Plutocracy and defiance.
By Paul J Cella Posted in Immigration — Comments (85) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
I’ve been waiting since about the autumn of 2004 — when it seemed clear to me that Bush would defeat an invincibly dreadful Democratic nominee, though in fact that election turned out to be much closer than I expected — for Conservatives to create some distance between themselves and President Bush. It took until spring 2007: two and a half years. And plenty of damage has been done in the meantime.
But at least it’s finally happening; and better still, the catalyst for this is mass immigration. Republicans are recovering their senses, and they are recovering them when and where it really matters.
Read on.
There is something admirable, even from my position of skepticism, in Bush’s dogged determination to defend a deeply unpopular war that he believes in. But it is beyond question that this determination, however admirable, is dragging down both the man and his party. And now, of the issue of immigration, it seems to me that doggedness has drifted decidedly into the realm of perversity: Bush is taking his stand on a prominent bill against about three fourths of the people of the Republic. The public opinion of the Senate immigration bill is a demonstration that something remains of American common sense: it has 25% support. Twice that number remain implacably opposed, and 74% believe that the bill will increase rather than decrease illegal immigration. These are staggering figures.
The depth and vigor of the opposition to this bill of dispossession and transformation also throws some light on the hysterics of the proponents who rush to the charge of bigotry. Some commentators have even openly averred, or at least implied, that a man who does not support the bill, much less one who works actively against it, is an anti-Mexican racist: Half the population of America at least; and perhaps as much as three-fourths.
There is no other word for such stridency than anti-American.
There is a plutocracy at work on this issue: an alliance of multicultural Left and corporate Right against the people themselves. It is alarming to watch this plutocracy at work; its power is considerable, its methods devious and thuggish, and its ability to intimidate (as evidenced by the sullen, brassbound and lackluster press coverage of an issue that has provoked more democracy, strictly speaking, than any in recent memory) disquieting. Were it not for recent innovations in republican discourse — blogs and talk radio — this whole huge usurpation might be accomplished with barely a whimper.
It may yet be accomplished, alas: but at least if it is, posterity will know that Americans did not roll over, supine like the press that claims to speak for them. They did not yield to the incessant browbeating to fall in line with a subtle anti-Americanism that calls patriotism mere bigotry. Harried and despised by glowering plutocracy, the Republic answered as best she could, with defiance and independence of spirit.
The enemies of the Republic, they will say, for a time wrote her most vital laws concerning identity and citizenship and sovereignty; subversives and incorrigible malcontents were her lawgivers. But the Republic did not forget that an unjust law is no law at all.
« Federal Jobs Illegal Immigrants Can’t Do — Comments (12) | Jeb Bush, Ken Mehlman: Illegal Aliens Will Vote Republican — Comments (68) »
Plutocracy and defiance. 85 Comments (0 topical, 85 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Two big megaphones pointing down at the people from above. Two separate monologues.
Both designed for the same purpose, and both saying the same thing:
Don't look from the oppositions position. There is no truth to it. They are Fascists/Communists. Keep fighting your neighbor.
While they steal our Liberty.
Is the idea that bills are passed by opinion polls and not by the Congress.
There may or may not be a lot to dislike about the bill but it will not be passed by some vague "plutocracy" it will be passed by Senator and Representatives who are answerable to the alleged 70+ percent who are opposed to the bill. If they aren't worried it tells you more about the veracity of the poll than it does about the state of the Republic.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I would beg to disagree with you as opinion polls are polls of Americans and their "opinions" on the issue and if 70+ percent of the American public does not want their Senators to vote for this bill then that is the will of the electorate. I would also say that polling on matters of war are different in that most people do not have the stomach for long term engagement and their opinions will change over time however with the illegal immigration bill those opinions have not changed the Republicans in the Senate have become "smarter, more elite or just plain ignorant" and the polls will be indicative of who will stay and who will go in the next election.
to disagree if you wish but that doesn't take away from the fact that the bill is probably going to pass, I would wager comfortably so, and 70+% against it means that the Dem base doesn't like it either.
Let's face it. If this was being done in favor of some issue we all like we'd hail it as a triumph of political courage. But it is being done in favor of something we don't like and it is a 'plutocracy' and 'un-American.'
I disagree. If the opposition is this widespread and the bill still passes the Congress and the President have more huevos than I ever gave them credit for.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
"If they aren't worried it tells you more about the veracity of the poll than it does about the state of the Republic."
If.
Anyway, there certainly has never been a case where a bill was passed against the will of the people, for the benefit of the plutocracy. Impossible. The republican form of government forbids it.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
It is true that legislation is not decided directly by opinion polls, but our representatives should be mindful of the views of their constituent, and it is not un-American to point this out.
By the way, it has been observed that the more closely someone has been following this debate the more likely it is that they are opposed to the "new path to citizenship":
read the article carefully.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
"If they aren't worried it tells you more about the veracity of the poll than it does about the state of the Republic."
Only 1/3rd of the Senate is up for re-election in 2008. The other 2/3rds of the Senators have a very long cooling off period before they have to face the voters again. Long experience has taught them that the public has a short memory.
But lets wait to see how the House handles this bill. Pelosi is on record as wanting the political cover of 70 guaranteed Republican votes before she will bring a comprehensive bill to a vote. I don't necessarily believe her about that but her statement is fairly strong evidence that she understands that shamnesty won't be very popular with the American people.
The House faces the electorate every two years. I'm not sure that they will be willing to pass a bill that runs contrary to the will of 70% of the electorate. I guess we will find out over the next 3 or 4 months. Everyone of those House seats that the Democrats won in 2006 in closely divided states is going to be challenged by Republicans in 2008.
I've noticed the reluctance that Fox News has to report on the immigration debate as well. The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes have instead devoted airtime to much more pressing issues such as the latest outrageous thing that Rosie O'Donnell said (WE DON'T CARE!), or devoting another precious hour of programming to the Don Imus controversy (ARE YOU RUNNING A NEWS NETWORK OR THE 'E' NETWORK?). I was watching when Frank Luntz was on H & C last night, and was proud of him for taking Fox to task for ignoring this issue. As for why Fox would do this, at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist my guess is that it is for two basic reasons:
1. The majority of the Republicans at Fox are of the "chamber of commerce" variety that love the cheap labor illegal immigration brings. They don't want to amplify the voices of opposition to the amnesty bill.
2. They don't want to allow an interview to air where a Republican is excoriating Bush. It makes Bush look bad, much worse than if a Democrat criticizes him. In other words, Bush uber alles.
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
Haystack it appears that GWB has violated that commandment.
Wait a minute, never mind, to do that GWB would have to be considered a conservative.
Rather a good point, I think, and one to keep in mind as we contemplate the possibility of this bill passing. We are not in the position of the European masses, aphids to the governing elites' ants, and if the immigration bill becomes law over the objection of a majority of us, it will simply mean that the majority cares less than it says.
If the bill becomes law it will simply show that our government no longer bothers to pretend to care what the people think.
How will the bills passage show that "the majority cares less than it says"? How can the bills passage say anything at all about the majority? It is not as if the people have a choice or a say in the matter.
That must be paid attention to when the GOP distances itself from the President. He's dragging the party down, he's making incredibly poor political and policy decisions, he's bad-mouthing the voters who supported him while he's excessively polite to those on the left who want to destroy him, but still, 70% of GOP voters like him. I'm not sure Republicans are over the President yet.
I remember when Bush had 90+% support from Republicans and when a lot larger percentage of the electorate identified themselves as Republicans. He has a significantly smaller piece of a significantly smaller pie.
When the Republicans won in 1994, it was on new ideas/issues that polled above 60% in favor. In barely 13 years they are now trying to win on the opposite of those numbers.
Its gone from:
"here's our position, here's why we are right, and here's why you should join us,"
to
"what do you want, how can I give it to you, and is there anything else?"
When did the Republicans become the pander party?
noted here. When queried on the major points of the bill, the majority of the public is in support. Not to say that we should be guided by polls one way or the other, just saying that relying solely on Rasmussen does not paint a complete picture.
Bush on immigration is the same man as Bush on the Iraq War, the difference is which side you happen to fall on the issue. The other difference is that many conservatives are seeing what it feels like--perhaps for the first time--to be in opposition to the president's policies and to see how we're treated. The you're-either-with-me-or-against-me insult the other day is all too common, and it shows that he has become a divider, not a uniter, even among people in his own party.
it does strike me odd we can scream from the rooftops over an alleged majority AGAINST Iraq and then scream from the rooftops again over a minority FOR Immigration...guess the Dems gave us that new direction after all, huh?
We have a SERIOUS identity crisis going on these days
haystack's 12th:
Conservatives (and Presidential Candidates especially) shall offer no aid and comfort to the opposition in times of legislative conflict (and ensuing political campaigns).
The executive war functions are intended to give the president the power to overcome domestic opposition after a war has been declared. That was is by design.
That is not the case with enforcement of political sovereignty. It is a foundational princliple of the Nation-State. Without political sovereighnty there is no liberty. PERIOD. Does not exist.
...is that he asks a straightforward for-or-against the bill question. Instead of picking it apart, using the niftiest market-research lead-in phrasing, setting up false choices ("Either *insert long-winded focus-group tested euphemism for amnesty* or immidiate deportation. Pick one!"), and so on. On second thought, I kind of doubt that's really a problem.
Have you read the reader comments that go along with Medved's article?
They run about 99 to 1 in disagreement with his article and they absolutely shred his logic. There are very few of his points that merit serious consideration.
And interestingly, Rassmussen has a new poll that came out yesterday that specifically addresses the central premise of Medved's argument which is that people support the main provisions of the bill so they would support the bill itself if only the knew what was in it rather than reacting blindly to hysteria.
But Rassmussen tests that by finding that a very large percentage (81%) are following this bill/issue closely and they are not opposed to the bill not because they don't understand what it says but rather because they do understand it and a large majority believe it won't work to reduce immigration and a strong plurality even believe it will make the problem worse.
Whenever immigration is discussed, we almost always forget why immigration occurs: people have a better life where they are going, as opposed to from where they are coming.
The simple solution is to allow people to be poor, dreadfully poor, here in the US. If people were as poor here as they were from where they came, fewer people would come here. This would not completely stop the flow, because poor foreigners would recognize their next generation would be less poor, perhaps even rich, in the US even if they themselves were not.
However, we have decided that this can never happen in the richest country in history, so we will unfortunately never solve the immigration problem. I find it interesting to note that our social safety nets and government programs actually encourage immigration (legal and illegal) because people will live better here then there (wherever there is).
Then our working class people make more money based on market mechanisms.
And Mexico has to address it's issues of poor governance instead of using us as a relief valve.
I am really tired of seeing the same thing over and over about GWB. GWB is the same person that he has always been. He never ran on a radical right platform. Most of these postings act as if there has been some betrayal of the Conservative movement.
We had a choice between GWB and John McCain in 2000 and GWB was the more conservative candidate. GWB never promised to deport 12-15 million illegals. He never promised he would build a fence along the border with Mexico.
He promised to cut taxes
He promised to appoint conservative judges
He promised to be strong on national defense
He promised to have some accountability in classrooms
He said he was pro-life
He was for missle defense
He promised to be pro small business
The next GOP nominee will be McCain, Romney, Giuliani, in which none are more conservative than GWB.
It is time to come back to the real world and realize that the extreme right can stay home in 2008 and let Obama or Hillary be President and then you can moan even more or vote for the GOP nominee. But realize the GOP nominee will not promise to do things your way 100% of the time.
I am glad GWB called out the conservative critics on immigration. It was needed.
give illegals a Z-card and I would know if I had heard that. I am glad that you are glad GWB has called us on illegal immigration and I will be glad that you are glad when the Senators and House members who vote for this sell out of America to corporate interests and La Raza are voted out of office. I think you see that we the people will be calling out the faux conservatives in both houses as I am sure you recognize how democracy works.
I mostly saw the more conservative GOP candidates lose in 2006. Just ask JD Hayworth and few others.
But I assume you will blame their losses on GWB.
and a conservative Democrat won in Montana, Tester and you should perhaps read where he stands on illegal immigration. I will go candidate to candidate with you and show you that "most" of those who lost were not because they were conservatives. Each and every state had a particular reason for their voting and some of the time it was the blue dog democrat who was to the right of the faux republican. Oh and by the way don't assume anything that only makes, you know the rest. I do not blame GWB for any politicians loss, they make or break their own campaigns as will the ones who vote for this travesty.
Got any thoughts of your own?
As a matter of fact, the more conservative candidates did pretty well in 2006. But don't let reality intrude on your pleasant little fantasy.
you can be for this bill without being for a "sell out" of American to "corporate interests" just like you can be against it without being a racist.
Who died and made you Pope so that you can decide what is a real vs a "faux" conservative?
Tone back the insults. You've only been here 2 weeks, you don't have the credibility to do that. You got issues with that take it up with management.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
don't get indignant with me because you do not like my responses and do not presume to tell me to tone back anything you are not the boss of me and I hardly think the lenght of my time here is relevant to my responses or yours.
crucially relevant.
Like by now even a dim bulb would have discovered they can't post.
I told you if you didn't like it to take it up with management. If you want to be reinstated use the "contact" button.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
Sampling bias built in, as it were.
Moe
PS: And there's plenty more out there if you don't like our banning policies, Jon. I merely note this, not suggest or instruct it.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
The two chief enemies of the free society or free enterprise are intellectuals on the one hand and businessmen on the other, for opposite reasons. Every intellectual believes in freedom for himself, but he’s opposed to freedom for others.…He thinks…there ought to be a central planning board that will establish social priorities.…The businessmen are just the opposite—every businessman is in favor of freedom for everybody else, but when it comes to himself that’s a different question. He’s always the special case. He ought to get special privileges from the government, a tariff, this, that, and the other thing…
Milton Friedman.
but anyone who knows anything about Bush's record knows that he has long favored closer ties with Mexico, and relied on considerable support from immigrants from Latin America (and long-time US citizens of Mexican descent) for his political success.
Finally, this is also part of Rove's long term Republican party strategy. Bush and Rove can count. And consider party politics. If the Republicans alienate Latino voters in overwhelming numbers, they will have trouble holding onto Texas. If the Republican party can't hold Texas, it is done.
So it isn't just corporate interests and it has nothing to do with the multicultural left. It is a straightforward consequence of Rove's basic strategy of trying to build a permanent Republican majority.
Bush DID say that he would give illegals Z visas. Just look at the White House Immigration Fact Check: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070525-3.html
"...
* FACT: Temporary worker and Z visas will not be issued until benchmarks for enforcement are met. These triggers include: o Increasing border fencing. o Increasing vehicle barriers at the Southern border. o Increasing the size of the Border Patrol. o Ground-based radar and camera towers along the Southern border. o Resources to maintain the end of catch and release. o DHS establishment of worksite enforcement tools, including an electronic Employment Eligibility Verification System.
...
* FACT: Probationary status may be revoked at any time if a worker is found ineligible for the Z visa, fails to maintain a clean record, or fails the background check required for obtaining a Z visa.
...
* FACT: Illegal workers who ignored deportation orders are not eligible for the Z visa program, except in exceedingly rare cases in which they can demonstrate their departure would "result in extreme hardship."
* FACT: The determination of what constitutes "extreme hardship" lies entirely within the discretion of the Secretary of Homeland Security, who has no interest in allowing this exception to be abused.
..."
You cannot build a permanent Republican majority by populating the country with people who are natural Democrats.
Or if you can, I'd like to hear someone explain how.
Bush and Rove can count.
I really don't think they can. Either that, or they are determined to recast the Republican party as a liberal one.
Well, Bush got 35% of Hispanic voters in 2000, and 45% in 2004. If those numbers were much lower, Bush would not have won either election.
Consider California--at one time, a competitive or even Republican State. But the Republican Party in CA alienated Hispanic voters and now it is one of the more reliably Democratic states.
Hispanics are already in Texas in large numbers--it's a white minority state. Do the math--if Hispanics in Texas start voting like African Americans, Texas becomes a blue state.
The Bush/Rove strategy has always been to reach beyond the base--enlarge the Republican party. You may disagree with the strategy, but when you voted for Bush, you knew Rove was his advisor, and you should have known that Rove's hero was McKinley, a man who built a Republican majority by moving the Party beyond its base.
I'm not presently concerned about a Republican majority. I am concerned about American Liberty and representative democracy. I am concerned about an elite formation completely ignoring the will of the people, whether we are sometimes collectively stupid or not.
If we do something stupid, we can learn and correct it. If we are ruled by Plutocracy, we can not learn because feedback is distorted, and even if we could, we could not correct it. Ignoring sovereignty is the path to tyranny.
Lastly, if the left had not stuck Mikey and Carter in the box at the DNC, Bush wouldn't have been elected. You should have thought of that.
Anyway, what's your stance on the subject. Do you actually think its a good idea to reinforce multi-national corporate interests by exporting our production and importing cheap labor.
Do you actually care about blue-collar wages?
Do you actually think its a good idea for the Dems to be for this travesty so that they can then jam these workers back into a thug union structure by changing unions laws?
Or are you just here for Schadenfreude?
First, my comments regarding the Bushes are more or less attempts to explain what Bush is doing, and seeing his support of this bill as entirely consistent with the patterns of the Bush Presidency. Bush has, on the whole, stayed consistent throughout his Presidency and has more or less kept his campaign promises. I personally am not in favor of many of those policies, which is why I didn't vote for him.
As far my positions on the issues I am more or less a free trader. However, as you point out, there are serious costs to free trade, and those costs need to be addressed, and perhaps a more restrictive immigration policy is part of how those costs are addressed. I think the Democrats are making a huge mistake when they rail against free trade however.
As far as immigration goes, however, I think immigration policy ought to be guided by our national interest. At a minimum, that means illegal aliens are illegal. Therefore, there need to be real sanctions, sufficient to deter the illegal activity and those sanction need to be enforced. It also means that only immigrants who have decent prospects of supporting themselves and can contribute to the overall well being of our nation should be admitted.
Let me give you an example--I live in a small rural Southern town. We don't need more day laborers, but I think it would benefit my community to encourage entrepeneurial immigrants to come here. I'd be ecstatic if a Portuguese family opened up a pastry shop in my town. We also, like much of the country, have a nursing shortage, and one way to address that would be through offering slots to those with the appropriate credentials who are willing to re-locate here.
Before living here, I lived in North Jersey, an area where in many ways both costs and benefits of immigration are on display. From Bell Labs to the Bloomfield Diner, immigrants can make a contribution to our nation.
"Well, Bush got 35% of Hispanic voters in 2000, and 45% in 2004. "
First, the number was 44% and not 45% and second the number came from the same badly flawed NEP Exit Poll that called the 2004 election for John Kerry. Like the results that showed Kerry the winner; it was complete fiction. Even NEP has disavowed this number. They issued a retraction and a discussion paper not long after the election which described the source of the error. As I recall, it was mostly caused by over-sampling of Republican leaning Cuban Hispanics in Florida. In addition to the NEP debunking their own number it has been repeatedly debunked by other independent experts. Here is one of many examples:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=OWJmZTNiMGQxYzMyNzE2Y2IyMzZjYjNiZWU...
I believe the numbers that most knowledgeable people accept is between 38% and 40% which would be consistent with the 3% rise that George Bush got from the electorate in general between 2000 and 2004. It shows that Bush's better performance among Hispanics generally tracked with his better performance among all voters. Nothing very surprising or impressive.
The fact that this number keeps cropping up seems to be a case of a lie traveling around the world while the truth is still putting on its shoes. It does not help that Karl Rove and his operatives love to repeat this number even though it is inconceivable that they don't know that it is inaccurate. It doesn't speak well of them that they have to rely on influencing and motivating the base with falsehoods.
And a neocon cabal lied the country into a war. Hey, it has just as much truth as what you say.
the Republican Party in CA alienated Hispanic voters
No. Hispanic voters always voted Democratic. For the forseeable future (the next fifty years of so) they always will.
Bush got 35% of Hispanic voters in 2000, and 45% in 2004.
Your numbers are false.
If those numbers were much lower, Bush would not have won either election.
Actually, he would have. Mexicans make up a decided minority of voters. Even a fairly large reduction in Bushes total of it would not have affected his election results.
And most of the Mexicans who can vote are concentrated in California and Texas. In either state, if he loses pretty close to 100% of the Mexican vote it still does not change the outcome. In California he STILL loses and in Texas he STILL wins.
But amnesty will change everyting because if the illegal Mexicans in Colorado, Florida and a few other closely divided redish-purple states become voters they tip blue and not a single blue state tips red.
Better be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident security. --Edmund Burke
Blog: TMYN
I'm not crazy about the bill, but it is an effort to bring our immigration proposal somewhat sync with reality and to bring under the umbrella of the law the 12 million + illegals here already.
As to why they ARE here, blame Mssrs. Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II and all Congresses between the 1986 amnesty bill and May 31, 2007.
a corporate oligarchy's attempted coup more than a pure plutocracy. In essence, not only do the mass migration and open borders fanatics want to turn the United States into a Third World cesspool, but they use the tactics we find throughout Latin America to get achieve their goals. I am not as pessimistic as you are, either, since Americans tend not to accept yokes so easily.
As someone wrote here this week, at least we don't have to go through the lip service of supporting our elected figureheads any longer regardless of how this turns out. So in a sense, Bush has liberated us.
Much of the talk on this post reminds me of the rhetoric of ethnic cleansing and racial purity I witnessed in Germany in 1935.
Perhaps the color "Red" is telling?
By the way, I'm for this immigration bill and and also a Pearl Harbor and Pacific war survivor. Unless you can match the medals on my chest never again question my "Americanism".
Much of what we fought to stop is contained on what I've read from her and other sites such as these.
Absolutely pathetic.
And to make certain our borders were open to anyone ?
Hmm yeah sure. I seem to remember Roosevelt denying immigration to certain groups and getting commendations for doing it.
Do I really need to dredge up newspaper clippings and our propaganda of the time to show exactly what the mood of the country was.
You sir seem to talk a good game but somehow I don't think you are speaking from your own experience
______________________________
"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
I say this as somebody not opposing the immigration bill: YOU DO NOT GET TO CALL PEOPLE NAZIS HERE, EVEN INDIRECTLY. Anyone who is legitimately vile enough to justify that moniker should be reported to me or another site moderator.
So now that you know, kindly apologize. Next post, or it'll be your last post. Your call.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
Sir, with all due respect: this is mere insult compounded by derangement.
Fighting in our wars, even with great honor, is no inoculation against political folly. George McGovern fought in the Second World War with great honor, but would have carried the country into socialist disaster. Should we non-veterans have held our tongues?
I have read some of the German propaganda from the 1930s, big guy, and it sounds nothing like my post. Whatever reminded you of malicious anti-Semitism in my post is a product of your own fevered mind, not the facts before you.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
Stop it. No one says STOP immigration, they're saying don't REWARD lawbreaking, and start a reasonable system of allowing people into the country. Even the most liberal countries like France and Canada understand this. Allowing too many immigrants from socialist dictorial countries does not equate to good assimilation. Why do you think California is teaching in Spanish and learning Mexican History NOT American History on tax payer dollars? It allows what Democrats want, to polarize everyone into groups fighting for their own interests instead of conforming to American heritage. And please don't bring up 1910 immigration, the American people did not have to support them, they were on their own to make it. Also, we slowed immigration for decades after that to compensate. People actually had to vouch for people coming in, like France is enforcing now, and if the person couldn't pull their weight, you were stuck with them. Please stop the Nazi/racist/ hate mongerer speaches, Dem's have used that for 40 years and I have had enough. I live in a town in NJ that has serious problems with this issue and my Senator(crook) Menendez actually thinks this bill is too harsh. Also, I guess we should no concern about Muslims wondering through either. The government over 40 years has shown no ability to fix the problem other than to grant amnesty, the easy part. The PEOPLE want them to stop the problem, then work on fixing the problem, NOT a racist point. One question for you, don't you find it appalling that illegals march OUR streets in protest demanding rights, yet won't do the same in theirs which has the natural resources to help them thrive?
Your post is the perfect embodiment of why the 'secure the borders' constituency is losing the debate. I agree with "No one says STOP immigration, they're saying don't REWARD lawbreaking, and start a reasonable system of allowing people into the country" and I think most people would agree that at a base level that is what immigration reform needs to be. But then you start throwing around assimilation arguments and "I guess we should no concern about Muslims wondering through either." Even if you are truly not racist, making such statements are not helping the perception.
but I think the assimiliation aspect is key. Until probably the late 1960s assimilation was US policy. We need to return to that.
I'm all in favor of immigrants who want to come here to be part of the American experiment and participant fully as Americans. I am unalterably opposed to balkanized ghettos of hyphenated Americans living at the fringes of society without a complete emotional investment in the nation.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
I would agree with that. The problem with 'assimilation' is that it comes off as wanting the new to become seamless with the old, and losing all traces of the new population's heritage. Instead I prefer incorporation, where new traditions are joined with the old instead of completely buried.
While assimilation may have been the goal, incorporation seems more like what has actually occurred. Just think of all the traditions and cultural imports that have now become 'American'.
so long as 1) they learn to speak English, 2) they participate economically, and 3) the government policy is focused on citizenship incorporating 1) and 2) and the preservation of culture is left to the family.
"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." -- Rudyard Kipling
a multi-culturalism that:
Views the United States as an abstraction;
Denies there is a very distinct American culture and tradition;
and seeks to dilute our historical heritage.
Obviously, and I can't attribute such a motive to you based on what you wrote, many who embrace multi-culturalism actively seek to block assimilation. The reason in the case at hand is obvious--when you cobble together a faux "minority" based only on language and not race or a distinct culture, the adoption of our nation's common tongue and cultural heritage effectively would mean the end that subgroup.
This is a reason leftists (and for different motives, corporatists to a lesser extent) want to perpetuate the tongue of most illegal immigrants and the legal varieties who would benefit from the rotten sausage the Senate has produced. The linguistic ghetto is necessary to engage in identity politics and produce indentured servants.
As for your point, "incorporation" always has happened with the understanding the latest immigrant wave would cast off most of the nation of origin's trappings. There are powerful and quite frankly viciously anti-American groups hellbent to end that tradition, and those of us who see that at work are furious.
The problem with 'assimilation' is that it comes off as wanting the new to become seamless with the old, and losing all traces of the new population's heritage.
Not "all traces" -- but definitely assimilation must come as a deprivation to the immigrant. His children will lose the language of their ancestors at least; his grandchildren may lose even the native pronunciation of their surname, as in my case the Italian CH-ella has been Americanized to S-ella.
Norman Podhoretz tells the story of how a NYC English teacher took it upon herself to deprive him of his Yiddish accent. She did this by personal tutoring, and with no consultation with his parents. She Americanized him, and to this great gift of the English language, as natives speak it, he attributes his success as a writer.
________________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
I am on record favoring a complete cessation of immigration from Muslim countries. In short, a policy of actual discrimination against the Islamic religion. I have been on record thusly for about two years. How opposition to a religion, i.e., a body of doctrines and a tradition, can be construed as "racist," is a question I will leave for you to untangle (perhaps you will simply conflate "Arab" with "Muslim," thereby reducing the millions of Arab Christians to nonexistence); but in any case I promote my policies against the Islamic religion in good conscience. One piece of evidence I tend to refer to in defending them is this one: the most savaged and terrible act of treachery inflicted on my country, was inflicted by Muslims acting foremost as Muslims.
______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
I don't like the charge of racism being leveled at those I care about. And every word from Cynthia Tucker is like grating sand in teeth. But she asked a question on The Newshour last night that seems to have some form of relevance. Something to the effect: If the southern border encroachment was with Ireland or Italy (i.e. European), would the emotions and outcry of the enforcement-only(s) be identical?
John E.
let us flip it: let us say we shared a common border with some relatively poor Eastern European country that exported its poor into the United States. Say those immigrants wanted higher wages and better working conditions.
Those who now utter platitudes would shut down the border immediately and actually would deport all 12 or how many million Eastern Europeans met that profile. The reasons would be different, of course. For Democrats, these would represent future Republicans. For Republicans, these would represent future union members and the end of indentured servitude.
I can almost promise this would happen.
The question came from the Atlanta Journal Editor, not that washed out Decatur politician.
I have to unshackle my cynicism to track along with your analysis spanishirish. If I do that, it gobbles up everybody, including you and me. I am clinging to the notion that there is something to latch onto which is not simply crass.
John E.
because it will take you straight to the bottom. I don't even consider what I posted cynical at this point, simply realistic.
So when did you stop beating your wife? [grin]
Look, the plain fact is that if Ireland or Italy formed our southing neighbor, there would be a very minimal illegal immigration problem. Consider Canada. The only thing we care about with Canada is terrorists and criminals. No one is worried about Canadian illegals.
But included in my anathemas against mass immigration is our opening of our borders to Eastern European and Russian gangsters, if that makes Tucker feel any better.
_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.
If this actually about helping the poor get jobs, why not go to Africa and pull them out, their situation are much more needy for help. Incorporate, no, assimilate is what I meant. I meant learn American customs and ways and how to act in THIS civilization. That does not mean throw out your heritage. I'm German and British, but I still go to Octoberfest, San Genero, Cico De Mayo, Greek, and other festivals with no problem, and find it interesting to learn of their heritage. I don't want this everyday. I don't want other flags waving on 4th of July, I don't want Chritmas to be an albatross, I don't want anything other than English being taught as a primary language in Governmently funded schools. How about you go fly American flags on other countires holidays. How about you start a protest asking for more personal rights in another country. How about trying to sneak into Mexico from South America.
Allowing too many people in from one area at one time does not force them to assimilate, it allows to change culture and ignore laws in that region. Also, people who come here for reasons other than just money do assimilate better because they are GRATEFUL for opportunity for a better life. As for my comments regarding Muslims walking around, that's not because I'm racist, my nephew is from India and is great, it's because we have NO IDEA of what their intentions are. Can you distinguish a Jihadist from others right now? I can't, and that's just an unfortunate reality that we must deal with. They MUST be scrutinzed more closely and that is just common sense for the safety of the American public. Governments job is to protect us first and foremost and all other things are secondary, that's why..... secure the border first!!!!!
through "colored" specs..IMHO
" in the end, it's not the years in your life that count. It's the life in your years."
Abe Lincoln
Cherry picking portions of a poll to claim those of us who support a comprehensive immigration bill are anti-American is the last straw. Enough already, it is time for you fools to be run out of the conservative movement. There is no room in a governing coalition for intolerant fools. You are picking a fight you can not win. You've picked this fight and instigated this civil war in the conservative movement, and now it's time for you to be driven off. You don't have the kind of support you think you do, you just a vocal minority throwing a temper tantrum, now your going to be spanked.
I always love it when people call for others to be shut up in the name of "tolerance" - it may be the single most hypocritical act possible.
How about if you make your next post a diary explaining just why you think this immigration bill is good for America, and why it should be supported?
That's not a request, by the way.
-The Mgmt.
"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-
and missed that I hadn't hit "reply to this".
This was in reference to Cameron and his "I have had enough of you fools" comment. He concluded the comment with this line:
You don't have the kind of support you think you do, you just a vocal minority throwing a temper tantrum, now your going to be spanked.
I will be more careful in the future.
"Wubbies World" - MSgt, U.S. Air Force (Retired): "Call to Me and I will answer you, and I will tell you great and mighty things, which you do not know." -Jer 33:3-
"it is time for you fools to be run out"..."There is no room...for intolerant fools"..."it's time for you to be driven off"..."your going to be spanked."
How's that?
And I really am looking forward to your diary. We've had precious few folks do a good job of explaining why they do support this legislation.
That's not sarcasm.
The hard core immigration absolutists who will accept no compromise and nothing short of having all illegals deported are just as shallow in their thinking as the anti-war moonbats. Preferring to label all who do not share their views as open borders one world socialists, and throwing empty and meaningless slogans around like "illegal invasion" and "rule of law". The hysterical right has even taken to calling those who do not share their view un-American. I've been told myself that my support for comprehensive reform and a guest worker program legitimately calls my loyalty to the nation into question. If anyone did that to my face, I'd punch them in the mouth.
The vast majority of the nation supports a guest worker program, and allowing those already here to legalize their status short of deportation. Those numbers have remained constant for five years of polling to include internal Republican party polling done before the last midterm elections and even this last Rasmussen poll.
The only reason I'm even concerned with this issue and the only reason it's even become a national issue is the national security concerns now attached to it since 9/11. The immigration absolutists would rather spend precious resources hunting down landscapers and maids then hunting down our real enemies, who present real security concerns. That alone clearly demonstrates their real concerns have little to nothing at all to do with our national security.
I support this bill because doing something is by far better than doing nothing at all and it's the right thing to do. I am sick and tired the self proclaimed base demanding purity tests and demanding all agree with them and their policies, or take a walk. Well now it's time for you hard core absolutists unwilling and incapable of compromise to be shown the door. You hard core absolutists want to pull your support from the Republican party because like a bunch of spoiled children you can't have what you want, should now be told you're no longer welcome in the party. Don't let the door hit ya all on the way out. We who are still around will build a governing coalition with those who will not blackmail everyone else into accepting their position and labeling those that do not share your views un-American.
Have never posted to the blog before but will look into doing so this evening. Currently occupied doing work that can't be put off. I'm gonna tell ya right now I'm hip hopping angry about being labeled anti-American for supporting comprehensive reform and could probably use the time to let my temper cool off.
"he immigration absolutists would rather spend precious resources hunting down landscapers and maids then hunting down our real enemies, who present real security concerns"
What about students? Most of the 9/11 attackers where here on legal student visas. You argument is worthless. If we can't track those who are actually in the system how much less those who are outside it? We don't even know who is in the country right now and you talk about those "who are shallow in their thinking." You really think those who are currently in the US illegaly and have ill intentions will state in on paper so they can be deported? Who is shallow in their thinking?
Common sense cries out:
!) Real border security first
2) Sort and deport
3) Verifiable guest worker program.
IN THAT ORDER
The anger that I had for the Democrats and their inability to want our Country to win the war in Iraq is now the contempt I have for the President and Republican Senators who are trying to force on us what we don't want. I am only amazed at the non-issue this has become for FOX News, I assumed the rest of the MSM would gladly have this bill being the socialist elitest that they always have been. One of the guests on Hannity and Colmes last night had to tell them if they wanted to sweep the sweeps they needed to get on this issue as it is dividing Republicans and Democrats down the middle and that was to large a story to ignore and yet they have, why? Hannity agreed with him however this issue is getting very little play on FOX, who is making that decision there? Regardless we all will go about preserving our Democracy the new fashioned way, the internet and talk radio either way this anger is not going away and the people will know and they will be heard they will not be "shut up" this country is to great to give away in the blink of an eye to those who could care less about what it means to be an American.