Friday Talking Points [243] -- The Immigration Coalition
We seem to have a gang problem on Capitol Hill once again.
Seriously, there are 535 people up there who are paid to use language well (stripped of all else, this seems a basic part of their jobs), and all they can come up with over and over again to describe a bipartisan group -- any bipartisan group, mind you -- is the formulaic "gang of [insert number]" description? Nobody's got a more original idea that that? Really?
I speak, of course, of the current "Gang of Eight," a bipartisan group of senators who put forth a proposal on comprehensive immigration reform this week. More on this later. But can't we come up with a snappier name than that?
In the first place, the original "Gang of Four" came out of Communist China, so it really doesn't seem like the best model for our democratic government to look to when searching for a label. In the second place, even putting that part of it aside, the Gang of Four was a faction, which is the exact opposite of a "bipartisan" group. It really makes no sense at all to use the "Gang of..." label for these groups in Congress.
So I challenge everyone to come up with some better ideas for what to call these senators working towards immigration reform. "The Eight Amigos" maybe? Well, maybe not. "Eight Is Enough" sounds a little negative, I suppose. Something that rhymes with "eight," perhaps? The "Immigration Coalition" has a nice ring to it. Once you start to play around with it, all sorts of ideas pop up.
I've been reading lots of early American history, and what they used in the first few decades of politics in the new United States springs to mind (although you've got to note the "O" at the end -- a different term than if it ended in "A") -- "The Junto." But not enough would recognize its historical origins, so it probably wouldn't work these days.
I throw the question open to all of you. A challenge to come up with a better term than the tired old "Gang of..." designation. Please offer up your suggestions in the comments, for all to see. I can't believe politicians (of all people) are this mundane at creating a soundbite, so maybe we can do a better job. What do you say?
The happiest Democrats of the week are undoubtedly Massachusetts Democrats, as the news just broke that Scott Brown will not be running in the special election to fill John Kerry's Senate seat. But since this isn't really anything "impressive" that they did, they aren't really eligible for the MIDOTW award.
Instead, we're going to give a "thanks for your four years of service" award this week. Not exactly a "lifetime achievement" award, since bigger things may be on the horizon, but more of an appreciation award for a job well done.
Outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is our Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this week. She probably deserved the award more last week, for her strong testimony before Congress, but last week was inauguration week, so she really didn't have a chance.
President Obama naming his biggest Democratic rival to the highest honor in his Cabinet was hailed at the time as a "Team of Rivals" move, especially after the legions of Hillary fans had been disappointed that she hadn't been named Obama's running mate. While Hillary had healed the divisions within the party to a large extent by the 2008 Democratic nominating convention, Obama naming Hillary for Secretary of State cemented the two halves of the party back together in an impressive way.
Hillary proved more than up to the job, and exits after setting the record for "most-traveled" Secretary of State in all U.S. history. We're sorry to see her go, and we "wish her well in her future endeavors" -- which could very well lead her to the office her husband once held.
Clinton will, no doubt, take some time off to rest up, and will likely be a presence either selling a memoir or out on the speaking circuit for the next few years. More power to her! She has certainly earned it.
To the other accolades being offered upon her exit from the State Department, we add a Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Well done, Madam Secretary, well done indeed.
[Congratulate Secretary of State Hillary Clinton via the White House contact page (since she's leaving her job), to let them know you appreciated her service.]
In the "strange bedfellows" department, we have the Kentucky Democrats who are apparently considering teaming up with the Tea Party in an effort to take down Mitch McConnell. The political gamesmanship is awfully Byzantine, and does have the possibility of backfiring (if the Tea Party candidate actually won the general election), but for now we're just going to keep an eye on the situation to see what happens.
In fact, we're feeling a little timid about our Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week award this week, which we're going to offer up with a rather large caveat. Because, so far, the story only exists as nebulous unproven accusations. If true, they'll certainly merit further MDDOTW awards in the future. If not true, then we'll rescind this week's award, and offer up a public apology.
Senator Bob Menendez of New Jersey took a few plane rides down to the Caribbean on a friend's plane, it seems. The friend is now under federal investigation, and the F.B.I. has raided his offices. Menendez has already (belatedly) paid his friend back for the airfare, but the accusations are a bit uglier than just campaign finance hinkeyness. Salon ran the story with the self-explanatory headline "So, About That Underage Prostitute Thing" which shows how truly ugly this could get for Menendez.
You'd think a senator availing himself of the services of a prostitute would be a career-ending thing, but this actually isn't strictly true these days (see: Vitter, David). But if the "underage" thing is proven true, it could force him out of office early. Which would mean Governor Chris Christie would get to pick his successor.
So -- if these accusations prove to be true -- we're tentatively awarding the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week this week to Bob Menendez. If he proves his innocence, then we will rescind the award and offer our apologies. But if true, "disappointing" doesn't even begin to cover it.
[Contact Senator Bob Menendez on his Senate contact page, to let him know what you think of his actions.]
Volume 243 (2/1/13)
OK, a couple odds and ends before we get started. First, out condolences to the Bush family, as the news just broke of the passing of Barney, beloved former First Dog. As always, we are strictly non-partisan in our love for First Pets, and we sincerely offer our condolences at Barney's passing.
It didn't take long for it to become painfully apparent that Harry Reid blew it on filibuster reform, did it? Sigh.
An update from last week (which also didn't take long) -- former Colorado Republican politician Tom Tancredo has, sadly, announced he is backing out of his promise to smoke some pot legally in his state. Seems his family wasn't too happy about the prospect. Maybe they should all just "mellow out." Ahem.
Moving right along, this week's talking points are on a single subject -- the "subject of the week," really. When you think about it, it really is kind of astonishing that the senators were goaded into moving faster than the president on the issue of comprehensive immigration reform. I guess Marco Rubio didn't want to have Obama "steal his thunder" a second time on the issue.
But for whatever reason, both parties are actually constructively talking about passing actual legislation that seems to be adequately wide in scope (for once). I'm so optimistic I wrote a column earlier in the week pegging the chances for actually passing immigration reform this year at 80-85 percent. We'll see whether this rosy view is justified, as the year winds onwards. I also wrote a historical article, just because I had a bunch of quotes handy from the 1790s on the issue, so check that out if you're in a historical frame of mind.
But enough plugging of previous columns! Let's get on with our suggestions for how Democrats should be talking about the immigration subject. While, as usual, these are offered up in the hopes that Democrats booked for television interviews in the next week might take them to heart, they also come in handy for anyone discussing politics around the water cooler as well.
Us and Them
This first one is from President Obama's speech this Tuesday, and should be repeated whenever faced with anyone who forgets the basics of the argument.
"We are a nation of immigrants. Let's all remember that. The president recently pointed this out, saying, quote, it's easy sometimes for the discussion to take on a feeling of 'us' versus 'them.' And when that happens, a lot of folks forget that most of 'us' used to be 'them.' We forget that. Unquote. What is your last name? Where did your family come from originally? Unless you're a full-blooded Native American, your family came to America at some point as immigrants. Would you have wanted the people already here to have said 'no' to your ancestors, and turned them away? Think about your answer to that carefully."
Out of the shadows
This second one is also from Obama's speech. It's a great phrase, and should be repeated as often as possible.
"I join with the president in calling for action on comprehensive immigration reform. The time, as the president said, is now. It is time for us, as he put it, to bring 11 million people living here 'out of the shadows' and into the light. Ask someone living in those shadows what it is like, and whether they'd pay a fine and wait to become full members of the American society. We will all benefit from getting rid of the shadow economy within our borders. Bring them into the light!"
Pay their debt to society
This is a phrase that everyone can relate to -- or at least, everyone who has ever paid a speeding ticket.
"Some -- as usual -- will call any attempt to reform immigration laws 'amnesty.' This is incorrect. Amnesty, properly defined, means forgiving and pardoning wrongdoing. What we are calling for instead is for people to pay for their crime. Yes, immigrants not here legally have indeed committed a crime. But part of the American system is the ability to pay your debt to society for such crimes, to rehabilitate yourself to being a lawful member of society once again. Some say that the 11 million people here illegally should pay a very harsh price for their crime, and be deported. Can you imagine what an effort it would take to round up 11 million people and move them out of this country? Can you picture that, for just one second? We believe that people should pay a penalty for this crime, but we believe that fining them and making them pay back taxes is enough. Most of those 11 million people would be happy to do so, and happy to pay such a debt to the American society they long to be full members of. So, sure, let them pay for their crime -- but let them pay in dollars and cents rather than in breaking up families and rousting 11 million people out of our country."
These things cost money
This is a factor that often gets lost in the debate.
"You know, if we really wanted to, we could indeed hermetically seal our southern border. It's certainly not beyond our means to do so, when it comes to what we'd have to do. Even low-tech solutions would work just fine. We could expand the Border Patrol by a factor of 100, or even 1,000, and we'd have enough people to monitor every inch of our border every minute of the day. We could likewise create enough agents to track every single person here on every type of visa, so we'd know the day anyone's visa expired and be able to show up at their door. We could adequately police every workplace in the country, too. But these things cost money. There's a price tag to doing so. The real test of how serious anyone is who suggests such monumental expansion of enforcement comes when you ask them how much they'd be willing to increase budget spending to achieve their aims. Because a 100 percent sealed border won't come cheap."
Obama has improved enforcement
This one really sticks in the craw of Republicans, but it doesn't make it any less true. Follow up the last talking point with this one:
"Under President Obama, it is undeniable that border enforcement has improved dramatically. Illegal crossings are down 80 percent in a decade. More people have been deported under Obama than any other president in American history. Things aren't perfect, but they've certainly gotten a lot better under this president. You can argue that the economy and the recession is a big cause for the flow of people illegally crossing the border is down, but you can't argue with the fact that things have, indeed, gotten a lot better under Obama."
Digging their own grave
This one is pure politics. The politics of fear, in fact. Fear of political irrelevancy.
"To get out of a hole, the first rule is always to stop digging. Some Republicans have realized this. Some have not. Some, in fact, have grabbed a bigger shovel and are digging even more furiously than ever. The Republican Party truly needs to get on board with comprehensive immigration reform. They need to do so for their own political survival. If the effort falls apart, Republicans should realize that no matter how hard they try to paint the Democrats as the bad guys, they still are going to pay the price at the ballot box in all upcoming elections. Latinos aren't stupid -- they can see who is really fighting for a solution, and who is fighting just to appear to be fighting. Any Republicans who doubt this can look at the demographics of states like New Mexico and Colorado and Nevada to see the future of their party. And the next states which could flip blue -- states like Arizona and Texas -- may put the White House out of reach for Republicans for an entire generation, at the very least. Latinos aren't going to be happy with 'we tried, but Democrats killed the effort,' folks. That's not the way to convince them to support your party. That hole the Republican Party has been digging for a long time now may in fact turn out to be the party's grave. Republicans have this one last chance to avoid such a fate. It would behoove them to take it."
Path to citizenship
This was an early victory from the... um... "Immigration Coalition"... yeah, that's it!... in the Senate. Democrats should not back down one inch on this one, as this really is the whole ball game.
"Republicans are going to attempt to water down any bill which appears out of bipartisan negotiations, both in the Senate and the House. While certain aspects of any comprehensive immigration reform bill will be up for discussion, there is one that will definitely not be on the table. There must -- and I stress the word must -- be a 'path to citizenship' included for the 11 million people to take. Full citizenship. Full rights. Which includes voting rights. Latinos are just beginning to realize their full potential in the political arena in this country, and this is only going to grow in the future, no matter what happens. To fully realize their potential, the end of the road has to be citizenship -- no ifs, ands, or buts. Anything short of this will be an automatic deal-breaker for Democrats, so my advice to Republicans is: don't even bother to bring it up, it's a non-starter. That's where these negotiations need to begin."
-- Chris Weigant
All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post
"The Eight Amigos" maybe? Well, maybe not.
Yea, in today's uber-PC world, that wouldn't go over very well..
I still miss The Frito Bandito... :(
I can't believe politicians (of all people) are this mundane at creating a soundbite, so maybe we can do a better job. What do you say?
I'll let it percolate and get back to you.
To the other accolades being offered upon her exit from the State Department, we add a Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week for Hillary Rodham Clinton. Well done, Madam Secretary, well done indeed.
I have always admired Hillary. While she did take some well-deserved lumps for Benghazi and while I think she still hasn't come clean over that debacle, she still deserves the kudos and the MIDOTW...
I believe that, more often than not, a person is better than the worse thing they have ever done..
But if true, "disappointing" doesn't even begin to cover it.
Amen to that!!
What IS it about politicians (both Left *AND* Right) that think they are above the law???
Now ya'all know why I firmly believe that Left or Right doesn't matter.. Politicians in general, stink...
"We are a nation of immigrants. Let's all remember that.
No one, not one single person here or anywhere in the country has espoused a negative opinion against immigrants...
Let's be clear about this point right from the start.
This is NOT an issue about immigrants..
This issue is solely and completely about ILLEGAL immigrants.
Criminals who steal from this country, who take and take and take and give NOTHING back...
Criminals who live off the good will of hard-working Americans and their tax dollars. Freeloaders, house guests who eat people out of house and home and never leave..
That is SOLELY and COMPLETELY what this issue is about.
NO ONE has a problem with immigrants..
EVERY American SHOULD have a problem with ILLEGAL immigrants..
Ya'all are always going on and on about how the Rich doesn't pay "their fair share"...
How do ya'all reconcile such an attitude with the fact that illegals don't pay ANY of their share, fair or otherwise???
"I join with the president in calling for action on comprehensive immigration reform. The time, as the president said, is now. It is time for us, as he put it, to bring 11 million people living here 'out of the shadows' and into the light. Ask someone living in those shadows what it is like, and whether they'd pay a fine and wait to become full members of the American society. We will all benefit from getting rid of the shadow economy within our borders. Bring them into the light!"
I COMPLETELY agree.. Bring them into the light. Make them start paying their fair share..
Yes, immigrants not here legally have indeed committed a crime.
That's EXACTLY what I said!! And, again, I completely agree with this entire TP... Give illegals an opportunity to do the right thing..
If they refuse, then "afw'ein Mnhei'sahe"
"Under President Obama, it is undeniable that border enforcement has improved dramatically.
Gotta take issue with this one.
Border enforcement has NOT improved dramatically.
The only change at the border is the TBS option is more often imposed and creative accounting has replaced straight counting..
It's like the claim that we'll save a bunch of money by winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan..
It's all just smoke and mirrors...
To get out of a hole, the first rule is always to stop digging.
Awww right, ya gotta quit taking my lines!! :D
"Republicans are going to attempt to water down any bill which appears out of bipartisan negotiations, both in the Senate and the House.
Time will tell..
It's entirely possible (even likely) that it will be DEMOCRATS who try to water down any bill so as to sabotage Republican's chances for a legislative win..
Such as it is in politics and with politicians, no??
All in all, this is an FTP that I can (more or less) completely and unequivocally get behind..
Been a while since we have had one of those, eh?? :D
Michale
Silly names based on the number 8:
The Maids-a-Milking
The Eightfold They
The Capitol Hill Octopus
The Capitol Hill Spider
The DC-8 (usable up through 10, although I don't know how iconic the various McDonnell-Douglas aircraft are)
I'm not immediately coming up with any silly names based on immigration reform.
How do ya'all reconcile such an attitude with the fact that illegals don't pay ANY of their share, fair or otherwise???
Ah, your usual erroneous use of "fact". At one end you have illegal immigrants paying sales tax and other automatic taxes that come with good and services. At the other end you have illegal immigrants with fake papers paying state and federal income tax but never filing their taxes and getting any back. In the later case it's just the opposite, they pay in to the system but don't dare to try to get much back...
Ah, your usual erroneous use of "fact". At one end you have illegal immigrants paying sales tax and other automatic taxes that come with good and services.
So, since the rich pay "sales tax" too, then they pay their fair share, right?? :D
Ya can't have it both ways.... It's against the rules... :D
Michale
Oh no, just got caught fudging facts. Quick, change the subject. Chhaaannngeee tthhheee sssuuubbbjjjeeecccttt!!!!
Heh...
Oh no, just got caught fudging facts. Quick, change the subject. Chhaaannngeee tthhheee sssuuubbbjjjeeecccttt!!!!
Heh...
That'll learn ya!!! :D
Michale.....
Michale,
"This is NOT an issue about immigrants..
This issue is solely and completely about ILLEGAL immigrants."
Illegal immigrants are, in fact, immigrants. That's what the "immigrants" part of "illegal immigrants" means.
"So, since the rich pay "sales tax" too, then they pay their fair share, right?? :D"
No. Since the rich pay "sales tax" too, no one's saying they "don't pay ANY of their share, fair or otherwise."
Reading Michale has become a graduate course in faulty logic, misrepresentation, and demagoguery. And I know for a fact, Michale, that you can do better, when not simply exercising your passion for trolling, without ever bothering to engage your brain.
Illegal immigrants are, in fact, immigrants. That's what the "immigrants" part of "illegal immigrants" means.
Illegal immigrants are, in fact, criminals. That's what the "illegal" part of illegal immigrant means.
If I steal Obama's {sic} well deserved {sic} Nobel Peace Prize, does that make me a Nobel Peace Prize winner???
No.. It makes me a criminal...
Michale
Reading Michale has become a graduate course in faulty logic, misrepresentation, and demagoguery.
Or as i like to phrase it: Michale is an enigma wrapped in a straw man sliding down a slippery slope...
Reading Michale has become a graduate course in faulty logic, misrepresentation, and demagoguery. And I know for a fact, Michale, that you can do better, when not simply exercising your passion for trolling, without ever bothering to engage your brain.
Attacking the commenter instead of the comment is the sign of a weak argument from an insecure mind..
But, what the hell. I'de still buy ya a beer.. :D
Or as i like to phrase it: Michale is an enigma wrapped in a straw man sliding down a slippery slope...
Ya know, David is always saying that this isn't about me..
Ya would never know it by all the comments.. :D
Let's face it..
I simply hold up a mirror to show how ya'alls arguments make little sense in the real world..
Ya'all are all about theory and utopian vision with very little common sense..
But, as I indicated, what the hell. I'de still buy ya a beer.. :D
Michale
But, as I indicated, what the hell. I'de still buy ya a beer.. :D
no, buy ME a beer! i want to be a beer freeloader!
Buy me LOTS of beer! Michale's comments improve dramatically with enough beer!
no, buy ME a beer! i want to be a beer freeloader!
You simply CAN'T freeload on beer.
Beer is a gift from the gods that MUST be shared far and wide!!
Buy me LOTS of beer! Michale's comments improve dramatically with enough beer!
My comments improve when *I* have had a lot of beer???
Or when YOU have had a lot of beer??
What the hell, I guess it doesn't matter, eh?? :D
Michale
My comments improve when *I* have had a lot of beer???
Or when YOU have had a lot of beer??
i think the only rational solution is to test this question empirically. bottle-opener please...
dsws -
OK, I really really like "DC-8". Short, sweet, to the point, and entirely fitting. Wasn't that the one they called the "Gooney Bird," now that I think about it? Hmmm....
Michale -
Here's something beer-related that if it isn't a crime, should be. Ahem.
In the 1980s, there was a garage band in San Francisco who called themselves "Free Beer." They'd post signs up all over town reading "FREE BEER" with a date and venue. Of course, when folks showed up, there was no (literal) free beer, just a band by that name playing on the stage.
There ought to be a law.
Heh.
-CW
Michale -
Non-beer-related, I'm stunned you'd approve of both the talking points and the MIDOTW.
There's a quote I need to dig out... where is it...
OK, here we go. Andrew Jackson, speaking of an "opposition" newspaper (sorry for the choppy nature of the quote, cut and pasted from my own writing, where I had to fit it into a sentence):
"If such a corrupt press as the Richmond Enquirer," were ever to say a kind word about [Jackson], "I should think, in some unguarded moment, I had committed some great moral impropriety."
Translation, to modern terms:
"When Michale is wholeheartedly agreeing with me, I really need to sit down and figure out what the holy heck I'm doing wrong."
Heh.
:-)
-CW
"When Michale is wholeheartedly agreeing with me, I really need to sit down and figure out what the holy heck I'm doing wrong."
"Stewart. Don't agree with me. It just makes me doubt myself."
-Michael J Fox, SPIN CITY
:D
In the 1980s, there was a garage band in San Francisco who called themselves "Free Beer." They'd post signs up all over town reading "FREE BEER" with a date and venue. Of course, when folks showed up, there was no (literal) free beer, just a band by that name playing on the stage.
One has to wonder why there weren't any fatalities.. :D
Michale
Attacking the commenter instead of the comment is the sign of a weak argument from an insecure mind..
No one appreciates the irony??
Com'on people! Yer slackin'!! :D
Michale
Illegal immigrants are, in fact, criminals. That's what the "illegal" part of illegal immigrant means.
as are the people who employ them, such as mitt romney for example. until we prosecute the criminals who do the hiring as vigorously as the criminals who are hired, the enforcement in this country will continue to be unjust, and there will therefore be a rational defense for willful defiance of that injustice.
as i demonstrated in an earlier post, even those immigrants who do go through the legal process find it to be immensely unfair. or as Mae M. Ngai points out,
"it is easy to immigrate here from, say, Belgium or New Zealand, but there are long waits – sometimes decades – for applicants from China, India, Mexico and the Philippines. These four max out on the limit every year. When critics admonish prospective immigrants – as well as the 11 million plus undocumented migrants currently in America – to “go to the back of the line,” they should realize that for many people the line is a cruel joke."
http://www.newsobserver.com/2013/01/30/2644309/reform-immigration-first-recognize.html
as are the people who employ them, such as mitt romney for example. until we prosecute the criminals who do the hiring as vigorously as the criminals who are hired, the enforcement in this country will continue to be unjust, and there will therefore be a rational defense for willful defiance of that injustice.
I am 1000% in agreement with that..
But I am constrained to point out that those on the Left are as guilty as "mitt romney" for employing illegals...
as i demonstrated in an earlier post, even those immigrants who do go through the legal process find it to be immensely unfair. or as Mae M. Ngai points out,
I am sure they do..
But as *I* demonstrated earlier, there are very logical and rational reasons for the disparity.
Those who draw the short straw ALWAYS claim that there is a disparity in fairness..
But, by virtue of drawing the short straw, their claims are hardly objective...
Michale.....
But I am constrained to point out that those on the Left are as guilty as "mitt romney" for employing illegals...
true. however, as a fervent opponent of hypocrisy, i think you appreciate how the Lefties' willingness to hire illegals tends to be more consistent with their professed beliefs. it's one thing to hire an illegal when you profess to support their rights, another when you profess the desire for them all to self-deport.
But, by virtue of drawing the short straw, their claims are hardly objective...
yes, but just because they're not objective doesn't mean they're wrong. something quantitative from the article, the number of green cards per year, per country: 25,620. divide that into seven million illegal immigrants from mexico, and if everyone waited for legal status, it would take about 273 years to admit just the ones who were already here. if you wanted to immigrate from lichtenstein you could get a green card tomorrow. that's not just unfair, it's unjust.
true. however, as a fervent opponent of hypocrisy, i think you appreciate how the Lefties' willingness to hire illegals tends to be more consistent with their professed beliefs. it's one thing to hire an illegal when you profess to support their rights, another when you profess the desire for them all to self-deport.
You seem to be making the case that Leftys hire illegals to support them...
I think it's more likely that Leftys hire illegals for the same reason that Rightys hire illegals..
Quality work really REALLY cheap... :D
Let's face it. One of the worst characteristics of the Politician (Left Or Right) is their innate desire to look out for their own best interests first and foremost..
yes, but just because they're not objective doesn't mean they're wrong. something quantitative from the article, the number of green cards per year, per country: 25,620. divide that into seven million illegal immigrants from mexico, and if everyone waited for legal status, it would take about 273 years to admit just the ones who were already here. if you wanted to immigrate from lichtenstein you could get a green card tomorrow. that's not just unfair, it's unjust.
No. It just unfair..
What are the reasons behind it??
Why is it easier for an immigrant from Lichenstein to get a green card than an immigrant from Mexico?
It's like the point of Cubans becoming Feet Dry..
While on the surface, it seems unjust, the reasons behind it are logical and valid...
In other words, it's not the "WHAT" that is important, it's the "WHY"...
Michale
It's like the point of Cubans becoming Feet Dry..
While on the surface, it seems unjust, the reasons behind it are logical and valid...
In other words, it's not the "WHAT" that is important, it's the "WHY"...
to vote republican? seriously, i live and teach in a mostly cuban neighborhood, and in 2013 they're no different from any other class of immigrant. maybe there were political reasons for things to be different forty years ago, but most of the people who come over at this point are indifferent to the castro regime - their reasons for being here are the same as any other immigrants, and their unequal status is due to the socio-economic class of their forebears.
You seem to be making the case that Leftys hire illegals to support them...
I think it's more likely that Leftys hire illegals for the same reason that Rightys hire illegals..
the two reasons aren't mutually exclusive. my point was that hiring illegals doesn't go against the professed lefty belief system, while it does go against the professed righty belief system. for the left it's mutual consensual criminal exploitation; for the right it's criminal exploitation on the one hand and scorn for the immigrants' criminality on the other.
~joshua
While on the surface, it seems unjust, the reasons behind it are logical and valid...
no, the reasons behind it WERE logical and valid in 1965. now they are antiquated and largely irrelevant.
no, the reasons behind it WERE logical and valid in 1965. now they are antiquated and largely irrelevant.
Perhaps...
And yet, the Cuban community still pressures their Congress Critters to maintain the status quo..
Apparently, it's important to somebody...
Michale
no, the reasons behind it WERE logical and valid in 1965. now they are antiquated and largely irrelevant.
I am also constrained to point out that the consideration that the US gives to Israel is still valid and logical as well..
And THAT happened a much longer time ago than the incident that prompts the Cuban consideration..
Michale
"I am also constrained to point out that the consideration that the US gives to Israel is still valid and logical as well.."
Why is it "valid?" What need have we of Israelis to immigrate and what overriding need have they to emigrate? And the only Cubans we "owed" anything were the ones we misled into rebelling, not every Cuban ever born.
The only reason the "line" is so long for Mexicans is we have laws to arbitrarily limit their numbers. That is not fair or just. Even treating every country "equal" with regard to quotas isn't fair or just. Countries aren't trying to immigrate, individuals are. Unless the rules are the same for every individual they are not fair or just.
And THAT happened a much longer time ago than the incident that prompts the Cuban consideration..
Which is, in NO way, any comparison of the *magnitude* of the two incidents..
There IS no comparison, magnitude-wise...
Michale
Why is it "valid?"
The US stood by and did NOTHING to prevent the wholesale slaughter of MILLIONS of innocent Jews...
In my book, that is as "valid" as it gets...
The only reason the "line" is so long for Mexicans is we have laws to arbitrarily limit their numbers. That is not fair or just.
I honestly don't know how the numbers are determined, therefore I cannot comment on whether the process is "just" or not..
In the absence of evidence to the contrary (which I *did* solicit, by the bi..), I am going to go with faith...
Yea, I am shocked too! :D
Michale
In the absence of evidence to the contrary (which I *did* solicit, by the bi..), I am going to go with faith...
i thought i had told you how. i provided multiple links in any case. they take an arbitrary number and divide it equally by country, regardless of that country's size or their quantity of desired immigrants. that is better than the system that existed beforehand (no diversity, europeans only) but it still makes legal immigration from the highest demand areas nigh on impossible. unless you have a special skill or a friend in high places, you'd have to apply ahead of time for your great grandchildren. an unequal chance is one thing, but no chance in hades is something entirely different.
"The US stood by and did NOTHING to prevent the wholesale slaughter of MILLIONS of innocent Jews..."
If guilt is the criteria for preferential treatment this country has a hell of a lot more to feel guilty about much closer to home. And I'm not talking about 20/20 hindsight regarding inaction in the defense of others either. I'm talking about genocidal actions undertaken by the United States that we apparently feel absolutely no need feel guilty about, much less, compensate victims descendants for.
You guys raise an interesting point. What's going to happen when Fidel shuffles off the mortal coil?
His brother Raul already seems to be moving Cuba to a much more open society, and once Fidel dies off perhaps they'll modernize to the point that the US can normalize relations.
All that is just the premise. The question is: what happens to Cuban immigration policy at that point? Of course, the logical answer to that is "policy changes so Cuba is treated just like any other Caribbean nation."
But what would it mean politically? It would be interesting to see how Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio reacted, that's for sure. Because I predict that there'll be an outcry from the Cuban-American community should anyone suggest that it's time for their preferential status to be over. And both Rubio and Cruz are Cuban-Americans.
Florida would once again become very contentious political territory, that's for certain. But what would the outcome be? Food for thought....
-CW
Joshua,
unless you have a special skill or a friend in high places, you'd have to apply ahead of time for your great grandchildren. an unequal chance is one thing, but no chance in hades is something entirely different.
But WHY is it unjust??
Where does it say that the US must tailor it's immigration laws to make it EASIER for people to immigrate??
Where does it say that the US has to allow ANY immigration at all???
It's not the US's fault that some dirt farmer in Bumfuq, Egypt was born there..
Ya'all go on and on against the US being the world's Police Force, yet ya'all seem to be perfectly comfortable with the idea that the US should be the world's welfare agency...
Don'tcha think it's a bit contradictory??
LD,
I'm talking about genocidal actions undertaken by the United States that we apparently feel absolutely no need feel guilty about, much less, compensate victims descendants for.
I know I am going to regret this, but...
Why should victims' DESCENDANTS be compensated?? What have THEY done or what has been done to THEM to deserve compensation??
Institutionalized racism against black people is dead. It died when we elected a black president. If you can find an instance of institutionalized racism against black people, by all means. Point it out. There is institutionalized racism against white people up the wazoo... But against black people?? None exists any more.
NO ONE deserves ANY kind of compensation for what was not done to them personally.
In the case of Israel, it is STILL threatened. There is STILL a good possibility of ANOTHER Holocaust. Hence the consideration received by Israel is still valid and logical.
In the case of Cuba, it's citizens are STILL being persecuted. The problem that produced the Feet Dry policy is STILL ongoing. Ergo, the policy is still just and valid...
CW,
Good question. If Cubans cease being persecuted in their homeland, there won't be any need for the Feet Dry policy..
Of course, Cuban-Americans will raise holy hell. Just like black Americans raise holy hell when any one talks about eliminating affirmative action..
Their response is logical even if the issue is not...
It will be fascinating to watch, should it occur in my lifetime. While it's not Bucket List material, it still will be pretty awesome to witness...
Michale
On another note...
Remember how here in Weigantia and across the Leftist blogosphere, how everyone went positively hysterical over the John Yoo memos??
I think there was even talk of disbarring Yoo and trying him as a war criminal..
Crap... Hit the wrong button..
Anyways.... A new White Paper has been leaked from the DOJ that makes the Yoo memos look like nothing...
EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite
I wonder how those in Wegantia and the Lefty blogosphere will respond to this...
My guess is one big snooze-fest with a health dose of...
{{{cchhhhiiiirrrrrppppppp}}} {chiirrrrp}
... thrown in.
Ya wanna know why I am excited about having a GOP President back in the White House??
It will be fun watching the Left do ANOTHER 180 about the whole CT policies issue and start screaming "WAR CRIMINAL!!!" hysterically again...
:D
Michale
EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite
Yea, and don't think I didn't notice that this article comes from the bastion of the Liberal MSM, NBC.... :D
Michale
But WHY is it unjust??
Where does it say that the US must tailor it's immigration laws to make it EASIER for people to immigrate??
Where does it say that the US has to allow ANY immigration at all???
Right here:
http://www.libertystatepark.com/emma.htm
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
--emma lazarus - graven in the pedestal of the statue of liberty
http://www.libertystatepark.com/emma.htm
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
--emma lazarus - graven in the pedestal of the statue of liberty
It's a nice sentiment...
But it lacks the force of law...
You seem to be making the argument, "Because it's the right thing to do.."
That argument DOES have merit...
But it also applies to taking out Saddam Hussein...
Destroying the Taliban..
Killing terrorists and those who support them..
All actions that the Left decries and vilifies...
In other words, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too...
If you accept that the US is the world's welfare agency, then you MUST accept that the US is the world's police force..
Michale
It's a nice sentiment...
But it lacks the force of law...
so do the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but they're still considered to be fundamental values upon which our society is based. we call ourselves a nation of immigrants. fair and just immigration is not just the right thing to do, it's fundamental for our country's existence.
fair and just immigration is not just the right thing to do, it's fundamental for our country's existence.
Maybe a hundred years ago...
But, considering the DANGERS of unrestrained immigration in the here and now....
Not so much....
Even with all of our flaws, there isn't a country in the world that can hold a candle to the generosity of the US's immigration laws..
Michale...
so do the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness,
Not really..
Those rights are spelled out in our Declaration Of Independence and, as such, not only has the power of law, but IS the law...
One of the great things about being an American..
As any LEGAL immigrant will tell you...
Michale
Those rights are spelled out in our Declaration Of Independence and, as such, not only has the power of law, but IS the law...
incorrect. the declaration of independence was written prior to the constitution, and as such has no current legal standing. as one of our founding documents it certainly has moral and ethical standing, but legally it is no more binding upon today's government than the poem at the base of the statue of liberty.
but legally it is no more binding upon today's government than the poem at the base of the statue of liberty.
Perhaps..
But I would like to see what would happen to our government if they tried to violate the provisions set forth in the Declaration Of Independence...
On the other hand:
EXCLUSIVE: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone strikes on Americans
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-exclusive-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite
Maybe we're already there....
Michale
Maybe we're already there....
yup, pretty much. we've been there for a decade already. righties are just noticing now, and lefties somehow seem to keep thinking we've left.
yup, pretty much. we've been there for a decade already. righties are just noticing now, and lefties somehow seem to keep thinking we've left.
So, frak it...
Let's just have a beer... :D
Michale
On the other hand...
ICE ex-chief: Nondeport rules would’ve spared 9/11 hijackers
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/4/ice-ex-chief-nondeport-rules-wouldve-spared-911-hi/
This is exactly the problem I mentioned....
"Give us your poor your tired your huddled masses" was a nice sentiment..
But in the age of terrorism.....
Not so much...
Michale
"Give us your poor your tired your huddled masses" was a nice sentiment..
But in the age of terrorism.....
Not so much...
oh come on, so much hyperbole. there is a HUGE difference between attempted terrorism and run of the mill illegal immigration. i think anyone caught plotting a terror attack would certainly not be allowed to hang around and plot again. what the article said was:
"Mr. Obama’s first four years were characterized by record deportations of aliens with criminal records, but fewer rank-and-file illegal immigrants being deported."
that sounds to me like increased efficiency, allocating resources to where they'll do society the most good. maybe it's helped and maybe not, but it certainly doesn't read like a bad policy. just because they're not deporting non-felons, doesn't mean they're not also trying to catch the really bad guys. the fact is that the bush era policy didn't catch those guys, and now we're criticizing the obama administration for some far-flung hypothetical? come on michale, you can do better than that, can't you?
or maybe we should just give all the illegal immigrants some assault rifles...
oh come on, so much hyperbole. there is a HUGE difference between attempted terrorism and run of the mill illegal immigration
My point being that with unlimited and unrestricted immigration, which is what ya'all are running with, we are not in a position to keep the bad people out..
that sounds to me like increased efficiency, allocating resources to where they'll do society the most good.
Yes, it does "SOUND" like that..
But the reality is quite different, as has been well documented.
Google "Turn Back South" and you will discover what the numbers REALLY mean...
or maybe we should just give all the illegal immigrants some assault rifles...
If they pass background checks, sure... :D
Michale
My point being that with unlimited and unrestricted immigration, which is what ya'all are running with, we are not in a position to keep the bad people out..
i said no such thing. there has to be a reasonable middle ground somewhere in-between the hippie dream and the current travesty.
i said no such thing. there has to be a reasonable middle ground somewhere in-between the hippie dream and the current travesty.
Fair enough. That was an unfair characterization. My apologies..
But the current situation leans more in favor of the illegal immigrants than it does in the security of the nation.
THAT needs to change..
Michale
On another note...
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/02/06/skip-drone-debate-just-kill-terrorists-before-kill-us/
Iddn't it fascinating that ALL of Weigantia is on the same page of yours truly AND President Bush when it comes to Counter Terrorism policies??
:D
Michale