as if from the empyrean heights of globalization. You probably can even make a percentage from the immiseration of the "labor force", err... increasing efficiencies, and can taste diverse ethnic food everywhere you go! For the rest of us, not so fortunate, or whose relatives are not so fortunate, it's hard to view our displacement with the same equanimity as we might that of some lost tribe. To the contrary, it just feels like we're being screwed - that we're living in a country being made foreign, that isn't a country at all anymore, just a place between borders where people come from everywhere else to make money.
-------------------------------------------------------------
social order depends upon reasons that will never be grasped as reasons by the overwhelming majority of the people, and hence must be protected and enforced as dogma. -- "Maximos"
Well, I'm not known as a fan of Brownback :) but I do agree with his position on this issue. Then again, I'm a McCain supporter so I'm happy to see his bill being supported on this site.
I really do think that this issue could be the GOP's undoing for a long time if it's alowed to get out of hand and I really hope that doesn't happen.
Brownback would be A-ok with me if he were not an open border, pro-amnesty advocate. It's a little early in the 2008 contest to be pretending he is something he is not.
There is a pretty exhaustive analysis of his stand on immigration issues here.
http://profiles.numbersusa.com/improfile.php3?DistSend=KS&VIPID=317
He shows up a lot cosponsoring such legislation as the "DREAM" bill which provides for in-state tuition for illegal aliens; in other words they get a break that US citizens from other states do not. His record is not all bad, but it is far from being acceptable to even moderate conservatives on immigration, especially this early in the contest.
And no, that is not the opinion only of those who "haven't read" legislation. This kind of ad hominem nonsense will not win you recruits any more than another attempt to explain why amnesty isn't really amnesty.
For those of you who won´t support Sen. Brownback because of immigration, I have to ask which GOP candidate you can support.
Former Mayor Giuliani supports gun control, abortion and gay marriage.
Sen. McCain wrote the immigration bill, along with campaign finance deform, and oh by the way was the leader of the Gang of 14.
Gov. Romney has a ludicrous explanation of his changes on abortion, gay marriage, and stem-cell research, as even the scientist with whom he met has a different account of the single conversation that supposedly caused him to do a 180 on all those issues.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/12/17/romne...
Full disclosure: I have contributed to Sen. Brownback´s campaign but do not serve his campaign in a paid capacity. (This pass the RedState ethical hurdle?)
For those of you who won´t support Sen. Brownback because of immigration, I have to ask which GOP candidate you can support.
To be brutally frank, there isn't one of them to whom I could consider throwing my support; and I was pulling for Brownback until he voted for the McCain-Kennedy legislation.
I was conservative before I became Republican.
My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.
...the immigration restrictionist faction is about to get a rather painful lesson on why it's not a good idea to overly deemphasize the latter in favor of the former. In this case, they're going to lose everything that they gained, a little bit more besides, and have what they can gain sharply curtailed.
Not my fault; I merely foretell.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
If I fight for my principle and I lose, then at least when things get bad, I'll know I tried.
If I give in and 'win', then when the same things happen, I'll have been a co-conspirator.
--
Run like Reagan!
We are here to argue about what we think should be done, on all sorts of issues. The electorate seem to have rejected our views on Iraq and the wider war. I'm not about to say "Well, I guess I was wrong, time to shut up" on that, and I suspect neither are you.
If you would care to make an argument that the Senate "comprehensive immigration bill" is good for the party or the country, I'm all ears.
In this case, they're going to lose everything that they gained, a little bit more besides, and have what they can gain sharply curtailed.
Well, they "gained" exactly nothing, so I'm unclear what you think they will lose.
It's entirely possible that Bush will join with the Democrats is pushing through a liberal immigration bill. The consequences of that on all sorts of fiscal and polical questions are entirely predictable, and are all bad. The neocons will lose, the fical cons will lose, the classical liberals will lose, the libertarians will lose, we will all lose. This strikes me as indisputable, largely because I never see anyone dispute it.
If you want to join in the discussion, fine, If you don't, fine. Repeatedly asserting that the discussion is pointless/foolish, not very useful.
...encourages you folks to stop having it. The time for strategy is over, Jon. Now is the time to play defense, hold on and wait for the other side to make a mistake.
I say this with no malice in my heart.
Moe
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.
But as with the war, we can take recent setbacks in one of two ways. Either as a reason to shut up, or as a reason why we need to articulate our position more persuasively.
None of us would blog or comment if we thought what we said was unproductive or counterproductive. I admit we can sometimes be wrong in making that assessment.
even perfectly pellucid in owning my loyalties, this is, for me - no allusions to a favourite lefty talking point intended - all about the nature of the nation in which my children and grandchildren will grow up, which will be quantifiably worse under the aspects I mentioned in my original comment in this thread, not to mention the balkanization of an increasingly multicultural, multilingual society. I don't care to win if "winning" entails personal complicity in the enactment of policies which not only violate my principles, but serve as a prolepsis of future ills. If that means that my only satisfaction in this particular regard will be that of an old curmudgeon who is able to shout, "I told you so!" thirty years hence, so be it. I choose defeat with honour, as I understand the latter.
And no, I don't write with the intention of conveying snark. I fully accept that the planets have aligned to give me, and those who share my convictions on the matter, a thorough a$$-whupping; I knew this months before the election when it became menifest to me that the GOP would lose the Congress, although not on account of immigration-related obstreperousness. Accepting fate doesn't mean I can't curse fate.
My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.
Things looks pretty bleak for 2008 in terms of our choices. We can only hope that Hillary wins the nomination, and then lets the moderate facade slip enough for people to see her for the leftwing extremist she truly is. Then we'll have to hope that our guy turns out better than expected.
Tancredo or Gingrich? And I still haven't heard much about lesser-known candidates like Thompson or Hunter.
Please do not join the Romney-McCain-Giuliani game of "The others are worse!" Wouldn't it be nice to have a candidate we'd LIKE to rally behind? Isn't it early enough in the process that we can still look?
You asked a fair question, that's a straightforward answer. Nobody is perfect. I have a "heirarchy of issues" that will determine who gets my modest contributions and support in the future, but amnesty is near the top. (#1 is national security and the GWOT).
Like someone mentioned below, I was enthusiastic about Brownback until he became a strong proponent of amnesty. Maybe he can undergo a miraculous conversion as so many candidates do when the race heats up. I long ago resigned myself to the reality that there are no ideal candidates other than boutique candidates that cannot compete in the mass market. Too dang bad Santorum lost his Senate race though.
You don´t need to have a candidate a year out. It has simply been frustrating to me that many have attacked the Senator from Kansas much more than any other candidate in the race because of the position he has taken on this issue while ignoring the major problems with the other candidates. While I strongly disagree with the Senator´s position on illegal immigration, I don´t think that that position should disqualify him from consideration when he has been such a strong leader on so many other issues of importance to conservatives. I find it especially troublesome that many of them are the same people who constantly vilify "single-issue" voters for not backing liberal Republicans because of their positions on things like abortion and gay marriage.
I'm honored by your faith in me.
I've been deliberately not blogging on the immigration question, but if there are still people who imagine that the Senate "comrehensive immigration reform bill" (which was rejected by the majority of GOP Senators and virtually all its Representatives) was a good thing, then I'm clearly being a bit too silent.
Red State itself opposed the bill, IIRC. Don't tell me you are calling the rest of the editors, and most GOP Congressmen, "Tancredoites"? (Which I gather is not a term of endearment by the people who employ it.)
amount on the immigration question over the course of the foregoing year, and find myself increasingly weary of the debate, for reason of the fact that despite the enormous amounts of animosity that are generated, no opinions are ever altered.
So far as I can determine, the matter is quite elementary:
1. This has nothing to do with contempt for the "Other", despite the attempts of some to reduce this to a question of hatred of, or openness to, people of colour.
2. I want the opportunity to bequeath to my children and grandchildren the culture I inherited from my parent's generation - what little remains of it, that is. Mass immigration will preclude the realization of this natural and healthy human interest, effectively disinheriting me and mine. In our own country.
3. I do not wish America to endure a period of increasing economic stratification, which is the unavoidable consequence of the importation of the tens of millions of low-skill labourers. How's stratification working out for Latin America? Oh, yes, that's why so many Latin Americans are immigrating to America. No thanks.
4. I do not wish my children, and future generations of conservatives, to be compelled by entirely foreseeable and preventable circumstances, either to struggle vainly and inefficaciously against an increasingly leftist political culture, the miasmic compound of indigenous Latin American leftism and American multiculturalism, or to capitulate to the glorious, shining future of "inevitable" cultural "evolution".
My harp is turned to mourning, and my organ shall speak with the voice of them that weep. Spare me, O Lord, for my days are truly as nothing.
John
--------
Ethnic humor is part of human nature. The Dutch tell Belgian jokes. The Belgians tell French jokes. The French tell English jokes. The English tell Irish jokes. The Irish tell Irish jokes.
Leon, your "this piece" link is not working.
Not sure what's up with that.. try this, and then scroll up.
------------
Fnord.
I can access your blog postings, so if its in there and you tell me the title I should be able to find it.
Try this. The title is "McCain-Kennedy: A Good Bill
Or, In Which I Don my Asbestos Shorts"
------------
Fnord.
I'd guess that certain files or directories have different attributes set for the editors vs the commenters. Maybe Clayton can have a look.
I was able to find a cached copy in google, but the original is still off limits to me and I assume to the whole Internet.
The 1986 IRCA proposal was no less harsh on employers or on illegal immigrants than S2611. The problem with the IRCA wasn't its language. The problem is that the only part of it that actually happened was the amnesty part!! The enforcement provisions were ignored, and continue to be to this very day. Why in the world would anyone think a new bill would do anything when 90% of the last one was almost completely ignored?
Brownback needs realize that the American citizenry isn't as gullible as he wants us be and that we won't fall for another immigration bait (real enforcement + amnesty) and switch (just amnesty).
The McCain-Kennedy bill is an amnesty, and is a horrible immigration bill.
First of all, the English requirement is a joke. It was put in the bill in order to give it some 'tough' points, but seeing as how the English requirement for citizenship is not enforced today, then why would we expect it to be with another layer of legislation, especially if enforcment is left up to atrocious-on-immigration 2008 frontrunners like McCain, Giuliani, and Clinton?
But the worst thing about that bill is that it is deeply misleading and deceptive (at least in the way its champions in Congress and the media sell it), loaded with one euphemism after another. The amnesty part has been talked about plenty, but even worse is how the bill hides what would be massive, enormous increases in permanent legal immigration under the guise of 'temporary guest worker plans.' All legalized illegals who become 'guests', and those who come legally from the get go as 'guests' will be allowed to stay permanently if they choose, and they will be allowed (even while still technically 'guests') to bring their families with them. So from the actual 'guests' we will be looking at hundreds of thousands additional permanent legal immigrants per year. The family members of the 'guests' will add many thousands more, and once they all become permanent, then the explosive nature of extended-family chain migration will really take off. Taking all of this together will equal tens of millions more permanent legal immigrants on top of those that would be admitted under current law.
We never hear McCain, Kennedy, Reid, Hagel, Martinez, Boxer, the mainstream media, et al, bragging about that little nugget do we? Why is that I wonder? Why don't they think that's something we rubes should be informed of of before such a monstrous bill becomes law? If not for the admirable efforts of Senator Sessions (who was smeared by the Washington Post for daring to point this stuff out) and the Heritage Foundation, then the truth wouldn't have got what little attention it did get.
And I found it very interesting that the one time I heard any of the sponsors of the bill asked about its unadvertised effects on the amount of future legal immigration, he (Senator Martinez) said that it was not the intent of the bill to do so! Well, if that is so, then why did they craft a bill that not only allows it, but actually encourages it?
What are the proponents of this bill so afraid of? Why do they feel they must repeat the shameful history of the 1965 reform bill, where virtually every promise made by its sponsors turned out to be false? Why can't the new crowd, led by McCain and Kennedy (and Kennedy...that alone should give pause to any person not on the far-left), just be honest about their goals and agenda? Why can't they just say that their way of dealing with illegal immigration is to so greatly increase legal immigration to the point where we admit pretty much everyone who wants to come and who would otherwise come illegally? So what if that means a doubling or tripling of current mass levels? Sure, the American people don't want that (they prefer reductions over increases), but since when does public opinion matter in setting immigration policy? And the proponents of increased and never-ending mass immigration have have a lot with which to combat public opinion, such as the fact that most prominent members of Congress, and the mainstream media are on their side.
Honesty and transparency are more preferable than deception. We can all agree on that, can't we? Don't the American people deserve to know what they are getting into? Wouldn't it be better for them to know that they are about to sign off on a gigantic increase in permanent legal immigration, rather than finding out years later?
Better someone closer to your position says it first: McCain/Kennedy is not the bill the Senate passed. They passed instead the Hagel/Martinez 'compromise,' heavily amended (and re-amended, and unamended, and show amended...).
--
Run like Reagan!
Brownback supported an amnesty bill. He also voted for Medicare Part D, which added prescription drugs to Medicare regardless of need. Both of these votes are huge black marks on an otherwise excellent record.
I admire Brownback for his actions during the Harriet Miers fiasco and for his obvious concern for women's safety and African lives.
However, I fear that he's more a "compassionate conservative" in the mold of George W. Bush rather than a true fiscal conservative. And we need somebody unlike "W" to have a chance in 2008.
I'm lovin' all the 2008 stuff. Keep it a comin'!