No folks, this isn’t a joke. I just hope our glorious state elected officials in Raleigh have the sense to nip this idea in the bud.
Latino advocates say they’ll start lobbying N.C. legislators for driver’s licenses, in-state tuition and wage enforcement for those who are undocumented, likely heating up the illegal immigration debate.
It’s the first time advocacy groups across the state have created one agenda, which was released Tuesday by El Pueblo, a Raleigh-based nonprofit.
The agency’s top priority is to push for a special driver’s license for illegal immigrants. Several states already use such an alternative.
After North Carolina started requiring a valid Social Security number or a valid visa to obtain a driver’s license, many illegal immigrants chose to drive without one because they still have to work and take their children to school, said Zulayka Santiago, El Pueblo’s executive director.
“When you have drivers on the roads not fully informed of our traffic laws, that puts all our communities in danger,” she said.
Testing 1-2-3… Hello… *taps screen* … anyone with a brain out there?
How about the fact that people entering this country illegally are automatically breaking the law (that is kind of what “illegal” means). And the fact that most of the reported deadly accidents on the roads these days in Charlotte are caused by undocumented aliens behind the wheel.
The American community is already in danger. Here’s a wild idea… have the illegals learn English in order to get a job, and apply for citizenship through existing law. That way when they are here legally, they will be fully informed of our traffic laws because they’ll be able to hear them in English, read them in English, and comprehend them in English.
This dopey concept by El Pueblo is nothing more than a license to encourage more law-breaking by illegal aliens.
-Bruce (GayPatriot)
I note that the three leading GOP presidential aspirants are all pro-illegal immigration and pro-amnesty. And our current president would rather throw border guards in jail than illegal alien drug dealers.
To the neo-mods, that’s a racist statement.
Yes, VdaK… your facts kind of throw cold water on the statements by commenters that we are nothing but GOP and/or Bush apologists here.
Bruce, last night at dinner, my son said, “Dad, I just can’t stick up for Bush any more.” I said, “Neither can I.”
It also seems like it’s been a while since there was a pro-Bush article posted here.
This might cheer you a little, against Democrat opposition, Republicans in the House passed a bill granting immunity to airline passengers who report suspicious activity. It was inspired by the flying Imams case.
The vileness of Bush-haters make me instinctiely defend Bush even though sometimes I feel he doesn’t deserve it.
I admit I don’t understand all the nuances of the illegal immigration debate, but when they show up for a license and cannot provide documentation, hence revealing themselves to be in this country illegally, well, they’re in a government facility, why is it we cannot put them on a bus and transport them to wherever they belong? What am I missing? They’ve shown up and said, “Here I am, and I am breaking your laws!”
Forget about how long we took to find Hussein to punish him, or that we can’t find BinLaden at all, we can’t (won’t) find and punish millions of criminals in our own country.
Doorhold, Maybe because the Federal Government can’t even be bothered to keep track of the 600,000 illegal alien fugitives it knows about.
Not to get off-topic, but it’s probably no wonder that the liberal NC electorate is pursuing this issue. This is the same type of voters that put Mike Nifong in office.
Regards,
Peter H.
And because Democrats oppose any enforcement whatsoever of immigration laws, even when the people involved are under deportation orders because they have committed crimes.
And the disgusting thing is that this makes clear that illegal immigrants are coming to the United States and using their children as an excuse to dodge being deported. People are coming here, having babies, and then using that as leverage to facilitate evading the law.
I never thought I’d say this, but it is time for us to change the citizenship requirements; no more automatic citizenship unless at least one of your parents is a US citizen.
Between this post and the one that precedes it, I am reminded of Rudy Giuliani’s smack down of Republicans on the immigration issue a few years back. When all the other Republicans on a panel were protesting against ‘illegal immigration’ and the state treating undocumented folks differently–say, not letting kids go to public schools, getting stingy with welfare, etc.–Rudy was quick to point out that America is a country of immigrants, that the state should be more interested in the greater good, and that he would, of course, want Illegal Children in public schools…so they wouldn’t feel different and cause havoc in the city parks and public spaces all day.
But I’m with you: kick all the dirty Illegal Children out.
#2. For all of you that have never jay-walked, I will listen to your talk about breaking the law. Those of you that have, or have driven above the speed limit, or drank when under 21, fill your pie hole with a nice big piece of American apple pie.
Or, some laws are bigger than others.
there’s a liberal electorate in nc? oh please. another miss by peter.
CHECKMATE
vdak:
glad you can’t stick up for bushco any longer. you’ve seen the light, obviously.
what’s needed is a crackdown on employers of illegals. if there aren’t jobs for them, they won’t come here. oh, wait, that contradicts the gop’s main objective of maximizing profits at the expense of all else. hmm. what a dilemma.
it’s another failed issue for bushco, the worst president ever.
what’s needed is a crackdown on employers of illegals.
Sure — as long as the illegal immigrants employed are also immediately taken into custody and deported.
PIG riw spewed: “there’s a liberal electorate in nc?”
Um, yes, but not as big as in, say, DC or Richmond. Granted, the ENTIRE state of North Carolina leans red, but this is the same state that elected John Edwards as well.
You obviously didn’t pass reading comprehension when you took the short yellow bus to school.
And quit stealing my catchphrases (oops, my bad – I forgot that you can’t think for yourself).
Try again.
Regards,
Peter H.
To the neo-mods, that’s a racist statement.
I guess I’m not a neo-mod, since I don’t find the reference statement racist at all.
I had a colleague who is a resident alien, and since 9/11, he would have to bring all his documentation to some govt. office every year, or he was in danger of being deported. If he is threatened for deportment, and he is here LEGALLY, I don’t understand how it is an issue to deport people that are here illegally.
As for the license issue, NJ was considering the same thing. This was after when I was renewing my license, I had to go back home and bring this extra proof of residency, because my previous license was not good enough any more.
I am all for immigration, as I view it as vital to our country, and we have a long standing and great tradition of immigrants. And I have no problem that some of our parents or grandparents may have come here illegally. That didn’t seem to be a problem years ago. It’s different today, and there are vital security and economic concerns here with illegal immigration. And it doesn’t seem fair to punish the people who are trying to immigrate legally, and reward those that are coming here illegally.
“I note that the three leading GOP presidential aspirants are all pro-illegal immigration and pro-amnesty.”
“To the neo-mods, that’s a racist statement.”
“But I’m with you: kick all the dirty Illegal Children out.”
Ah, more deep thinking from our neo-con brethren. Leaping to the conclusion that someone who isn’t in favor of automatic deportation would conclude that someone who is is a racist (Which race? The American race?) represents the worst of conservatism, just as demanding open borders is the worst of liberalism. Yes, an amnesty policy is the equivalent of being in favor of illegal immigration. Exactly right. And you’re voting for Tom Tancredo, yes?
What Pat said.
We’re a nation of immigrants. Immigration is a good thing. That isn’t by any means the same thing as thinking that illegal immigration is a good thing.
To our society illegal immigration means a sub-culture of people living without the protections of our society. To labor this means “cheap” labor rather than what we deem fair. It means a class of workers who *can not* appeal to labor laws about wages or safety or hours or benefits. And it’s the employers who enable this. It may seem like a compassionate thing to do, to hire people who have families to feed, but it enables the whole system where people can and are abused without legal recourse and victimized without being able to complain to the cops.
We “compassionately” turn away when decent people who only want a better life sneak across the border but the mechanisms that get them here can also bring drugs and criminals, and they do.
Should we just open the borders to anyone? That would solve part of the problem. Declare everyone “legal” and let any who want to come just move on over. Then they could demand legal wages and legal hours and pay taxes and have benefits from their employers and it would all be dandy. The only ones left sneaking could be assumed to be the drug runners, crooks and terrorists.
If we *don’t* do that, then giving a free pass to those already here does them no favors in the name of compassion because they are held in limbo. Amnesties result in ever more people risking their lives to sneak into the country. Anything done to enable the situation to continue enables all the bad parts of it to continue.
And it’s very unfair to those who come here legally, who jump through those hoops, who wait… sometimes for many years as some of my newly arrived relations did… who keep their visas and green cards and paperwork current and face deportation if they don’t.
Ask NEW immigrants and NEW citizens what they think is fair and moral. It’s far too easy to guilt trip those of us who are citizens a couple generations or more removed.
#11 (jimmy): comparing widespread disregard for our immigration laws (and our borders) to jaywalking is, well, asinine.
I don’t think jaywalkers are costing this country billions nor are they tearing what’s left of a “social fabric” apart.
It used to be that immigrants aspired to adopt our culture and values (such as they are). Now they’re demanding that we accept the very cultures and values they’re fleeing.
Tell me – if Latin American culture is so wonderful then 1) why are most L.A countries such train wrecks and 2) why are people fleeing them in droves.
We produce an enormous underclass in this country – I just don’t see the need for imports. We would be far better off if Mexico, et al got their acts together and provided opportunity for their own citizens.
Aside: is it not racist to see Mexico as no more than a source of people willing to fo “menial” jobs?
Oh, and the earlier GP post about the riots in the subway station:
These Muslim “youths” are the progeny of “cheap” labor imported from northern Africa after the war.
N.B. these “youths” have not assimilated into French culture.
A Mexican immigrant may very well appreciate the opportunities in this country (compared to those found in Mexical… and as long as his/her back is strong) but their progeny won’t be comparing their status to Mexico. They’ll be comparing their status to that of American kids (the ones too damn good to work at McD’s).
Think it’s not happening here?
I dont think its too illuminating to link Muslim and Mexican immigration. while the issue overlaps a little , I think to dwell over the common parts makes the case seem bigger than it is.
14: Hits the nail on the head. We no longer have slavery per se in this country, but we do have classes of people who fit the criteria of slaves, less the morally tricky issue of actual “ownership”. Illegal immigrants conveniently fit the need of business owners who will only pay sub-standard wages to a class of people who (in modern terms) don’t have the rights of human beings (ie civil rights) in this country. By giving some kind of documentation to these folks, it begins to legitimize their existence, giving them an inkling of what it means to have rights in this country and thereby making them undesirable as cheap labor. The truth is, the majority of these people have come to the US, albeit it illegally, because they simply want to live a better life.
frankly though, I agree that illegal aliens shouldn’t receive driver’s licenses. Having documentation like this is a privilege of citizenship. they shouldn’t be villified though if they want to become legal citizens though.
Yeah, HH, all illegals should be rounded up and deported, or better yet summarily executed. Except the females with unwanted pregnancies, who should be forced to die in childbirth as punishment from God. Also, I like to beat puppies… with kittens!
Any other strawman positions you’d like to attribute to me? It is much easier than honest debate, isn’t it? I mean, you don’t have to engage intellectually at all, just attribute whatever absurd extreme position you want to the other side and pretend to be appalled by it. Seems a bit sophomoric to me, but everyone argues at their own level.
Let’s see… absurdly mis-characterizes his opponent’s position, then acts appalled about it while maintaining a facade of faux-intellectual superiority. Oh my Gaia, HH is Andrew Sullivan.
VK: LOL.
I dont know about you, but I’m so sick of having to deal with such rank immaturity thrusted at me, I’d be content with the govt rounding up these idiots and gassing them for their own protection
(to be clear i’m talking about the HH types, not immigrants.. immigrants have value)
Amen, Bruce (GP), to all you’ve posted on this issue. I just hope members of the North Carolina legislature have stronger backbones than the U. S. Congress.
And, North Dallas Thirty, in #9, changing the “rules” ought to be one of the nation’s highest priorities. I’d be a little tougher than you, however. For a child born in the United States to automatically become a citizen I think the law ought to require that the birth mother be a citizen at the time.
#24 Vince P: The secret is to tie the kittens’ tails together and use them like nunchucks. The puppies never know what hit them.
Please, don’t ever watch that movie Kung Pao, or whatever it was called. And don’t *ever* mention nunchucks made of furry animals again. Better yet, *do* watch that movie and share my pain.
Thank you.
Here is a thought. Why don’t we adopt the same rules and enforcement laws that Mexico has. After all what could be the argument from Mexico or their residents if our laws are the same as theirs. Could I go to Mexico and expect free health care, welfare, the adility to work or drive without documentation? Or would I be shot on sight or immediately deported like they do to citizens from countries to their south?
Um.. no. You would be held in custody by Mexican officials and not released until someone pay a lot of bribes and fees to release you from your kidnappers.
“most of the reported deadly accidents on the roads these days in Charlotte are caused by undocumented aliens behind the wheel”
I’m sure you have solid, inconvertible proof of this fact, having combed through thousands of police records that all state the immigration status of drivers responsible for deadly accidents.
Some of us come from immigrants. However some of our families, myself included, were here in the United States before it even was the United States. My ancestors could have made it impossible for any of your families to take advantage of the great country we live in. But they were wealthy and needed cheap labor to do the dirty work to maintain and grow their wealth. Republicans, like the wealthy in times past, keep telling us they want reform but still want to take advantage of the cheap labor. I don’t think you can legitimately have both together. The things necessary to achieve either are in direct conflict.
That being said, I think it’s vitally important that both parties get very serious about immigration reform. Personally I think it’s time to stem the flow of illegal and legal immigration. As the numbers show, illegal immigrants represent an incredibly small drain on federal money. But what that doesn’t show is the jobs drawn away from United States citizens and the schism it effects regarding class issues. Immigration reform needs to be a burden on the whole country.
Right now it’s just too simple for illegal aliens to make a living and simply stay in the country. It’s too easy for employers to hire undocumented workers. It’s too easy to get housing, credit and so many other benefits our government provides when you’re not actually part of the system. I say cut it off. If you want vermin out of your house, you don’t catch and release them with numbers. No “guest worker program.” No driver’s licenses. If a child happened to be born in the United States, I feel the law should require their legal guardians to go through the steps of becoming citizens within a certain period of time or they forfeit the citizenship of the child. If an employer is caught hiring illegals, they should face civil law penalties.
I’m all for legal immigration, but I think we want to encourage the brightest and the best to become part of the citizenry, not make it easy for foreigners to make money to send back to the homeland and also not for American employers to make a bigger profit off of cheap undocumented labor. And I don’t buy that these are jobs that Americans won’t do. American employers have taken the pride out of this kind of labor. They want to make the most profit they can at the expense of human lives – the lowest wage possible, under the most cost-saving conditions. When we refocus on the importance of labor and jobs as sustaining our culture, giving the respect due such work, and not thinking of human lives as a “resource” as a way to make more money for less people, then I think we will guarantee a culture where people will do more labor intensive work because there’s a pride that goes along with it and a commitment from our culture of respect. We need to promote the American workers first and foremost. That will make an amazing dent in the run of illegal immigration.
Or, to put it a bit more succinctly: illegal immigration is globalization come home to roost.
You put it so succinctly I have no idea what you mean.
I refer you to this excerpt from JAQ’s post:
“American employers have taken the pride out of this kind of labor. They want to make the most profit they can at the expense of human lives – the lowest wage possible, under the most cost-saving conditions.”
And this is because American companies now have to compete with companies in places like China and Bangladesh. The free-market fundamentalist consensus is that the people who make our stuff don’t deserve to live decently, as the union-hating ideologues among us will shortly squawk. Which is why American companies, when they don’t simply ship jobs offshore, are compelled to cut costs to the bone.
It’s no coincidence that the current wave of illegal immigration has coincided with the wholesale de-unionization of the American workforce. The biggest illegal-immigrant amnesty of all time was signed by none other than that quintessential union-buster, Ronald Reagan.
You’re going to complain about capitalism? oh yawn.
It’s no coincidence that the current wave of illegal immigration has coincided with the wholesale de-unionization of the American workforce.
And who’s fault is that? I’ve often said that the common complaint of workers is that they’re working to make their boss rich. So why in the hell would you want to make him AND your union boss rich?
Unionized workers are paid better than non-unionized ones for comparable work. De-unionization has led to a race to the bottom in terms of wages and benefits.
So, although some union bosses undoubtedly got rich during the bad old days when a male head of household could support an entire family on his wage alone, the workers themselves benefited too.
The politicians who whine endlessly about outsourcing US jobs to third-world countries are the same ones who do everything possible to make sure third-worlders are imported en masse to take American jobs. The reasoning is simple, workers in China, India, and Mexico can’t commit voter fraud. Illegal aliens in the US can. Ask the governor of Washington state about it.
It’s not surprising considering the Bush administration and their allies in Amnesty in the Senate want to reward illegal aliens who commit social security fraud and tax evasion with American citizenship. Once again showing how little they value citizenship in this country.
Well without commenting on the whole of the issue, there is one aspect that is already covered internationally. If you have a valid driver’s license from your birth country, you can obtain an International Driver’s License. That is recognized virtually everywhere for a year from date of issue. So — if you can drive in Mexico, you can get an IDL. It is recognized and can be renewed by mail. I personally don’t care about people driving if they have valid licenses (from virtually anywhere) and follow the appropriate laws of their host country — whether they are there legally or not. Most countries require insurance coverage. So…..what’s the big deal? If a Mexican illegal immigrant is caught without a driver’s licence or international license or insurance…..throw them in jail (like you would a citizen) or deport them.
Unionized workers are paid better than non-unionized ones for comparable work.
I’ll say. The average dock worker in Charleston, SC makes $130,000/yr. That constitutes as “rich”, doesn’t it? Therefore, by liberal logic, they should be taxed more to pay their fair share. Why the hell should they be richer than the non-union employees, right?
Oh yeah. Union workers tend to be libs, so they’re excused from taxes and wealth redistribution.
De-unionization has led to a race to the bottom in terms of wages and benefits.
The hell it has. Real wages are increasing DESPITE mass exodus from unions. When companies don’t have to pay people hundreds of thousands of dollars to sit on their ass, they can afford to pay everybody. Further, they can afford benefits.
Take for example police officers. Sure you can join the union to get better pay, but you have to give up bennies like a take-home car, paid dry cleaning for your uniform, better equipment etc. It’s one or the other. You either get higher pay and get whatever the company can afford whenever, or you can get regular pay and all the ancillary goodies that make your job easier.
But then if you don’t enslave yourself on the union plantation, the bosses don’t make money and thereby the DNC doesn’t make money. BTW, when the DNC does away with secret ballots in organizing elections, how long do you suppose it will be before they try to do away with secret ballots in political elections?
Additionally, you don’t get your regular pay when you go on strike. My grandfather worked for Southern Bell all his life and never joined the union. When his co-workers went on strike, he still got his regular pay while the others didn’t. He was kind enough to share his pay (and his Jai-Alai winnings) with his friends, but he had to sit up at night with a shotgun for those who weren’t his friends.
VK: lets not forget that the same folks who opposed outsourcing during the 04 election (Remember Kerry calling “Benedict Arnold CEOs” (it’s ok for democrats to call people traitors)) are the same people who bitch when Bush gives contracts to US companies (halliburton)
I’m outraged that they didn’t use a Church of England altar:
A man charged with deliberately spreading HIV allegedly tricked his lover – who had registered himself with the local council as a dog – into having unsafe sex on the basis he could not transmit the disease.
Melbourne Magistrates Court heard yesterday that Michael Neal, 48, accepted a dog tag from his lover as a “sign of commitment” in their master-slave relationship. Mr Neal, who is said to have set up a webcam to broadcast his sexual activities live on the internet, allegedly “deliberately contracted” HIV by having sex on the altar of a Catholic Church with two men he knew were HIV-positive.
The divorced father of three is charged with setting out to spread the virus… Mr Neal’s view echoed that of his Victorian Aids Council doctor, Nicholas Medland, who was in correspondence with the Victorian Department of Human Services and telling officials that if Mr Neal’s viral load levels could be kept low he would be “uninfectious”.
Writing as a non-partisan, outside observer, (but also a professional strategic analyst) it is indeed baffling that the GOP is embracing electoral suicide on this issue. Whether certain people like it or not, amnesty is a hot-button issue for a significant segment of the GOP base. If the Senate gives Bush an Amnesty Bill and Bush signs it (which he will), a significant number of GOP voters will be turned off, and the GOP won’t win over anybody else to replace them. In the short run, amnesty is electoral poison, no matter how desperately it is spun and no matter how many times the establishment GOP calls those who oppose amnesty racist.
In the long run, amnesty is going to vastly increase a pool of people who will vote overwhelmingly Democrat. Let’s face it, they’re uneducated, they’re immersed in racial identity politics, and they are massive beneficiaries of welfare. They will never vote Republican, unless the party goes completely Schwarzeneggar and becomes even bigger big-government socialists than the Democrats.
Honestly.. in my opinion, the amnesty is already fact. We’ve allowed these massive number of people to move here. We dont round them up, we dont lock them up and we dont deport them, and we never will. The government will never competent enough and there’s way too many people to 1) identify somehow 2) deport
.. to me,, it’s amesty.
The only way to get past those roadblocks is to have 100% employers be the enforcement wing of this.
#46 (Vince P): My favored solution is one you won’t find any politician endorsing:
1. Make the borders as airtight as possible.
2. End automatic citizenship for children born in this country to illegal aliens.
3. Set up a system where employers can hire screened foreign workers, but both workers and employers are heavily taxed (maybe at the top marginal rate, regardless of income) to pay for border security and for administering the foreign worker system. Employing a worker outside the system would be massive penalties and prison-time.
4. Tax remittances to Mexico until Mexico reforms its immigration and foreign investment laws.
5. Create a status of legal residency but non-citizenship for foreign workers/illegal immigrants still in the country, provided they register, are screened, and are admitted to the foreign worker system. They can remain here, but they’ll be taxed heavily, can be immediately deported for breaking a wide variety of laws (including drug offenses and failure to carry car insurance), but they can not vote, can not collect social security, and have limited access to welfare.
6. Provide federal assistance to farmers and ranchers in the southwest to build fencing around their property to protect them from the vandalism, theft, and violence being enacted on them by illegal immigrants.
7. Make it a felony for a bank or financial institution to extend credit to anyone in the country illegally (a.k.a. outside the screened foreign worker system).
That would be my system. Note the lack of mass deportations.
Your proposals are all too reasonable. It will never happen.
Just as a thought experiment, Vince, imagine 12-20 million illegals suddenly returned to Mexico and demanded reform, so that Mexico had to have more opportunity and rule of law. Can you see why the Mexican ruling classes are doing everything they can to make sure US immigration laws are never enforced?
Both borders are a wreck.. The south is a catastrophy and is the achilles heal of our countyr.
Bruce, here in Michigan non-documented workers can obtain a drivers license without meeting even the modest status checks required in some proposed fed “reform” legislation… presentation of SS card, 3 other forms of ID with address on it, cancelled mail, high school yearbook picture etc.
Michigan is one of 10-18 states that have NOT adopted even those modest proposals because our Secy of State thinks an insured, tested non-documented person on the road is better than an uninsured, unchecked, untested non-documented driver. Her concern is driver performance –not citizenship tests. Does our code allow undocumented workers to drive? Yes. Is that the reason for the code? No. The point of the code is to get drivers tested, certified and insured.
As someone who pays $178/yr in a statutory assessments to cover unisured motorists –like undocumented workers, repeat drunk drivers, felons, and just the usual rightwing conspiracy/militia kooks who think having a license “puts ’em on the grid” etc– I’d rather have legally licensed undocumented workers driving. Frankly, I’d rather have easier requirements for citizenship, too… but that’s another issue.
I’m not sure the advocacy of El Pueblo is any more kooky than some of the nonsense coming from the neo-Nativist/Know Nothing radical rightwingers who have come down out of the trees, knuckles dragging in the dirt for ringside seat at the “crush the illegal immigrants” movement. You know, the kooks like Glenn Spencer and Peter Brimelow and others… and I’d add CNN’s Lou Dobbs to that collection. The far greater threat to America is to listen to those types and quash the flow of labor into our country… but then, most of those types are trade protectionists, uber nationalists and anti-global traders except where it aids American interests.
When I attend gun shows, I see booths for the anti-immigration groups right alongside the Minutemen and VDARE and English Only and para-military vendors selling camos, build-a-bunker plans, and night vision goggles. I am usually amazed at the sheer luck that some of these neanderthal groups have in combing guns, racism, illegal immigration and WASPist ego-centric preferences into just 1-2 issues! Like hogs in the slop, they fashion themselves to be patriots of old, defenders of the pure, keepers of America for Americans. When at heart, they’d be just as happy under a white hood drinking PBRs with the boys and burning a few crosses around town.
Border security and the tracking of all immigrants and guest workers in the US (including those on college campus) is an issue in serious need of focused attention. So are employer sanctions for hiring illegal immigrants. But let’s not hide behind issues like undocumented workers securing drivers license –it’s as bad as the liberals who maintain all gun owners use Uzis to hunt squirrel… or all gun-owners are Klansmen (wink).
I’d rather have tested, insured, legal drivers on the road and make sure the SOS keeps that priority in focus.
Well, M-Matt, unlike your neighbor to the west of Lake Superior, you don’t have to worry about the influx of immigrants (legal or otherwise) imposing shari’a law over the US Constitution…at least, not yet.
Regards,
Peter H.
No Matt, that’s the root of the issue.
As I believe you’ve mentioned on this blog previously, your parents were illegal immigrants. In your heart, you don’t think of illegals as illegal, or wish they didn’t have an ‘illegal’ status, or could become legal more easily. So, the idea of illegals driving around and enjoying other benefits of legal citizenship (as if they hadn’t broken our laws by coming here) is fine with you.
And now you’re back in the terrority, Matt, of implying (note IMPLYING) that people who think and feel differently than you on the illegal immigrant issue are like those racists.
1. So illegal aliens should be entitled to driver’s licenses, because even though they break immigration law, employment law, tax law, and social security law and identity fraud, they are going to be upstanding about following traffic and insurance laws.
2. Sufficient ID for boarding any airline flight in the USA: a state-issued driver’s license.
Unh-huh. No security risk there.
#53 Cal: I see smearing one’s opponents as racist as being a sign of intellectual bankruptcy, whether it comes from left or right. It’s possible to make a case for amnesty without resorting to smear tactics, just as it’s possible to make a case for abortion without implying that the pro-life movement is made up of people who think unwanted pregnancy is a punishment from God.
But, hey, I’m just a knuckle-dragging, woman-hating, puppy-beating racist, so what do I know?
Peter, Michigan does have a serious undocumented worker issue in the agricultural and resort sectors. It’s not as big as in the southwestern states, but it is serious. We also have a porous border with Canada –in fact, when non-commercial transit between countries was supposed to require valid passport last month, our Secy of State intoned that Michigan drivers licenses would be good enough. I don’t think our standards for border security should be determined by each Secy of State, anymore than I think the feds have the right to determine how drivers licenses or gun permits or marriage licenses are issued. But then, strike me down… I’m a strict constructionist when it comes to reserved powers.
Calarato, no, the root of the issue is NOT citizenship –the topic of the thread was a hispanic advocacy group pressing for undocumented workers being able to secure driving licenses. A drivers’ license isn’t a right of citizenship –we have International Driver Licenses– it’s a privilege if you are insured, know how to drive, get tested and follow the roadway laws. I don’t recall the local Congressman’s Office passing out drivers licenses on Citizenship Day. Drivers licensing is for driving –employment laws are where the issues of non-documented workers should be focused, tested and resolved. And tightening borders.
VdaK, I think we’ll disagree as long as the sun is shining on this issue. You won’t abate any harshness or fervency in the pursuit of cracking down on non-documented workers as per your hit list of onerous sanctions provided above… I think it’s all a ruse for hiding a bigoted, anti-Mexican, neo-Nativist xenophobic mean streak. No intellectual bankruptcy on calling a spade a spade –unless the shovel doesn’t like it. It’s just like the silly nonsense we hear about “another illegal got drunk, drove and killed a pregnant Mom, with 4 kids, who were all on their way to serve meals to the homeless at the shelter”. Illegals causing accidents. Come on. Talk about intellectual bankruptcy.
I still think that America and the free movement of labor is best served by open borders, easier citizenship requirements, and hospitality —not hostility. And no, it doesn’t have anything to do with getting the illegals to vote GOP. It’s about our Country’s core values and proud immigrant past.
Unionized workers are paid better than non-unionized ones for comparable work. De-unionization has led to a race to the bottom in terms of wages and benefits.
Mhm….and one of these days you will figure out that overpaying workers creates its own set of problems.
This is why Dems support protectionism. They believe that they are somehow helping the country by forcing American consumers to pay higher and higher prices for goods so that their union masters can continue to be overpaid — and, since a primary source of funding for Dems is union dues, so they keep getting cash.
Democrats have to convince non-unionized workers to donate to them; with a union, they just skim the cash off their paychecks, by law.
So, name-calling your opponents is fair, if that’s what you truly believe about them. Hence, I trust, you’ll no longer object when lefties say Republicans are Nazis, or Iraq war supporters are chickenhawks.
Matt said to V:
The sentence only makes sense if Matt is saying that V HAS a strong streak of being bigoted, anti-Mexican, neo-Nativist, xenophobic and mean. In other words: if Matt is calling V bigoted, anti-Mexican, neo-Nativist, xenophobic and mean.
I just don’t see any other way to read it.
Matt: You are way out of line, now.
And as such, you are also proving’s V’s point about the intellectual bankruptcy (or lack of rational thought) in the shoddy manner in which you choose to espouse or argue for your position.
#60 Cal, frankly, I fail to see what’s so onerous about requiring people who come to the USA for economic opportunity follow the rules and pay for the privilege of being here. What’s onerous is how law-abiding taxpayers have to carry the freight for social services used by people who are in this country illegally.
V, my top concern is border security. We have open, porous borders. There have been incidents at both borders where they caught al Qaeda. Since border enforcement is so lax, it seems more than possible that there are 10 times as many (say) we don’t know about.
My second concern is the preservation of U.S. constitutional polity, of which English (or assimilation in general) is one of the secondary aspects. You’re right that people should come here under the rules to begin with… and in reasonable, but not unlimited annual numbers… and learning U.S. behavior expectations, law and English as part of the process.
My previous post contained quotes from V the K and jimmy, but V the K, being the careful, thoughtful reader he is assumed my post (which didn’t mention him by name) was all about him. In response to V the K:
“To the neo-mods, that’s a racist statement.”
“I see smearing one’s opponents as racist as being a sign of intellectual bankruptcy, whether it comes from left or right.”
These two statements are from V the K. Since this is all about one-upmanship rather than a serious discussion of a serious issue, 10 points to anyone who can identify the all-too-obvious contradiction.
My opinion? If the smear is merely a smear instead of an honest deduction, then it’s as intellectually bankrupt as smearing someone with the misattribution of identifying someone as racist. The problem with the term racist is that due to overuse (meaning unwarranted usage, as is the case with V the K), it has lost its power. Like the fable of the Boy Who Cried Wolf, people don’t take claims of racism seriously and thus, those who are victims of true racism suffer the consequences. Such accusations detract from what should be a policy debate. V the K has stated it very well:
“I mean, you don’t have to engage intellectually at all, just attribute whatever absurd extreme position you want to the other side and pretend to be appalled by it.”
To his credit, V the K posits his solutions, some with which I actually agree. However, how is one against a policy of amnesty while being against deportation? Shall we just let them live here as a permanent underclass that pays no taxes while we pay for all their social benefits? Nearly every American (except those in the Worker’s World Party, the Socialist Party, the Libertarian Party [notice the upper-case ‘L’], the Communists, and some Democrats [notice the use of the word ‘some’]) agrees that tighter border security is mandatory, including the major party Presidential candidates whose campaigns I’m following. However, at some point, the status of current illegals has to be resolved. As this is not a chicken/egg issue, border security should be addressed first, then the status of current illegals.
(#62 cont) And in that light, it makes no sense that we should do anything to make it easier on illegal immigrants. “What you reward, you only get more of.”
HardHobbit, OK, I’ll bite. What is the contradiction, exactly?
Please enlighten us with your superior brilliance and peerless integrity and lack of any hypocrisy. 😉
I share those concerns, Cal. I mean, call me a racist, call me a nativist, but I think what’s left of the American tradition of constitutional government is worth preserving. I don’t see how that happens when you magically confer citizenship on 12-20 million lawbreakers, steeped in socialism, who have no understanding of limited constitutional government, and who are inclined to vote for whoever promises to redistribute other people’s wealth to them.
I mean, when people are imported en masse, they bring their values with them. Has anyone checked Chinese, Middle Eastern, or Central American governments’ position’s on limited government or gun rights lately? Sure, not all of the immigrants will vote socialist, but a solid majority will.
Viva la reconquista!, I guess.
#65 Cal: Let’s see, in my comment #1, I said neo-mods call people who support enforcement of immigration laws “racist.” In #52 and #57, MI-Matt confirms that, yes, people who believe in enforcing immigration laws are racist. #63: HH accuses me of a contradiction.
So, contradiction to HH must mean “saying something that purports to be true, that actually turns out to be true.”
Unless he’s somehow implying that I’m smearing neo-mods by asserting they call people they don’t agree with racists… but again, that actually turned out to be true. So, that’s more intellectually honest than intellectually bankrupt.
Although, I am sure HH self-proclaimed mighty and superior intellect has figured out some convoluted way in which he is right. Or, maybe he can point to some actual blatantly racist statement made by an unidentified “nativist” he can claim to have met… like the pro-lifers he knows who think unwanted pregnancies are punishments from God.
It’s fun playing Milkman Dan to HH’s Karen.
“… there is one aspect that is already covered internationally. If you have a valid driver’s license from your birth country, you can obtain an International Driver’s License. That is recognized virtually everywhere for a year from date of issue. …”
Just pointing out that an International Driver’s License is not accepted as a valid ID (or for much of anything else, including as a valid driver’s license) by most entities who have the responsibly of checking IDs. Almost no one has the proper equipment or documentation to check if it’s valid, so they simply reject them (counterfeits are easily availble and common).
——
As for the “license them for safety reasons,” deport them instead. Even if the cursory driver’s test would make them somewhat better drivers (which is debateable) and any requirement for mandatory insurance would be met (debateable), deportation eliminates the problem of safety and financial responsibility in its entirety.
#2 “To the neo-mods, that’s a racist statement.” This refers to Bruce’s original post:
“How about the fact that people entering this country illegally are automatically breaking the law (that is kind of what “illegal” means).”
So anyone who V the K deems a ‘neo-mod’ considers Bruce’s statement the product of a racist. I’m aware of the Hippocratic Oath, but the Hypocritic…?
As I stated in my prior post,
“If the smear is merely a smear instead of an honest deduction, then it’s as intellectually bankrupt as smearing someone with the misattribution of identifying someone as racist.”
#69 – Doorhold, good points.
#70 – HardHobbit, you’re babbling. Let’s take it step by step.
(1) Bruce said (as you and V point out) “…people entering this country illegally are automatically breaking the law…”
(2) V said, “To the neo-mods, that’s a racist statement” – meaning, among other things, that people like MI-Matt have name-called those who dislike illegal immigration as “racist” before, and likely would again.
(3) As predicted, MI-Matt at #57 then (pathetically and wrongly) tried to call V, in effect, a racist. In other words: V had made an honest deduction as you call it.
I think your personal vendetta / dislike against V is getting in the way of you making sense.
#58 Dallas, but Democrats walk a knife edge. While you’re correct that they obtain millions in funding from unions (despite the admittedly limited Beck decision), their short-term electoral gains from a lack of border enforcement are a sore temptation, especially since immigration lawyers are a growing segment of the legal profession (fueled by an increase in immigration and an overabundance of legal degrees in general) and we all know how much the legal profession contributes to Democratic coffers. However, this puts such legal maneuvering at odds with Big Labor, as it maintains artificially low wages. This is rather like the agribusiness Republicans who favor national security in the long run, but need the farm lobby money for short-term electoral gains and who benefits more from cheap transient labor than agribusiness?
This may not pose a problem for the ardent Keynesian (triangulation and all), but for anyone who supports a free and fair market, immigration makes for some strange political bedfellows. I support a reasonable rate of immigration, but that rate is somewhere at the rate immigrants become Republicans.
“Open Borders” No I dont think. Well defined and protected borders with an immigration that culturally and economically makes sense.
No people of hostile culture, no mass of people with nothing to contribute.
We need to shore up our defenses now before Europe starts to unravel.
However, this puts such legal maneuvering at odds with Big Labor, as it maintains artificially low wages.
That would be the case, HardHobbit, if Democrats were structured normally.
But what you forget is that the Democrat Party is made up of special interest groups that consist of two classes — an educated and manipulative oligarchy and an uneducated rabble. The leaders care only about advancing their own status, and the rabble does what their leaders tell them to do.
Case in point: HRC. HRC’s leaders regularly funnel lobbying dollars and cash taken from gay people and from campaigns against antigay state initiatives to politicians who support those very initiatives. The reason they can do it is because they manipulate gays into believing that they are victims, that all Republicans want to march gays off to concentration camps, and that our only hope is to be completely and utterly subservient to Democrats — and they viciously attack gays who differ. Mike Rogers and John Aravosis have openly bragged that their hate and outing campaigns against gay conservatives — such as their attempts to get GayPatriot fired from his job — are aided and supported by HRC staff members.
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do the same thing for black Americans. James Hoffa does the same for union members, and leftist Latino activists do the same for immigrants.
This was driven home to me the first time I saw a Democrat speak about how Mexicans were productive, wonderful members of our societies at an immigration rally, and not three hours later call them bad for America, bad for labor, unsafe, reckless, and dangerous at a Teamsters Union meeting.
Simply put, they use whatever speech fits the situation, pay the oligarchy off, and then turn their backs as the oligarchy whips anyone who disagrees into line. It’s the best of both worlds; they collect the union dues AND the immigrant money.
“It’s the best of both worlds; they collect the union dues AND the immigrant money.”
Agreed, but I meant to explain just that in my prior post: lawyers (and by implication, their immigrant charges) contribute as do unions. The Democratic leadership tightrope is its pandering to both and the irony puts both constituencies in bed together. I wouldn’t think there would be much philosophical cross-pollination because they are at such cross-purposes (except the old standbys, those atomic primaries: hatred of and for the GOP and the claim of concern for the commoner [“rabble”], whether a migrant worker or a union member).
As for the structure of the Democratic Party, I assume that that is true for most large organizations, i.e. Big Labor, Big Government, Big Religion and this pits oligarchs and proletariat against their intraparty corollaries. But as long as power is the end goal (money being the means) without any ideals, we shouldn’t be surprised with the twisted posture of the Democratic leadership. And we shouldn’t fail to point to Republicans who do the same.
The thing about open borders and some sort of easy guest worker program is that people could go home again. And bringing workers who are now illegal out into the light, so to speak, means that labor laws can be better enforced. The motivation to hire people who have language issues will be less if they have to be paid every bit as much as anyone else. Some of the demand may actually go down.
I don’t think it’s automatically a bad solution. Make people “legal” but not citizens. Make it just as easy for them to go home again as it is for them to send money home. Eliminate the illegal traffic in humans across the borders and it will be easier to sort out the nannies and grape pickers from drug runners and terrorists. And collect taxes.
Either that or *strictly* enforce the borders and send illegals home again… with their minor children… every time.
It’s the middle thing, where we have laws and don’t enforce them which means that everything bad about the situation is enabled and promoted, that is bad. It’s bad for everyone.
>As for the structure of the Democratic Party, I assume that that is true for most large organizations, i.e. Big Labor, Big Government, Big Religion
The only thing Big is your head
For about a year I’ve been trying to make peolpe aware of these statements made by Iran
“an advisor to the new Iranian govt says his country’s objective is the destruction of the evil in the world perputated by England and the nations derived from England”
“The [Iranians] President’s chief strategist, Hassan Abbassi, has come up with a war plan based on the premise that “Britain is the mother of all evils” – the evils being America, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, the Gulf states and even Canada, all of whom are the malign progeny of the British Empire. “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization,” says Mr Abbassi. “There are 29 sensitive sites in the U.S. and in the West. We have already spied on these sites and we know how we are going to attack them… Once we have defeated the Anglo-Saxons the rest will run for cover.”
Look what I read today:
Iran’s secret plan if attacked
codenamed ‘Judgment Day’
8 Islamist groups funded to strike
U.S. military, economic interests
Tehran has recruited and funded eight Islamic fundamentalist organizations to undertake retaliatory strikes against U.S. and British military and economic interests across the Middle East – and perhaps in the U.S. and Europe – in the event Iran’s nuclear facilities are attacked, reports a London Arab daily, Asharq Al-Awsat.
The plan, which has been heavily funded and was created by a number of experts in guerilla warfare and terrorist operations, includes suicide attacks against U.S. and British targets in the region as well as their allies. According to information gleaned from a senior source in the Iranian armed forces’ joint chief of staff, logistical support for the groups that would participate in the plan comes from Brigadier General Qassim Suleimani of the of the Revolutionary Guards’ al Quds Brigades.
“Most of Iran’s visitors in the last four months, including the leaders of revolutionary groups in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, as well as the heads of Hezbollah cells in the Persian Gulf and Europe and North America were asked, when they met with the Iranian intelligence minister Gholamhossein Mohseni Ezhei and his aides: ‘Are you ready to defend the Islamic revolution and vilayat e faqih (rule of the clergy)?'” the source said. “‘If you agree to take part in the great jihad, what would you need to be ready for the great fight?'”
The leader of one of the Iraq groups that is part of the “Judgment Day” plan told the Iranians his men would turn Iraq into hell for Americans in the event of an attack on Iran. The Revolutionary Guards’ military training camps have been made available to Moqtada al Sadr’s Mahdi Army. Al Sadr has received more than $20 million from the Iranians.
Street-fighting training has been given in Isfahan, Iran, to members of the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, as well as large sums of money and large quantities of arms.
As reported by WorldNetDaily, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has recruited Imad Mugniyah, the Lebanese commander of Hezbollah’s overseas operations, to oversee retaliation against Western targets following any U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities.
Officers sent to southern Lebanon last month are in command of more than 10 thousand rockets aimed at Israel’s cities. It is believed they’ve been given control of Hezbollah’s missiles to attack Israel if Iran’s nuclear sites are hit. U.S. officials and Israel intelligence sources believe Mugniyah is in charge of these operations.
“When and if the Iranians decide to hit the West in its soft belly, Imad will be the one to act,” a Western intelligence source said.
Approximately 80 members of Hezbollah received training last year in ultralight aircraft and undersea operations in order to carry out suicide attacks.
Implementation of the plan is set to begin immediately following a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities and would progress in six stages:
U.S. bases in Iraq and the Persian Gulf region to be struck by Iranian missiles.
Suicide attacks in a number of Muslim countries against U.S. embassies, military bases, economic and oil-related facilities tied to U.S. and British firms, and targets in countries allied with the U.S.
Attacks by Revolutionary Guards and Iraqi insurgents loyal to Iran against U.S. and British forces in Iraq.
Hundreds of rockets launched by Hezbollah against pre-selected targets in Israel.
If U.S. military attacks continue, more than 50 Shehab-3 missiles will be launched against Israel and 50 terrorist cells in the U.S., Canada and Europe will be given approval to launch attacks against civil and industrial targets in those countries.
Maximize civilian casualties with germ agents and “dirty bombs.”
Well, Vince, I guess that “secret” plan is not a secret any more!
Of course, if the NYT spent more time exposing TERRORIST plans than AMERICAN ones, we’d be in a hell of a lot better shape today.
I guess we know which side the Grey Old Lady is on.
Regards,
Peter H.
Synova writes: “Make it just as easy for them to go home again as it is for them to send money home.”
I agree, but it’s a catch 22 for any reform advocate because on the far Right you get hit by the “America is a nation of laws” purists who contend any attempt to legalize those who came illegally is to promote further illegalities by other wannabe illegals… AND those on the far Left who contend that ANY incentive aimed at encouraging illegals to return home (including CentralAm and SouthAm illegals) is a “burden” on fair/just immigration (which is what the Catholic Bishops are now saying).
Sometimes I think there are 20 different sides on the immigration issue —local govts wanting more $$$, the English Only people wanting literacy tests as part of access to labor markets, the unions opposed to immigration unless employers document the jobs can’t be filled by US citizens, states wanting hospital reimbursements and social services covered, the tax revenue people, the employers wanting -0- paperwork, and the border guards looking for better equipment, pay, etc.
Without bringing the illegals into the light of day, we’ll never get an accurate assessment of what the true illegal base is in America… and we won’t get the illegals out until they are assured the end result won’t be deportation.
I still don’t get how Americans on the Right can view the people coming here as undesirables… the very people who will risk all in order to work, risk all in order to secure a better life, are driven by the quest for labor… and some on the Right characterize them as socialists and diminishers of the American political order? It’s almost impossible to resolve the policy quagmire without resorting to gimmics like the Wall and shoot2kill standing orders for border guards.
Matt wrote: I still don’t get how Americans on the Right can view the people coming here as undesirables…
It’s not that “people coming here are undesirable”. It’s that not all people coming here are desirable.
In a post long ago, I mentioned that I’d love to read the thoughts of an open-border conservative on Victor Hanson’s book “Mexifornia”. So far, no takers.
Exactly, Robert. It depends WHICH people you are talking about.
You can always find exceptions, but ON AVERAGE, lax immigration enforcement and open borders will favor those with (a) less to offer – perhaps only menial labor at best, and/or (b) something to hide. In a 9-11 world, we can’t allow that.
Final note – the true racists in this debate are the people who say “So let them in, to do our menial labor… the jobs Americans don’t want.” Such racists have zero understanding of (1) labor markets, (2) capitalism / progress, and (3) their fellow Americans.
Americans DO want the jobs. And a free economy adapts to perceived “labor shortages”. We don’t need to – and shouldn’t – designate any race, nation or class of immigrant to do our menial labor. The racists who do, include Karl Rove, McCain, Rudy, Bush, and most Democrats / left-liberals.
Congrats Calarato, with that post you’ve attempted the unthinkable: literally turn reality on its head and spin it 360.
Racists aren’t the people trying to stem the undesirable tide of brownskinned workers into the country and using “border security” as a ruse to cover their bigotry… or, Gawd forbid, people who can’t speak or read OUR language fluently so that everyday customers don’t have to struggle to have their barked orders understood at the carwash… it’s the people who advocate for increased immigration, free flow of labor, etc. Right. They’re the true racists… making people come here to work.
Lax enforcement and open borders favor those coming into the country are looking for menial labor? I’ll tell that to the 3,100+ illegal students attending the Univ of Mich or the 13,700 other illegals at additional Michigan public colleges. Just looking for that good ol’ menial labor boss man… when shall we all start singing “ole Man River?
During the last round of amensty, under Geo 41, I recall about 185,000 Irish illegal immigrants coming out of the woodwork in the DC area alone in time to grab the brass ring… turned out that some of those illegals had been around 20+ years… paying FICA, having Income Tax withheld, paying prop tax via rent, etc… and working to achieve the American Dream… all the while fearing exposure.
Gosh, let’s not go back to those days. The truth is that the face of undocumented workers is far more complex than chalking them up to menial day laborers. Here in Michigan, I’ve met illegals who hang sheetrock better than seasoned pros, do better cabinetry and carpentry than some skilled trades “professional” and work their butts off.
Do you really believe that Rudy, John, George or Karl are racists? Come on. Reality stood on its head? Good going Cal.
No Matt – You already did that, with all your keogh-style straw-man “argumentation” and name-calling on good GP commentors.
That’s all you’re getting out of me this time – Bye now.
Robert, the point of some who are discussing “options” for slapping down the illegals ARE saying no one is desirable… in fact, some have gone as far as to embrace the notion that if an American job is at stake, screw the labor market and market competition… the US citizen’s higher wage has to be protected.
It reminds me of the 1970’s era UAW nonsense when many were advocating all Americans should buy only US built cars or products because that protects the American worker, job.
Trade protectionists use govt to protect THEIR industry from competition and the consumer usually gets screwed. Same with draconian immigration reform… the consumers will be paying higher prices, being underserved just so that the junior college grad can have 45+ jobs to select from instead of competing in the marketplace.
#44 – “people who bitch when Bush gives contracts to US companies (halliburton)”
Halliburton isn’t a U.S. company anymore.
When you do that, you’re left back at the place you started from. What is wrong with that?
vaara: I’m aware. You must be glad.
#86 As long as it’s registered in the U.S., it’s an American corporation.
Some employers are being punished for hiring illegals. I had to laugh at this:
No doubt there are racists on both sides of the issue. Either side is not intrinsically racist. (Plus there are more than two sides.)
Wanting people to learn English isn’t a mean (for lack of a better term) opinion to hold. There are social-integration reasons as well as the fact that *not* knowing English opens people, even *legal* immigrants up to a great deal of labor abuse. When I tutored Vietnamese immigrants in CA they were certainly *legal* but they could only work a few jobs (even if high tech) where the shop was run by Vietnamese speakers and just from what they told me, labor violations were the norm. Without English people don’t have choices. Without English they are more likely to be victimized. The one job I had where only two of us *didn’t* speak Spanish and half of everyone spoke no English, even if they were *legal*, was an out and out sweat shop. I worked there 2 days and got a different job… because I *could*.
The consequences of not knowing English are compounded for people who are actually illegal immigrants.
I see most “pro-immigrant” groups as enablers and I despise them despite their good intentions. I don’t like seeing people being abused *either* and I hate what I hear about going on at the border (particularly that one city across from Texas where hundreds and hundreds of girls have simply disappeared, killed, sold, who the h*ll knows). Anything that props the status quo props crime and predation.
Either of the other options, mass deportations and armed guards on a huge wall or else close to open borders so people who just want to work can come and can go… either is better than the feel good enabling of the situation that we’ve got.
#90 John: The Bush Admin has been making a few well-publicized raids and arrests to try to con people into thinking he’s serious about border control. As soon as the amnesty bill passes, it will be business as usual again… except that there will be an even more massive invasion of illegals… just like after the last amnesty. Also, just like after the last amnesty bill, also, any enforcement provisions that somehow make it into the bill will not be enforced… exactly like after the last amnesty bill.
#81 Robert: Excellent point. California is a fine example of the end-result of 30 years of uncontrolled illegal immigration: unaffordable housing, exorbitant tax rates, insane car insurance rates, a miserable quality of public education, and a permanent moonbat legislature. Cops and local governments are too afraid to enforce quality-of-life ordinances for fear of being sued as racists.
It’s not that people are undesirable, it’s that massive numbers of people beyond the capacity of a society to assimilate them are undesirable. It doesn’t matter if it’s 20 million Mexicans or 20 million Swedes or 20 million Klingons.
#91 Synova: “Either side is not intrinsically racist. (Plus there are more than two sides.)” Truer words were never said. Unfortunately, the racism charge has kind of become the all-purpose epithet to hurl at your opponent. I used to say a racist was anyone who expressed any opinion a liberal disagrees with. I guess it should be broadened to include non-liberals. I don’t think Karl Rove was racist when he said his children were too good to do the jobs illegal aliens do, I think he was just being elitist.
#71 Cal: Let me translate the babble. It means, “I hate you Milkman Dan.”
I haven’t been following the newest non-scandal about theUS Attorneys but wasnt’ part of the reason some of them were let go because they woulnd’t prosecute the iimigaration laws tough enough?
I dont think Bush is the only problem here. (yes he is a major one) It’s the entire govt.. no seriousness in any part of it.
#93: I’ve heard that, but I don’t buy it. The DOJ is firing attorneys for not prosecuting illegal immigration while at the same time immunizing drug dealers so they can prosecute border patrol agents? That doesn’t make sense.
I agree that the problem isn’t just Bush, but I think it’s rooted in an elite political class that, frankly, sees American citizens and illegal immigrants alike as peasants, and as such attaches no value to citizenship and will give it away like a library card. Also, money trumps everything else, including national security. Securing cheap labor for the food service, hospitality, and construction industries will always trump protecting the US as long as those lobbies continue to line the pockets of both parties.
One also suspects there is a consensus among the elites that the American middle class has had it too good for too long. We consume too many resources, our standard of living is too extravagant. This is especially prevalent among the enviro-extremists. Among certain of them, there almost certainly exists a desire to bring the American middle class down to the living standard of the global middle class… an Indian or South Korean middle class. Downward pressure on wages caused by the importation of massive amounts of illegal immigrant labor helps achieve that result, as will the onerous regulations imposed by Kyoto type treaties. Note that Kyoto has much more impact lowering the living standards of the middle class in the first world than it does on climate change.
Now, I certainly believe in the adage one should never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by greed and stupidity. And I am definitely not saying there’s any sort of conspiracy to screw the middle class. But certainly, if one believes that SUV’s and incandescent lightbulbs are dooming the Earth, then one must believe an American middle class with a depressed standard of living is certainly good for Gaia. And, in the long run, it’s the working class that suffers from downward pressure on wages. Learjet environmentalists and open-borders fanatics are insulated from the consequences of their policies by wealth and power.
On that, one of the popular, empty-headed cliches of the open-borders crowd is “You don’t want to pay $20 for a head of lettuce do you?” Which is absolutely retarded. The labor component cost involved in harvesting lettuce, or any other food crop, is minuscule; typically less than 5% of retail price. You could pay the laborers ten times what they are paid and only add another dollar or so to the price. It’s not about the cost to the consumer, its about the greed of the middle-men… as if they didn’t get enough pork in the Iraq supplemental already.
Or better yet, if we didn’t have access to cheap labor, we’d probably develop machines that could do it faster, cheaper, and with less threat of e. Coli contamination.
John in IL, the contractors building the Wall were using undocumented workers! How ironic. Almost as bad as the 2005-2006 ICE operation on US military bases to round up undocumented workers employed via US Govt contracts… we were vacationing in Key West when the ICE nabbed about a dozen undocumented workers on base… and I think another 200+ were brought up on “administrative violations” –which is a step removed from arrest.
I know that same operation netted ICE arrests out at Roswell NM too; proving that yes, there really are aliens in Roswell.
Enforcing the laws we have today would be a start in immigration reform. Finding US Asst AGs who support strong enforcement would be a good departure from the recent track record… there are actually US AG Offices who tell ICE and Border Patrol not to bring them illegals unless it’s the 6-7th offense… what a crock.
And to think that some Texas district AG Offices are prosecuting 4,400-5,000 illegals each year. I shudder to think that’s the tip of the iceberg.
We don’t need no new stinkin’ laws… just enforce the ones on the books. Hire the staff to do it… that’d be reform.
V said:
That is, of course, the statement I had in mind when I called Karl Rove a racist. Let me put it this way, V.
The thought “We need Mexicans the jobs Americans won’t do” is racist as such. It designates a group of people for menial labor, because of their race.
And it is widespread among advocates of illegal immigration. (Yes, advocates of illegal immigration… That’s what they are.) And when somebody has that thought or advocates policy based on it, I am saying they are a racist in that moment and to that extent. And that includes prominent Democrats and Republicans alike – people who ought to know better. People can be full of contradictions.
Sorry, typo, should read “We need Mexicans TO DO the jobs Americans won’t do…”
Cal, you make an excellent defense of your use of the word “racist” to describe the position of illegal immigration advocates. And to the extent that they embrace the philosophy of “Menial jobs are beneath real Americans to do, so we need to import Mexicans (or Guatemalans, or Chinese, or Somalis, or Romulans) to do them, so our children need not dirty their hands,” as Karl Rove does, yes, it’s fair to call that a racist attitude.
I just disagree with you in degree. I don’t think it would bother Karl Rove if a white kid from a trailer park were doing the jobs that his kids are too good for, just so long as his kid never has to dirty his hands with manual labor.
My other point is that, “the r-word” is just tossed in so often to discredit an enemy that, like “neo-con,” it’s almost devoid of any meaning except for “I hate the person who disagrees with me.” But I concede there is no other word that quite fits the “Manual labor is for darker-skinned peoples” rationale for uncontrolled immigration.
V, gotcha. You’re right (or “probably right”) on several points.
See, V the K and Cal, I don’t see Rove’s statement as being racist at all — just as being a statement of fact.
Americans don’t want to do certain jobs — or, more precisely, they don’t want to do certain jobs at a certain level of pay.
The reason we import our menial labor is because an entire generation of children has grown up with the idea that they should be paid $20/hour with full pensions and lifetime health care to do jobs that literally can be done successfully by an illiterate, non-English-speaking immigrant who’s never spent a day in school in his or her life.
Were we to close our borders tightly, two things would happen.
One, wages in the jobs/areas that illegal immigrants currently dominate would rise.
Two, the number of jobs available in those areas would decrease as wages rise; people would, as V pointed out, start automating, or they would learn to do without landscaping services because the prices would go up.
Three, prices across the board would rise as the cost of providing goods and services increased and as the increased wages of workers would increase the amount of money available.
Four, government tax revenues would increase, since ALL income would be being reported, and relative expenditures would decrease, since the drain on social services would be much less.
In short, we’d employ more people, raise wages, increase tax revenue, and decrease spending.
What’s not to like?
Make that four things. That’s what I get for typing while eating. 🙂
VdaK writes: “The labor component cost involved in harvesting lettuce, or any other food crop, is minuscule; typically less than 5% of retail price.”
One of the real problems with the illegal immigration debate is that there is so much MIS- and DYSinformation trotted around to defend illogical suppositions. Like above with your statement, VdaK. The labor component is miniuscule? Hmmm, growers don’t think so.
Right now, this month, in the iceberg and leaf lettuce fields of the SWern US, growers are begging for labor… average hourly rates last month alone went from $6.50/hr to $8.50/hr –an increase of 31% and the rates are still climbing. ASU prof Al Kagan can argue convincingly that a 10% increase in labor cost raises the end cost of the product by 6% for head lettuce… and the 10% hike in labor costs also mean about 3% more imports of like products to keep market pricing suppressed.
In this season’s case, in an area where nearly 95% of the US winter lettuce crop is raised and 90% of the winter veggies are harvested, the 30% hike in labor costs raises prices by 18% for a head of lettuce, while helping imports grab a larger share of the market in order to maintain low consumer pricing. You may still be paying $1/head for iceberg, but at our market it’s $1.45/head… the mixed winter greens are near $3.49 for a 3-4 salad box… and that’s absent of the effects of freeze.
Right, but the labor costs are miniuscule compared to what the middlemen get for transit, or storage, or end shelf markup. I’m guessing that’s what you meant to say.
In fruit crops where the cost of labor contends upward of 80% of the end product cost (like raisins, strawberries, melons in market area, raspberries, blueberries, etc) the pressure of this season’s restricted labor flow has caused some industries to adopt new methods of harvest to offset the lack of reliable labor supply… like with raisins, some growers are again trying the drying-on-the-vine instead of the more labor intensive but better product/lower waste from conventional hand harvesting and layered drying. 80% for labor costs, VdaK; not 5%.
In Michigan, cherry harvest is increasingly being done by machines –which do a poor job of harvesting– because the laborers are moving toward resort jobs. But I guess some day we’ll be sleeping on beds up at the Grand Hotel made by a robot if the anti-immigration guys have their way (which they won’t because Congress isn’t controlled by those people any longer)… because clearly, there aren’t enough guest workers to get all the jobs done those RACISTS like Rove and Bush want them to… lol.
A little less echo and a little more fact, boys.
#101 – NDT, that’s one of my points. People who say “We need Mexicans to do jobs Americans don’t want”… in addition to them blithely consigning an entire ethnic group to menial labor, they also show zero understanding of labor markets, capitalism / progress, or their fellow Americans.
Excellent job explaining it for the slow kids, NDT.
That’s similar to my take on it, NDT. And I think those same things would happen if we enforced our laws and secured our borders or if we opened our borders for legal guest workers. Whoever is doing the work, ought to get paid a fair wage and have the legal standing to insist on the protection of our labor laws.
As for the elitist attitude that Americans just don’t want to do those jobs. Sure they do. They flip burgers and pick beans and top corn and dig ditches. I’ve picked rock and shoveled manure and butchered chickens. Like a lot of Americans I’ve little time or sympathy for people who don’t think they should have to get their hands dirty.
One of my kid’s favorite television shows is “Dirty Jobs.” They’re not learning to look down on people who work for a living.
Yeah, Congress is now run by the kind of people who stab our troops in the back while simultaneously voting for billions in pork to pay back their “campaign contributors.” So, naturally, they are also inclined to both grant amnesty to the 20 million already here and leave the borders wide open for the next 20, 40, or 100 million.
Nor do I, as I thought I was clear about.
nice to know that there are corporate elitists who think it is their godgiven right to produce a profit and break the law in the same breath.
Illegal Alien Kills the Director of “Christmas Story.” Another job Karl Rove’s children are too good for, I guess.
Immigration is fine, illegal immigration isn’t.
Its kind of disgusting that proponents of illegal immigration point out that these people will work for low wages, no benefits. That is exploitation. Another reason why illegal immigration needs to be stopped, not a reason to support it.
There is only ONE SINGLE CANDIDATE who stands against the illegal immigrants………..shamnesty, guest worker program, shortcuts to citizenship, etc. If you give a damn about this country, VOTE TOM TANCREDO. I have nothing against immigrants, but prefer them to be lLEGAL!!!! After all, my great-great-great-great-great-great-great gransfather came to this country in 1632 from Belgium.
The illegals are ignorant, don’t want to learn English, multiply like rabbits, demand rights and services, many, many are drunks, many are criminals (over and above being in this country illegally) and a lot of other things there is no space for here.