Redstate

I really don't think Lou Dobbs is the problem!  Frankly, I am a lot more worried about Republicans like McCain and Lindsay Graham, Mike Dewine, Sam Brownback and Arlen Spector who are going along with Kennedy's illegal alien amnesty bill without insisting on a real serious effort to reign in illegal immigration, particularly future illegal immigration.  Such an effort would include a major fence or other physical barrier along much of our southern border and also at various locations along our northern border.  The effort must also include a major effort to crack down on those who overstay visas (like many of the 911 hijackers).  A verifiable database of aliens elligible for hire would also be necessary.

Absent these measures, nothing else (i.e. guest worker provisons, potential amnesty etc.) will really matter. Indeed, to grant anything that looks remotely like an amnesty without the measures described above (as was done in the bill that cleared the Senate Judicary Committee) would almost certainly be counterproductive because doing so would most definately encourage additional illegal immigration.  The Judiciary Committee's bill is little more than a rehash of the 1986 Simpson-Mazzoli bill which utterly failed to stem the tide of illegal immigration.

However, the Congress unfortunately seems to be moving in the wrong direction, even on the House side.  Today, House Majority Leader John Boehner said he was reconsidering the fence provision in the House illegal immigration bill after meeting with officials in border states and communities.  The concern is apparently that if we build a fence we will have to police the fence!  This statement is truly unbeliveable and stongly suggests that there is minimal, if any, border enfocrement right now.  Of course we will have to police a fence on the border, but we need to be policing the border anyway.  The fence should make that task easier by making it harder for illegals to cross and by affording the broder patrol amd other law enforcement agencies the ability to see people attempting to enter the country illegally. That we are not policing our borders now is a rather disturbing, indeed, shcoking, admission!                

Reports are that Israel's long, tall fence on the West Bank has been highly successful in keeping out terrorists. Let's just contract our border wall to whoever is throwing up Israel's.

While I think Lou Dobbs is a throwback Buchananite on trade issues, he is right about illegal immigration. So is John Sweeney. Strange bedfellows to be sure, but we'll take 'em.

Most important of all -- it is SUICIDAL to not have absolute control of our borders in an age where a few pounds of easily-carried WMD can kill thousand or more.

There seems to be a big divide right now between those conservatives who think the concerns about immigration are overblown and those who think they're not. Just because you're one who thinks they're overblown doesn't mean you have to launch into rants of your own about the other side's bad intentions.

...doesn't have to keep his opinions quiet, either.   Nobody else here has been shy about speaking their mind on the issue; why should Pat?

with its snide tone, and its very thinly-veiled imputations of racism -all while reminding us that its subject is, horrors! a white man, and therefore, suspect - is unworthy of the RedState front page.  That its writer is an advocate of more low-wage, exploited, immigrant labor makes its allegation that Dobbs likes to wave to immigrants while they mow his lawn all the more offensive.  

It's so hard to not insult the man when his name shares a first letter with a word that so aptly describes his views on trade and immigration.

I just wish Lou would go study economics.  Just keep repeating to yourself,

"Trade is not a zero-sum game."  

"Trade is not a zero-sum game."  

"Trade is not a zero-sum game."  

Maybe when he sees Mexicans buying American products with dollars that came from illegal immigrants that he'll start to get it.  I doubt it.

As for immigration, Bill O'Reilly puts together the best plan I've seen.  This plan is a wonderful starting point that is indicative of the comprehensive approach that we must take.  Carrot and stick.  Like Ebony and Ivory, and Chocolate and Peanut Butter, or Forrest and Gump.  Must have them both.

with Lou Dobbs on both this and the Dubai Port controversey.  Amazingly, I finally have a reason to watch CNN again.

Dobbs is right on this, and George W. Bush is wrong.

Trade is not NECESSARILY a zero sum game.  It could be a negative, as could the flow of illegal immigrants into America.  Where is the data that show that if you take all the costs - increased crime, health care and education costs and loss of social cohesion - into account, America benefits by admitting people who by definition do not respect its laws?

FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE:

A fence. The same type of fence that keeps suicide bombers out of Israel. Where they've used it, it works.

SECOND LINE OF DEFENSE:

Biometric ID cards for citizens (passports on a card) and non-citizens (green cards) alike. Employers have to spend five seconds authenticating the card the same way they do a Discover Card. Run it through the card reader and wait for the authorization code that comes back five seconds later from the database. Nobody has to be a document expert. It's automatic. No authorization code--no job. If they hire people without obtaining a valid authorization code, it's a felony for the employer.

THIRD LINE OF DEFENSE:

Let illegal aliens who work everyday and haven't committed any crimes in their life, aside from crossing the American border, stay, provided they appear in court and submit themselves to a thorough background check. For doing that, they get a biometric green card that they'll need to keep the job they have now, and not have to hide in the shadows anymore. Why is that a line of defense? Because law enforcement looking for alien criminals and terrorists have to make the haystack smaller. The hidden illegal alien population that the Mexican crime gangs and al-Qaeda cells hide in has to be made smaller and easier to search.

...about the imputation of racism.  Not having listend to Dobbs, I couldn't tell you one way or the other whether it's true.

I can, however, judge that your accusation that Pat thinks that white men are automatically suspect is a serious distortion of what was actually written, and I suggest that you retract it.  Now.

Moe

PS: The decision of what is and what is not worthy of the RedState home page is decided by the individuals who have the right to publish there; and we have grown accustomed to bearing up under the weight of others' disapproval.  I mention this merely to explain.

...that wild-eyed flamethrowing hot-head (just kidding) Tony Snow, of Fox News, says listening to Dobbs sounds to him just like a KKK meeting. And Snow generally tries to be nice, and give the benefit of the doubt, but certainly not for Dobbs. I'll take Tony Snow's word for it, because I've never listened to Dobbs myself.

Your second line if defense shows an unwarranted confidence in government's ability to keep data safe and secure from prying eyes and misuse.

One wonders how many illegal aliens are employed by the members of Cleary's organization, and how much money they illegally save on Social Security and other taxes.

These could be big bucks that Dobbs is threatening.

I've always thought of him as a comedian, but I wonder what he considers himself?  CNN?

They already have a lot of sensitive data in their position and we already all have a convenient serial number with which to access the data... so I don't see an issue with a national ID. I'm not sure what the biometrics would entail but a photo and general identifying information (like a DL or passport has on it now) would be fine.

At least Dobbs doesn't cite Evilcons like Lawrence Auster and Steve Sailer (with apparent approval, I might add) the way Michelle Malkin has in the past.

Oh, and the characterization of those two as Evilcons is not mine.  It's from two other people who are arguably beyond reproach on this site.

Look at how important the SSN is in 'identity fraud'.  A new national ID would just be a magnified version of that problem.

As for driver's licenses, that example doesn't help your cause.  That database is nosed into ALL THE TIME for uses unrelated to the reason it was created.

Beyond reproach? No comment on that.

As for Auster and Sailer, I have no idea who they are.  Care to give some justification for the evilcon label?

Given your vendetta against Michelle Malkin, I hope you understand if I don't just take your word for it.

What needs to be kept safe? Your digital photo? Your digital iris scan? Why? Like a passport, they don't need to have your address on the card, or your phone number. Addresses change. Phone numbers change. Your iris scan doesn't. The card is just there to prove your immigration status, and that you're who you say you are.

Once we create a national ID card that has meaning and power, suddenly all that information will be a liability that must be protected.

However, by putting it in the hands of government, we ensure that it won't be protected.

Biometrics prevents identity fraud. If they can fake an iris scan, I haven't heard about it anywhere.

You could perhaps try clicking through to them?

The SSN is certainly not the greatest invention, though I think some kind of unique identifier is really required to make things run smoothly. Names are just not sufficient to uniquely identify people. The ID improves security over the current system. It combines something you know (SSN), with something you have (card), with something you are (biometrics). Right now we rely on only the SSN (something you know). Maybe a photo ID too, but nothing that is verified as legit.

As far as DMV data goes, much of the problem with that is that some states just outright sell the data to whoever wants to pay for it. Any database could be misused, but I think the Federal databases tend to be better secured than the state databases and in any case, the data contained within this one would be much less valuable than data they already keep at, say, the IRS.

HH linked to Domenech linking to things written by Auster that contain words like 'white-majoritarian' not in quotes, but didn't show Malkin agreeing with him.

HH linked to Malkin speaking about Sailer, but not to something that might make me think him an Evilcon.

This is not the old America of small towns where everybody knew their neighbors, and strangers stood out like a sore thumb. We have to have some confidence these days that people are who they say they are.

I have no idea what you're frightened of. There are a dozen other ways that the average American citizen can be tracked by just private companies, that you have even less control over than you have over the government.

when comes back to the states, it could be a Mexican impersonator of Louis.

If Lou starts saying things like, "Hey homes, nice ride vato" or proclaims "Give me back my tequilla you magot"! , then we know there is something wrong and not to let him back into the country.

Besides, he need to come back the traditional way, no special treatment, across the Rio Grand with a suitcase on his head.

Before you read.  Typical.

Typical is you flying off on your insane vendetta against Michelle Malkin.

What did she do, run over your cat?

...read the posts this time, particularly the second - which includes all the pretty links that Tac gave, too.  I would also suggest that you not try changing the goalposts.  Harold called those two - justifiably in the case of Sailer, and probably justifiably in the case of Austin, from what I've seen so far - evilcons, including links; you asked him to justify that; I pointed out the links; and now you apparently wanted your query to be bout Malkin all along.

We can scroll up and read this stuff, you know.

He once again slander Michelle Malkin, making assertions about her he couldn't back up.

I commented on Lou Dobbs vs Pat Cleary.  It was HH who came out of nowhere with his baseless attack on Michelle Malkin.

I suggest you read the entire thread more carefully.

Here for Sailer, and here for Auster before you get all riled up.  When I blogged about the characterization, I ran the blog post past those two - and neither of them have told me that I got it wrong or took their comments out of context.

Other than her questionable judgement of people's character, her tendency to rush to judgement and ignore facts that contradict her intial rush to judgement, and her shrill nature, there's no real reason for me to dislike Michelle Malkin.

Or are you saying this should be swept under the rug, and should not be brought up?

No.  I have reasons.

Can you show where Malkin is in favor of these two's evilconism?

Or more importantly, WHAT ON EARTH does this have to do with Lou Dobbs, Pat Cleary, and NAM?

Your first

One wonders how many illegal aliens are employed by the members of Cleary's organization, and how much money they illegally save on Social Security and other taxes.

These could be big bucks that Dobbs is threatening.

His

At least Dobbs doesn't cite Evilcons like Lawrence Auster and Steve Sailer (with apparent approval, I might add) the way Michelle Malkin has in the past.

Oh, and the characterization of those two as Evilcons is not mine.  It's from two other people who are arguably beyond reproach on this site.

Your second

    Beyond reproach? No comment on that.

    As for Auster and Sailer, I have no idea who they are.  Care to give some justification for the evilcon label?

    Given your vendetta against Michelle Malkin, I hope you understand if I don't just take your word for it.

I don't have to reread a darn thing - it's extremely clear what he said, and what you said in response.  You, however, will now regulate your tone, because I don't like it at all.

Indeed, it seems this week at times that CNN has become the voice of the angry white guy, with Dobbs -- looking pretty shiny (pretty shiny?  What's that) at times -- ranting for seemingly hours on end about the evils of immigration.

Emphasis and comments mine.  I'm not sure how else to take that.  I remember 1994, when the MSM characterized the Republican victories of that year as an example of "angry white male" backlash, with all the retrograde impulses that implied.  Perhaps Mr. Cleary should explain why he thought it was necessary to include the reference.  It wasn't there for no reason at all.  He must have meant something by it.  Not that white men are inherently suspect (Mr. Cleary is probably as melanin-impaired as I am), but that white men -as he saw fit so vividly to portray- with certain opinions are.  To express it more baldly, I am not accusing Mr. Cleary of racism, but rather of using the brush of racism to tar Mr. Dobbs and everyone else frustrated with illegal immigration with the taint that does not wash away.    

I don't wish to pick a fight with a moderator, or to be banned, but I don't think my reading of Mr. Cleary's spleen-venting was unreasonable.  

For the record, I don't watch Lou Dobbs, either, so I have no idea what he says about anything.

That's nice, I don't like yours, either.

But Hutchison does this WAY too much for me not to challenge him.  Michelle Malkin must have cut him off on the freeway at some point, so now he goes around the Internet trying to smear her in every way he can, hoping some of it will stick.

I'm no Zell Miller, but I'm not going to say nothing in response to that, especially when he resorts to the cheap tactic of juxtaposition: linking to Domenech bashing Auster, linking to Malkin referencing Sailer on a specific issue, and then from there asserting that Malkin supports Auster.

In many cases with approval.

In the case of Auster, it was as late as this past Monday.  I also have linked to the posts where they were called out.  I even checked to make sure I had not misinterpreted their posts on the matter.

She has a lot of nerve to link to Auster in the same post where she asks if people can debate immigration without cryign racist... never mind that Auster actually appears to be one.  (Here is a little hint, use Control-F and type in "Auster" - you will find she's linekd to him, five days after the post in which Auster was named as an evilcon was linked to.

Slander?  No, I have enough to back up what I wrote.  So, why are you trying to shoot the messenger?

" To express it more baldly, I am not accusing Mr. Cleary of racism, but rather of using the brush of racism to tar Mr. Dobbs and everyone else frustrated with illegal immigration with the taint that does not wash away."

I don't agree with it, but it's an arguable point - and one that Pat can answer or not as he chooses.  We appreciate you making your point clearer.

Were hiring illegal immigrants, and that Dobbs was on the trail.  Don't you remember?

I decided I could return the favor and toss a little slime back.  Are unable to take what you dish out?

...between what you like, and what I like.

Blam.

Luis Dobbs will come back, working for 1/100 of Lou's salary, with better political and economic analysis.  Maybe he'll even know that we're at full employment: cuatro punto siete!

What an insightful, meaningful post.  I'm glad the red-state editors thought this was worthy of front-page status.  If I write an incoherent rant, accusing others of racism because they disagree with me, will I get front-page status too?

Mark this as the 3rd time in 4 weeks that I have been disappointed and disillusioned with Red State.  I understand that the editors don't care what I think.  But it still makes me sad, and less likely to come to this site in the future, when I keep seeing this type of conduct from the editors - and the immediate attacks on commentors to this diary when they point out how ridiculous the OP was.

I guess if I don't believe in unfettered immigration I am a racist and my head will explode.  God forbid I disuss it or get passionate about it.  Apparently, Pat Cleary has learned his debate techniques from KOS or democratunderground.  If you can't make a decent argument, accuse your opponet of racism.  Good work.  Today I am proud to be conservative!

National Association of Manufacturers (a corporate lobby group) is hardly a worthy blog post. It's more like a free advertisement from an interest group.

Making fun of Lou Dobbs (or any talking head on network news) may be fun and entertaining, but it hardly qualifies as an argument. The fact is that NAM wants more illegal immigrants because they represent cheap foreign labor, and cheap foreign labor will help bid down wages for native-born citizens.

...it didn't go to the reprinted article to mentioned.  Can you retype it?

This seems like an intraparty fight, so I will try to keep my comments overall to myself, but does all this snarking and sniping amount to anything more that a side issue?  I mean, Pat's piece could have taken the same tone against liberal villain de jour and no one would have raised a squeak of protest, so I know it's not his tone.  What is the difference between a conservative who takes the administration line versus one taking the Dobbsian line?  Is there a common thread?  I find myself once again in lockstep with Bush (oh, that hurts to say!) much like the Dubai silliness, and find the common cause very interesting, to say the least.  

We do not vet Editor's submissions before they are posted.

I note this not to endorse the rest of your post's points (frankly, I strictly personally found them a bit too self-consciously emo to take seriously) but because we do have readers come in who may not understand RedState's writing policies.  Well, neither did you, but You're! Leaving! Us! - so it doesn't really matter in your case, nu?

For at least focusing on the fact that their behaviour is illegal and that this is a real problem and not some administrative issue to be fixed by a set of new rules to get illegals "into the system" instead of out of the country.

I think the mere fact that RedState and its readers are debating Lou Dobbs' comments shows the danger the Republicans are in. Regardless of anyone's personal views here, there is a deep disconnect between those in power and most Americans. Whether you want to call it amnesty or not, and whether you think it is impractical to evict all illegal aliens or not, any proposal that allows the majority of illegal immigrants to remain in this country with at worst minor penalties while leaving the border situation essentially unchanged will be frowned upon by a majority of the public (see virtually any poll done on this subject in the last few months). Several months ago, Rush said something to the effect that any candidate who comes out strong against illegal immigration has a good chance of cleaning up in the near future. If Congress and the President agree on an immigration law that doesn't firmly clamp down our borders, I believe Republicans will pay the price in the next few years. The only saving grace is that the Democrats seem just as oblivious.

This tracks with all of the other "arguments" I've seen you make Moe.  Why don't you just ban me, as you seem incapable of dealing with people who you have disagreements with.  Do editors posts automatically go to the front page?  If you don't vet them, why did you get so emotional in challenging everyone who thought the OP was asinine, and nothing but name-calling, which it clearly is?  Or didn't you bother to read it?

Or, try to point out where Pat Cleary made an actual point in his diary - rather than name-calling?  You and I both know he did not.

All of your comments on this post have been snide, arrogant and very quick to use your "power" to threaten banning on anyone you disagree with.  I hope it makes you happy in your life - but it certainly does not convince anyone of the merits of your "ideas."  You happen to be the editor I am most disappointed in at Red State.  You are childish and the first one to get emotional.  But hey, its your site.   I came here originally becuase it was a good site, but it lately seems to suffer from some sort of conflict of interest with editors day jobs.  Again, as you guys control it, and it is a private entity, I could care less.  But, based on the promise of the site, it makes me somewhat sad.  Not sad enough to really care, as there are plenty of other sites and I'll still check back here from time to time to see what's being discussed.  And, I clearly understand that you don't care what readers of this site think and don't care in particular what I think.  But, thanks for playing.

Blam.

Note for everybody else: I generally stop reading at the request to be banned.

in the text of Pat Cleary's diary, which is actually an article from the NAM website that Pat Cleary wrote for that site (at least, his name is on the byline). I provided a link to the "About Us" page of the NAM website, which will tell you who they are and what they do. The point I was making was that this is hardly a disinterested source.

Was this or was this not a reprinted article, Leverkuhn?  This is kind of important to nail down: we're supposed to note and link when we've also printed our blog posts in another forum.

If they work hard, learn English, and the only crime they ever committed was jumping the border, I want them to stay. We need them. They make up for all the healthy American babies we aborted for no good reason.

http://www.blog.nam.org/

Scroll down a page.

I've updated the post to reflect the cross-posting.

so they cannot compensate for the tragic destruction of our American brothers and sisters that never were.

Those legal immigrants who wish to naturalize, and go through the process respecting our laws, are the only ones worthy of the title American.  Jumping the border is not a small thing.

Not many. Our employers do the responsible thing and ck prior to hiring. However,r we are pushing for more H1B and green card availability for folks with the skills we need here. What's wrong with that?

anyone who can cross the border, irrespective of the wishes of the citizens of this country, is an American, is to reduce the definition of American to a nullity.  An America without borders, and without the right to decide corporately and deliberately who it allows to join it, is something both more and less than a nation.  Its people are certainly not citizens, though, which is perhaps why such an emphasis is placed on whether they are "hard working," and none at all on loyalty or patriotism rightly understood.  

With the exception of a few, you will be hard pressed to find persons opposed to ALL immigration among the ranks of the opponents to the current moves towards amnesty (whatever euphemism you wish to employ).

Illegal immigration presents a national security issue.  It creates an economic security issue.  

It's real nice that hiring illegals saves me money on a head of lettuce, but if it is dragging down the quality of public education, if it is draining the public resources of states in terms of public health care, incarceration, and other factors, is America actually saving money?

I have no problem with LEGAL immigration.  All I ask is that you fill out the damned paperwork and wait in line.

I am opposed to all immigration, though I would admittedly prefer no immigration to the current level of immigration, what I really want is a policy that doesn't favor importing poverty and the resentments of other countries to our shores.  

They said Legal immigarnts are just the same as illegals.  And vice-versa...

...cultural stagnation.

To borrow a currently abused phrase, the USA is indeed a nation of immigrants.  Even the "Native Americans" came here from somewhere else about 30,000 years ago.  

However, until the post WWII period, those who migrated into this country were required to show that they would not be drags on society (e.g., they had family here that could provide for them, they had a job waiting, etc.).  Moreover, those immigrant groups made the choice to assimilate into American society (learn English and adopt American customs).  

The rallying cry of "diversity" and the demand for "respect" for other cultures has changed the face of immigration.  Certainly, I do not wish to exacerbate this problem; however, America is the rich culture it is today because of the various groups that have contributed to it by coming here.  To cut that off completely would be a tragedy.

on this site, I can respect it.  But the pertinent point to the present debate over the Senate bills is that, whether you agree with Cyrus, or conversely believe we should allow 15 million Mexicans per year into the country, the discussion is pointless if we have not reclaimed control of the process. And from that vantage point, passing a law is the starting point, not the end point.  Actually enforcing it's provisions is the trick.  

If they meet the requirements, give them a green card, so we know who they are, and so they don't have to hide from the government. I have an in-law from Europe who's been living in the US very legally, on a green card (I know they're not green,) for about forty years. And no, I don't have any illegal alien relatives, so I don't have any dog in this fight.

Is my belief that our immigration policy should favor highly-skilled entrants with a knowledge of English, and from countries whose inhabitants don't tend to bear existential animus toward the United States or the people who inhabit it, really so controversial?  

There are entire epochs in which common sense is controversial.  We have suffered the evil fortune of being born into one.

Whether it deserves to be so is another matter entirely.

Dobbs was on this when I watched CNN for more than a channel flip, or their early morning anchor. ;)

maybe anderson can start up on the Rita failures being lack of years of maintenance and pre-hurricane preparation from local and the state of Louisianna as scarborough has already worn out the gong on run away spending by congress only to fall on deaf ears.

Mr. Cleary should perhaps end up in the same position as his "other brother" Ben.....with continued snarkinss he may well.

There has not been a valid reason for ANY immigration for over 50 years.  We have a stable population and no longer need it.   We are no longer an agrarian economy and no longer need them for that either.  

Other than for the supposedly "wont take" jobs I hear about.  People will take the jobs...just not at sub-minimum the corporations want to pay.  When you start paying 20 per hour for bus boys and maids, then you will get plenty of takers.  

But you must remember, no one has a right to a 99 cent hamburger.  It may cost 2.5o , but that is OK to.

Moe you said:

"We do not vet Editor's submissions before they are posted."

Are all the editors of this blog merely professional propogandists working for elitist organizations interested in their own cheap labor source while the real "Redstaters" foot the bill?

You are extremely concerned with cross-posting, maybe we should be more concerned about openly citing the source..

If Pat is indicative of the rest of the Editors on staff, you should consider changing the name on this blog to Plutocracy.org, it would at least be more consistent with the true aims of "Editors" such as Pat..

In every survey we do of our member, manufacturers large and small, (one as recently as last month), they all lament not being able to find qualified workers. And, mfrs pay a good wage and good benefits. Still can't find workers. This isn't conspiracy, it's fact.

As for racism, express or implied, none was intended, I assure you. Sorry if I offended. I am a white guy, thought I cold use the term.

The point was simply that Lou is in hog heaven this week, the moment he's been waiting for. Wouldn't you agree?

Not that it'll make you any happier, but the link is www.DobbsWatch.com . It's part of our blog: www.ShopFloor.com. We think Dobbs is wrong on trade, say it quite often. This was a rare poke at him on immigration, but more because he's in such a  frenzy this week.

that Canada has a more selective immigration regime than the United States.

No one who cites the Southern Poverty Law Center in the way (i.e with respect) that Tacitus does is beyond reproach.  

The SPLC, and its co-founder Morris Dees, are demagogues who are in the business of finding racists, and they are not going to find them where they want to find them, whether or not they actually exist or not.  It is a far-left entity, and a conservative should be wary of treating it as anything other than that, because while Tacitus may think it helps in some online dispute with Steve Sailer, he may someday find some of his own views have been officially deemed racist by the SPLC.  

I was against Lou on the ports deal but might actulaly side with him on this one.

Its a dicey issue. Certainly we need some of these workers to do those legitimate jobs that americans wont do. Specifically those things like agriculturul jobs that pay below minimum wage.

But its business that determines what jobs americans wont do because they are the ones offering salaries. Where I think I side with Lou on this whole debate is that the jobs that will be created going forward will be these low paying jobs that americans just wont do. In other words, there are jobs now that americans will do. Businesses will fire those american workers, and offer the jobs with salaries below minimum wage to the immigrant worker who will take any job.

In other words rather than outsource these jobs to Mexico or China, they will keep the jobs here but give them to the the immigrant worker. Great for business in that they can pay even less and still make money, but not so good for poor or middle class americans. This will drive down wages for everyone specifically the unskilled american worker.

One can take this as far as they want, and declare that all nations are nations of immigrants, as virtually all lands are inhabited by descendants of people who entered (either peacefully or violently) that land from some other land at some point in the past.

Technically of course, most Americans are native-born, and the first Americans (i.e. the colonizing and Founding stock) were not immigrants in the modern sense, but I get that we're talking about a more general and romantic notion when dealing with the 'nation of immigrants' line.  My problem with that line is that some people actually consider it to be an insightful and powerful point in the immigration debate, when in fact its been rendered by overuse and misuse as just another nauseating platitude.  

Guess I have to cover up the evidence now.

Blam.

Moe

PS: While I have the gun out... anybody else needing outside help with their inability to stop posting at a site whose motives they don't trust?  - Because I've got King Kong paused while I checked a couple of things online, and I'd like to wrap this up.  It's a three hour movie, after all.

You're right.  Most people opposed to mass immigration (legal and illegal) are not opposed to all immigration.  The 'anti-immigration' tag is just another cheap demonization ploy thrown out by those who wish to frame the debate in terms convenient to them and inconvenient for their opponents.  They know that most Americans feel differently about the ideal immigration policy, so they seek to attach a stigma to the mainstream views, and make people feel bad for holding them.  Its a typiclal leftist tactic employed in almost every debate over a hot-button issue.

Polls consistently show that anywhere from a near-plurality to a solid majority favor reducing legal immigration, while a majority almost always favors tougher approaches to illegal immigration, yet only a simplistic mind would automatically characterize that as anti-immigration.  The label of anti-immigration should be applied to someone who opposes all immigration at all times.  That too should not be reflexively treated as a racist pt of view, but it is a view not shared by most of those who are most often characterized as anti-immigration.  

The original post by Pat Cleary does come across like something written by a liberal suffering from a bad case of white-guilt.  It sounds like some of the worst stuff written by Paul Gigot at the WSJ, who seems to relish taking cheap shots at fellow conservatives who dare disagree with him on immigration.  

I mean, what kind of conservative would ever use the 'angry white man' nonsense?  

And though Dobbs does focus on illegal immigration, so what if he was also talking about legal immigration?  Can a person be opposed to large amounts of legal immigration and not be an angry white racist?  

I'm quoting from memory, but I think the Canadian government allows a net immigration rate something like double our own. If you'd like to start a petition demanding a revamping of US immigration policies along Canadian lines, complete with an annual quota of two million, let me know where I can sign.

Yeah, probably. Again, I used the term "white guy" 'cause I am one, thought I could. No racism intended, obviously. The asnwer to your Q is probably yes. But in Dobbs' case, not sure.....

And, mfrs pay a good wage and good benefits. Still can't find workers.

So if the wage your member is offering isn't good enough to attract qualified American workers for the particular job, by what authority can you assert that the rejected wage offer is a "good" wage? Because you think your opinion of what wage/benefit combo is "good" for people with a certain skill level, is more authoritative than the market telling you otherwise (i.e. no takers for the offer of what you think they deserve)?

How can you arrive at a number for what constitutes a "good wage" (despite no applicants) for a particular job, short of having some retired Soviet central planner assess it?

If I offered $10 an hour for grocery baggers, and was flooded with suitable applicants, I'd infer $10/hr must be a "good wage" for jobs in this area with similar skill requirements, difficulty, and level of pleasentness/unpleasentness of the job. If instead I had offered $20/hr for grocery baggers and nobody suitable applied, I conclude $20/hr is NOT a "good wage" for such work in this area.

No employer is entitled to say: "I will never have to pay more than $X/hour to fill my low-skill jobs. If nobody applies at $X/hr, the government owes me an immigration exemption to bring in third-world workers."

BTW, I don't agree with the post you were arguing against. I support substantial legal immigration. However, I can't take seriously claims that there are "labor shortages" for certain jobs unless those jobs go unfilled at wage offers well above the median income (seasonal work wage is discounted by unemployed months). And for jobs that are very unpleasant, you have to accept that you can't fill those jobs without offering a substantial premium over the wage for more pleasant jobs with similar skill requirements.

Bringing in immigrants to add to the labor supply in high-income occupations generally improves the standard of living for low-skill/low-income workers, even though somewhat lowering the wage in the occupation the high-skill immigrants are hired for. To the extent your members want immigrants for those jobs paying well above the median income, I support you. If it was only for such high standard of living occupations that you wanted to hire foreigners, then I aplogize for misinterpreting your position.

It wasn't anti-white racism that I thought I read in your words, but rather I found it bizarre that a conservative would use the 'angry white man' line since the Left uses it to marginalize and belittle legitimate concerns over contentious issues.  

 To make matters worse, Lou is headed to Mexico himself where he will broadcast live, the anti-ambassador of good will, the piñata pundit twisting over the heads of those he so detests.

This seems to be a fairly straight forward assertion that Dobbs detests who? Mexicans? illegal immigrants? If it's illegal immigrants your refer to he won't be "twisting over their heads" because they'll still be in Mexico and therefore, not be illegal immigrants.

I don't watch Dobbs regularly but found him, while passionate, fairly reasonable.  I wouldn't say that his reasoning is due to his detesting anybody.

Pat Cleary's diary includes this link:

http://blog.nam.org/archives/dobbs_watch/

It appears as an in-text link with the words "Lou Dobbs." If you go to the original diary and click on "Lou Dobbs" you will see that the article it takes you to is from the NAM website, and it is word-for-word the same as the Pat Cleary diary. I wasn't suggesting that Cleary did anything wrong by cross-posting, since Cleary himself wrote the NAM article. Seems perfectly legit to me. I was suggesting that readers "consider the source." That's all I was saying.

I wasn't saying that you did anything wrong by cross-posting the article (there seems to be some confusion about that point). You wrote it and can put it wherever you want. I was just saying that since you were writing for NAM you are not an unbiased source.

...I really only just needed to know so that I could update the post appropriately - not least because it's perfectly legitimate to consider the source of an argument.  cyrus was able to point me somewhere where I could find the actual link, and I so updated.

Pat'll be adding cross-links in the future, so problem solved and thanks for pointing it out.

In reading my last post I realized I came off a little testy.  Sorry about that. It's not you. I'm grading huge stacks of tests and I'm frustrated that students can't spell "referendum" correctly.

1. Punish businesses that hire illegals with HEFTY FINES and JAIL TIME
   
2. Cut off ALL welfare/healthcare/free education to illegals
   
3. Tax the HELL out of wire transfers to Mexico, etc

Turn off the "spigot" and they will deport themselves.

First off, he's had Sessions, Tancredo, and other conservative Republicans on and let them make their points on Immigration without demonizing them or the usual liberal clap-trap.

Second, Dobbs far from being the KKK leader has had African American Talk Radio hosts on and their listeners they report say they are fed up with "jobs Americans won't do" ... legitimately they complain about being underpriced and crowded out (by social networks). See the rebuilding of New Orleans.

Third, Dobbs is right about the screwing over of the American worker. Wages in the tech industry have declined dramatically because of H-1B visas and legal immigrants making nearly 20K less than their US citizen counterparts. How this is good for the workforce I fail to see (Corporate profits yes, working man no). Lawyers, Accountants, Plumbers, Construction workers can all be replaced by lower-cost workers from the Philippines, India, Mexico, or elsewhere. YEs even lawyers.

We've gone from 1986's Amnesty with 2 million illegals to 12-20 million. Wage declines for the bottom tier workers, African Americans hit the hardest (as usual). Employment declines too. How this is good for the country I fail to see: preferring jobs and wages for foreign nationals who send money out of the country to citizens here at home. Native born Latinos and Anglos take hits too in wages and unemployment.

Employment for African American workers particularly young men under 30 has fallen off the cliff; unemployment skyrocketing in the last ten years during a period of genuine economic expansion. The only explanation that fits is economic under-pricing and social network crowding out (if the labor union is run by guys from Michoacan who all know each other and are related, the guy from South Central isn't going to get hired).

Higher labor costs encourage capital investment, which is a winners' game. Low cost labor is a loser's game. Always some one more impoverished willing to work for less.

just looking for work..

http://www.mexica-movement.org/granmarcha.htm

30% of federal prison inmates are illegal immigrants (doin' the crimes Americans won't do)

And how about the militant MS13 gang members

(doin' the gang killings that American gangs won't do)

Yet we continue to import poverty and lawlessness creating a long-term problem and drain on our resources.  Just so a factory foreman can pay below-market wages for short-term profit.

Hey guys, I think the popcorn is done...

Seriously, what's the deal with the trigger-happy bannings recently? </Seinfeld&gt For the record, I can't stand Malkin, but I also don't understand how she got dragged into this. Oh wait, I do, because HH explained: I decided I could return the favor and toss a little slime back.

Dunno about this one Moe.

Was in the heat of the moment.  I decided that if Neil could fire off some charges at NAM (ones without foundation), I could make a counter-claim, albeit mine had proof.  (I'll admit, I initially botched the initial Auster link - here is a link to the correct Google search, but I did add a link where she cited him later in the discussion - five days after a denouncement was linked to on this site.

I've decided I'm just going to try to agree to disagree with you from now on.

It'll take some discipline, given what I said above, but I'll try.

If you can do likewise, we'll all be better off.

I'm not sure whether the comparison takes into account the vast number of illegals we effectively admit through laxity, but yes, they do.  That granted, they are more selective, using a points system that heavily favors people with marketable skills, education, and proficiency in English or French.

And no, I wouldn't sign that petition.

Glad to have you back.

You never should have been gone.

Nothing at all is wrong with lobbying for increased legal immigration.

I do wish I could believe that all of the NAM members are illegal-alien free, but given the organization's size, the size of some of the members, and the number of illegal alien sanctuaries in this country, I find it implausible that there aren't at least a few companies in the membership that take advantage.

By the way, I do apologize for the way I made the comment.  It has been communicated to me that the way I wrote it, it was inappropriate in its tone and hostility.  I wish I had found a way to make my point more clearly, without the emotion-rousing aspects of that.

I should have written that dramatically differently.

take care,

Just understand that I am not trying to smear Michelle.

what type of person gets to be counted in that number.  Canada has some pretty stringent standards for who is accepted as an immigrant, the US is much less picky about education, work history etc.  I remember looking at the criteria to immigrate to Canada, and it is unlikely anyone who is unskilled or lowskilled would be accepted as an immigrant.  It is even difficult for people with college degrees to fully meet the criteria to immigrate.

I haven't looked at the actual stats comparing the US to other countries, but I am willing to bet the US admits far more lower skilled immigrants in than most other Western countries.

Also Canada has the benefit of not sharing a large border with a poor country.

It would be economically nonsensical to start deporting workers...

Let's put it this way: our members can't find workers for the wages they're paying. These are the same wages they've been paying -- with regular increases (and again, very good benefits, typically), the same ones they pay their existing long-tenured workers. Make sense? So in other words, this isn't some two-tiered system where jobs are going begging because they're low-paying. Mfg jobs pay a lot more on average than jobs in other sectors, and again, have good benefits with them. But almost to a company (large and small alike), they will complain about their inability to find qualified workers.

Hope this clears it up.

No hard feelings.

Thanks for the comments.

No problem.

The other problem here (unspoken in all the debates) is the efficiency (not!) of the INS. Our employers, our mbrs are pretty good. I can say that because fly-by-nights don't tend to join trade associations. I spend a lot of time outside the Beltway, meeting with and talking to our members. Trying to get verification from the INS and trying to work with the INS is well-nigh impossible. Our employers often find themselves between a rock and a hard place. This is an issue that's not really been talked about throughout this whole debate, but it's real to any employer who hires foreign-born workers.

Again, thanks for engaging in the debate.

You're right -- I plagiarized myself! :)

Thanks for writing. No offense taken. Unless it was intended....

You're right, I am not. I don't think there are any left in America.

as a "Job an American Won't Do"

We did them for decades (centuries in some areas) Without the assistance of Illegals.  Furthermore, these jobs only pay Below Minimum Wage (which is illegal, too, btw) because They Can Get Away With It.  Because illegals will accept it and won't make a fuss about it to the BBB.

So long as Americans are willing to work at McDonald's and/or throw themselves across open fields into the teeth of machine gun fire, your "Jobs Americans Won't Do" line won't fly with an intelligent person...

see here

I should have used the word "disinterested." You are not disinterested because you write for NAM.

...."and they are going to find them..."

The blog BigLizards had a post - and then added a comment at 1:28 PM on March 28 - that really opened my eyes.

Scroll down there.  If the system is as arbitrary and capricious as he is describing it, then it's no wonder people have contempt for the law.  It's like the 55 mile-per-hour speed limit.