Hillary Hush!
How quickly America is, apparently, going to hell. Not more than a month or so ago we were a “plantation.â€Â Now, it seems, we’re on the verge of becoming a “police state.â€
I could use this bandwidth now to muse over the Dubai Doo Doo. Or over the prolongation of the Patriot Act. Or a million other worthy subjects. But, instead, I want to focus –yes—on Hillary.
After what she said the other day – that some GOP immigration proposals would create a “police state†– I simply have no choice. Too outrageous. Can’t let it pass. Someone, somewhere has to take five minutes to underscore the gross and rather macabre hypocrisy that’s involved here.
So let me start with the lede: While our current immigration mess has bi-partisan roots, it was precisely the Clinton administration that is most responsible for our contemporary border nightmares.
In 1993-94, Bill Clinton made a conscious decision to pander to the illegal immigrant fever then sweeping California and ordered Janet Reno to blockade the border — or at least those portions of it in public view that could cause him embarrassment. The traditional urban crossing points for migrants – San Diego, El Paso, Nogales etc.—were barricaded with steel, sensors and Border Patrol agents in what was, essentially, a policy of deterrence by death. No dent whatsoever in the migrant flow was achieved by the Clinton policies. Desperate immigrants merely went around Clinton’s blockades, trekking into perilous and unpopulated deserts, using their bones and blood to sear new routes of entry.
When Clinton came into office, a few dozen people (at most) would die every year trying to cross. By the time he left office, that figure had climbed ten-fold to an average of 300-400 deaths per year. The full consequences of that policy are brilliantly discussed in this policy paper by UCSD demographer Wayne Cornelius. If you want to know what the real life policies of the Clintons are, read it. If you want to persist in campaign-spun fantasies, please don’t.
Much worse, the Republican Congress and President Clinton cynically used the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing to levy two horrific punishments upon immigrants and on immigration policy. Indeed, for those who actually work in the field, 1996 is remembered as the dark year of a “perfect storm,†to quote leading immigration lawyer Dan Kowalski. In his own policy analysis of that period, Kowalski reminds us that two bills signed by Clinton – the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 and the Illegal Immigrant Responsibility Act—landed two “deadly body blows†to the immigrant advocacy community.
These two pieces of Clintonian legislation – waving the “anti-terrorism†flag every much as manipulatively as Bush would a few years later– “tightened the grounds of exclusion and deportation, tightened some waivers and removed others, made detention mandatory for vastly greater numbers of deportable aliens and radically restricted judicial review of immigration agency action,†says Kowalski.
In short, the Clinton bills turned U.S. immigration policy and especially the immigration courts ever more Kafkaesque – a sad reality with which immigration lawyers grapple every day of the week. Walk into any federal immigration court at anytime and watch the Clinton-engineered deportation railroad doing its grim duty.
Can anyone provide us, then, with a single, on-the-record statement from Ms. Clinton expressing, at the time, any concern for a police state? I’d love to see it. Did Ms. Clinton believe it was a “police state” tactic to exploit a bombing by a couple of American loons to justify a crackdown on immigrants? (Not to mention the concurrent stripping of rights from death row inmates included in the same “anti-terrorism” bill promoted by her hubby).
What we can show you are the memorial crosses for the 3500 migrants who died as they were pushed deeper into the desert by Clinton’s various border “operations” We can show you the deportation orders for literally tens of thousands of legal immigrants (that’s right, legal green-card holding permanent residents) who have been deported and in many cases have had their families shattered thanks to the policies imposed by Bill Clinton.
So Hillary, on this subject at least, have the minimal decency to hush.
March 10th, 2006 at 12:23 am
Come on Reg.. u can accuse me of obsessing over the Clintons, but Im quite open about it. You on the other hand are being completely disingenuous. You know exactly the point Im making. The very same one you’d be making when and if George Bush stood up to talk about, say, the great civil rights record of the Republicans.
What about my point do you not want to understand?
Do you want me to preface all criticism of Hillary by saying she is the lesser of two evils? Perhaps.
Except, of course, on immigration policy — a place where Clinton and the Democrats were NOT. Reagan, at least, signed the 1986 IRCA which granted amnesty to about 3 million undocumented living here. Clinton, instead, signed laws which allows permament legal residents to be deported for trivial reasons.
Something here I didnt catch?
March 10th, 2006 at 1:15 am
I’m still not clear on whether you disagree with Hillary’s position on the issue of making illegal immigration a felony. I think Hillary’s a creep and a hypocrite for a dozen different reasons, but I’m dubious about criticizing her for not engaging in public combat with the President when she was first lady or for suggesting that this move might be draconian.
March 10th, 2006 at 1:28 am
Clinton’s bill signed into law in 1996 in link below.
Clinton apologists can try to defend Hillary all they want, but the fact is that Bush and most of the Republican Party is far more sane and open minded on immigration than the Clinton administration ever was.
http://immigration.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.shusterman.com/newlawhl.html
March 10th, 2006 at 2:48 am
1. People who come to this country illegally should be deported. They have broken our laws. Case closed.
2. I do believe in the fence.
3. I do NOT believe in amnesty.
4. Hillary Rodham Clinton doesn’t really have a position on immigration – she has “talking points” and next week she’ll have DIFFERENT talking points.
5. If she finds the current laws onerous, then try to change the damned things. But do not, ever, try to blame laws passed when her husband was President on the current President. That is not acceptable behavior and if she is called on it, then JUST LIKE ANY OTHER POLITICIAN she should be able to defend herself without claiming gender bias or some other kind of bloviating nonsense!
March 10th, 2006 at 5:27 am
Marc-
I’m of the mind that we should build the border wall to control the flow of immigrants and when it is complete start an amnesty program.
I don’t recall reading your solution. Or do you consider illegal immigration not to be a problem at all?
March 10th, 2006 at 5:39 am
As a United States Immigration Officer for 7 years and now a Customs and Border Protection Officer for 3 years (Still doing the same job under a new name thanks to DHS) I have some experience on the southern border. All my time has been spent here in San Diego working on the Tijuana/San Ysidro border.
John Davies has the perfect solution. Build a fence. We can afford it and it will work wonderfully.
Of those 11 million people that we love to cite every time we talk about illegals in the US? No problem. Really, no problem. If I catch 10 people in one day, usually all 10 of them are returning home. That’s right, usually all 10 of them left the United States to go to Mexico and are now coming back to the United States. They deport themselves folks.
Obviously they won’t all deport themselves. So, just as John Davies says, once we get the wall in place and the flood is reduced to a trickle, get the families back together with an amnesty.
I hate the idea of an amnesty, but heck, i’m willing to compromise. Build me a fence all along the southern border and reduce the flood to barely a trickle and i’ll be happy to vote for an amnesty.
We make this problem a lot more complicated than it needs to be. Build a fence, it will work.
March 10th, 2006 at 5:44 am
Far be it from me to defend Hillary, but she didn’t actually say the Republicans are trying to build a police state. She said their plan would be “an unworkable scheme to try to deport 11 million people, which you have to have a police state to try to do.†In other words: the scheme won’t work precisely because we do not have a police state!
March 10th, 2006 at 6:02 am
I don’t see why it is a tragedy when someone who commits a crime gets deported. The 1996 Act made committing a felony automatic grounds for deportation. If you are living here on a green card, don’t commit a felony and you won’t get deported. I have no one ounce of sympathy for those who are being deported under the law.
Amnesty is a terrible idea. It just encourages more illegals because they know that if they just hang in there long enough, someone will declare amnesty and they can live here legally. It is also a slap in the face to everyone who plays by the rules and comes here legally.
People who live in cities do not see the social costs of immigration. You live in your neighborhood and don’t see the crime and poverty that illegal immigration brings. Go to a small town in places like Kansas or Wisconsin and you will see thousands of illegals forced on small communities that do not have the social services to handle the influx. My hometown in Western Kansas is no a literal cesspool of poverty and crime thanks to meat packing plant and their largely illegal work forces. Crime is nearly impossible to prevent because local police cannot enforce immigration laws. They catch people driving with no insurance, identification, or anything and they just have to turn them loose because they can’t deport them. Dangerous criminals are deported only to return within weeks. It is a mess.
My sollution is to build the wall and then put a price on the head of any illegal immigrant. Tell all state and local governments that the feds will give $1,000 for any illegal aprehended by local authorities and turned over to INS. Extend this to private citizens who call INS and tell them the wereabouts of an illegal immigrant. For $11 billion dollars you could clean out the entire country. It would be the best $11 billion we ever spent.
March 10th, 2006 at 6:09 am
And a ‘police state’ is worse than a “It Takes A Village” Nanny State just how? More obvious brutality?
And if there were an olympics for obdurately missing the point, Reg would win the gold every time, evidently.
March 10th, 2006 at 6:13 am
I hate the idea of an amnesty, but heck, i’m willing to compromise. Build me a fence all along the southern border and reduce the flood to barely a trickle and i’ll be happy to vote for an amnesty.
An amnesty just gives illegals reason to hope that there will be another one in the future, all they have to to is get here and wait for it.
No amnesties, and start penalizeing the hell out of businesses who employ illegals. They’ll stop coming when there aren’t any jobs.
Then maybe those brave, hardworking, risk-taking people will turn some of that courage, energy, and daring towards making Mexico less of a mess.
March 10th, 2006 at 6:23 am
You folks are focusing on the wrong end of the problem. It’s not the supply (i.e., the influx of illegal immigrants); it’s the demand (i.e., the desire of employers for cheap labor that is effectively exempt from labor laws. This sentence from John’s comment says it all:
“My hometown in Western Kansas is no a literal cesspool of poverty and crime thanks to meat packing plant and their largely illegal work forces.”
I would wager that the meat packing plant John mentioned knows full well that most of its employees are in the country illegally. But they don’t care, because they’re making money, and that’s all the matters. Hit the owners of the meat packing plant with felony charges — hit ‘em hard, and make it swift and sure — and the problem will quickly go away.
March 10th, 2006 at 6:33 am
Volunteering to Fight the Police State
Anyway, Marc takes up the gauntlet and manfully thwacks Hillary about the head and shoulders, but misses a broader point.
March 10th, 2006 at 6:34 am
Brandon has it right. Just a few well publicized felony convictions of those employing illegal immigrants, and youi would see this problem go away pretty quickly.
March 10th, 2006 at 6:49 am
You guys are just mad at Hillary for the same
reason you hate Bubba; they’re stealin’ yer
thunder!.
She is to the right of WH on WoT, and Billy
commandeered the Welfare Reform ship.
That drives you guys batshit.
Like when FDR tuned the 6 Navy vessels
escorting him around and back to Europe
when he discovered his beloved Scottish
Terrier was left behind. You guys mewed
and bitched trying to get your stank on
him, but the American Public just responded
by saying: “Awwww. he loves his dog.”
Idiots. In spite of what you think, Billy was
not consulting with Hillary on his decisions
of State. That’s why he hired Dick Morris.
Stop trying to equate Hillary with Billy.
It may be a tactic, but it’s not a strategy.
March 10th, 2006 at 6:55 am
In spite of what you think, Billy was
not consulting with Hillary on his decisions
of State.
So when they were sold to the public as “co-Presidents”, we were just being lied to? Well, that’s alright then.
March 10th, 2006 at 7:01 am
How quickly America is, apparently, going to hell. Not more than a month or so ago we were a “plantation.†Now, it seems, we’re on the verge of becoming a “police state.
LOL. One of the greatest one-liners I’ve read. I’m still giggling ten minutes after seeing it!
Too bad America’s elite can’t spend a little time on a plantation or live under the thumb of Castro to get a real idea of how incredibly stupid they really are.
How long would Hillary last pickin’ cotton? Only in my dreams.
March 10th, 2006 at 7:09 am
I like Hillary a lot. She has balls of steel. Which really take you a long way. Her biggest failure is that she has to work behind the scenes.
The Clinton Administration was probably a joint Hillary/Bill affair. More Hillary then Bill because of the balls of steel.
But she doesn’t have the speaking skills of Bill or Ronald Reagan. The words don’t flow out of her, her style of speech grate like nails on a blackboard. Its a combative style of speaking which just doesn’t go over good. Which is why you get things like “police state” “plantation state.”
She is reduced to style over substance, which is a lethal combination when it comes to politics. She hasn’t found her style yet, which is troubling for her and for her constituents.
March 10th, 2006 at 7:12 am
“Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all.”
(Nikita Khrushchev , February 25, 1956 20th Congress of the Communist Party)
“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.”
(Hillary Clinton, 1993)
March 10th, 2006 at 7:17 am
“We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.â€
I see. How many times a week do we subjugate
our individual rights in the WoT? Been to the
airport lately?
March 10th, 2006 at 7:23 am
Marc-
Good observation about Clinton’s Border policy.
He campaigned on the theme that the economy at that time was the worst in 50 years. But the American economy grew despite Clinton’s trade policies, not because of them. We became the engine for world economic growth, while many other major powers suffered finacial crisis.
Clinton added to this mistake by adopting “free trade” rather than a more targeted approach. He lost control of the process, allowing other states to export their problems to America.
March 10th, 2006 at 7:31 am
Illegal Immigration Problem Fixed:
1) Impose heavy fines on employers knowingly employing illegals.
– A transition period to allow employers to transition to a legal workforce. Yes, prices for some products will rise (concomitantly with wages for the legal parts of the workforce).
– A government service allowing employers to verify the immigration status of job candidates.
2) A border wall (in whatever effective form).
3) No catch-and-release–detention until deportation.
4) Empower local law enforcement to arrest illegals.
5) No amnesty, although we will pay for a bus ticket back to Mexico for them to get in the back of the line.
6) No entitlements for illegals. No in-state tuition for their kids.
7) A correct interpretation of the citizenship requirement; just being born here is not enough.
Problem solved. Until we take our laws seriously, don’t expect the Mexican government and its nationals to take us seriously. The reconquista will continue unabated until we are left with a fractured bicultural nation and a chuckle whenever someone mentions ‘rule of law’.
March 10th, 2006 at 7:38 am
You know, I would love to see the Federal Government build a serious fence along the entire southern border but, face it, neither political party is interested.
The Republicans take money from people like the above mentioned meat packers to keep up the supply of cheap labor and the Democrats don’t care about green cards as long as they can get the illegal immigrants voter registration cards.
So it seems like there ought to be a way that private individuals can get together to do something. If individual property owners within a hundred miles of the border were willing to replace their four strand barbed wire fences with eighteen foot tall chain link fence topped with razor wire and if individuals all over the United States were willing to contribute a few bucks to pay for those fences, it sould cut down on the number of places where people could cross over from Mexico and the existing Border Patrol resources would be more adequate.
Back in the 1970s the artist Christo built his “Running Fence” artwork accross Sonoma and Marin Counties in California by getting property owners to agree to it and by collecting donations to pay for it.
http://www.christojeanneclaude.net/rf.html
Why can’t we do the same thing today with chain link and razor wire instead of nylon cloth?
March 10th, 2006 at 7:38 am
There’s only one solution to the immigration – make Mexico a decent place to live.
Unfortunately, that’s a tough one. But we could be doing more.
March 10th, 2006 at 7:40 am
I see. How many times a week do we subjugate our individual rights in the WoT? Been to the airport lately?
That’s not giving up our individuality to the benefit of society. That’s trading the right to not take off our shoes for the right to not be blown up by terrorists.
March 10th, 2006 at 7:55 am
“And a ‘police state’ is worse than a “It Takes A Village†Nanny State just how? More obvious brutality?”
For someone who jibes about missing points, you manage to state the obvious and miss the point at the same time….congrats.
March 10th, 2006 at 8:04 am
The “you can’t deport 11 million” is so much nonsense. You don’t have to. You simply make life here unpleasant for ‘em, and they’ll head on home of their own accord.
It’s all so simple, were our politicos not whores and cowards. “B” above has the plan down pat. Especially his/her point #6: stop the entitlements. That’s right: no foodstamps, no health care, so sending the kids to public schools. None. And I’m talking right down to the level of “leave ‘em dying on the street rather than pay for their hospital stay.”
Oh thousands will die, the immigrant-whores scream with phony empathy, ratcheting up their already sky-high sense of moral superiority! Ummm… no. A few will die. Then the rest will get the message and get the hell out of here.
You might add another point to that list, which is if you’re caught and deported, we confiscate your property (all those greenbacks you illegally earned). Just another little incentive to not show up again.
As for that fence idea. Effective, yes. An obvious solution to anyone but the willfully blind, yes. But land mines might be cheaper.
March 10th, 2006 at 8:12 am
Wow, Marc, no many fruits and nuts coming out on this issue your blog is a regular supermarket aisle.
All this talk of “solving” the immigration “problem” presupposes that immigration into a country of immigrants is a problem in the first place.
Culturally, economically and politically it seems to me laden with benefits, just as earlier immigrant waves were. Marc and I both live in Los Angeles, which used to be a bastion of white supremacy and union hostility but has become considerably more progressive as it has turned browner y mas espanol. That’s only a good thing.
The problems have a lot more to do with the realities of globalisation, especially NAFTA (a Clinton-era phenom), which has screwed up the North American labour market, and irrational fear and hatred of The Other, as exemplified in the very notion that immigration is, in and of itself, a problem, a security risk, a call for militarisation of the border, fences, dogs, watchtowers etc.
Stirring up fear of immigration is a longstanding form of political crack (read yr 19th century history) to which Clinton and the Republican loons are both, in their different ways, addicted. It’s very similar to the lock’em-up-and-throw-away-the-key attitude to law enforcement that has prevailed in both parties for the past 20-30 years.
Hillary’s comments are like the tut-tutting of a closet alcoholic at the sight of a bunch of louts staggering drunkenly out of a bar on a Saturday night. The only difference between her and them is that she sips her poison from an expensive hand-crafted hip flask and pretends to herself that this is somehow classier.
So, Reg, her condemnation of Sensenbrenner et al is not wrong. It’s just that she is part of a political process that made their wingnuttery possible in the first place. That’s why Marc is pissed off, and rightly so.
March 10th, 2006 at 8:26 am
“I guess I’m missing your point, other than that Hillary is a hypocrite who has no right to speak out on anything because her of husband. I got that part of it.”
I guess I am too and no I didn’t detect a policy either except “Come on down.” Advocacy groups are classic special interests. They all want total immigration freedom wihout regard for anything including environment degradation which is rampant all over socal. Too many people is indeed a problem wherever they may be. As I understand it defending the immigration laws was a Clinton crime? Fai enough, it’s not but so what? He didn’t build the wall to Texas? Or just advocate letting them all in?
I’d go with the Border Control officer who had the courage to post his qualified opinion. There are precious few of those.
March 10th, 2006 at 8:34 am
“# Nathan Says:
March 10th, 2006 at 5:44 am
Far be it from me to defend Hillary, but she didn’t actually say the Republicans are trying to build a police state. She said their plan would be “an unworkable scheme to try to deport 11 million people, which you have to have a police state to try to do.†In other words: the scheme won’t work precisely because we do not have a police state!”
Nathan, don’t cloud anybody’s mind with quotes of what she actually said..
And aside from the idiocy of the old John Birch Society-style juxtapositon of a quote from a centrist like Hillary or Eisenhower with a line from some Communist, I think it’s interesting that JL actually wrenched a quote from Kruschev’s landmark speech denouncing Stalin’s one-man tyranny over the Soviet Union as having something to do with a comment from Hillary sans any context.
Brandon nails the essence of the problem and its solution. Stem the creation of demand and go after the employers. The rest of it will take care of itself. “Market forces” and all that… Of course there’s no race card to play and people who donate to the GOP might end up on the wrong side of the law. Come to think of it, the latter seems to be a mushrooming trend these days, so maybe there’s hope for this approah.
March 10th, 2006 at 8:42 am
Modestproposal, you said:
“All this talk of “solving†the immigration “problem†presupposes that immigration into a country of immigrants is a problem in the first place.”
I think everyone here is talking about the illegal immigration problem–which is indeed a problem; visit your local correctional facility–and I didn’t see a single post complaining about legal immigrants, so please stop with the straw men.
March 10th, 2006 at 8:43 am
Definitely the employers. They are the source. That quote is telling. Talk about misreading what she’s saying. Key missing parts: unworkable; try. Shameful tactics of propaganda.
March 10th, 2006 at 8:48 am
“So, Reg, her condemnation of Sensenbrenner et al is not wrong.”
I just wanted Marc to admit that…
Also, I can assume that Hillary approved of most of Bill’s policies when she was First Lady, but I think it’s unseemly to lampoon her for a position she takes now that is probably correct while lambasting her for not publicly attacking some contradictory policy of the old Clinton administration. Let her establish her own record as a politician – sleazy or otherwise – and blame Bill for the policies of the first Clinton presidency if blame is warranted. There’s something truly pathological that the Clinton’s bring out in some people and the hysteria and venom says more about their critics than a fairly reasonable observation about a bad piece of legislation says about Hillary. And my comment is coming from someone who really doesn’t like Hillary and dreads the idea of her running for President (although my eyeballs don’t turn red).
March 10th, 2006 at 8:52 am
So Hilary Clinton is forbidden from speaking out against the felonization of immigrants, now? You want her to remain silent, now, as a Senator, because you don’t feel she spoke out enough ten years ago, as a wife?
Yeah, good thing you didn’t speak up about the Patriot act. Getting a rush of that traffic from right wing blogs must be exhilarating.
March 10th, 2006 at 8:54 am
“Marc and I both live in Los Angeles, which used to be a bastion of white supremacy and union hostility but has become considerably more progressive as it has turned browner y mas espanol.”
Well I suppose if you go back far enough. California is one of the most heavily unionized labor markets in the country. “Browner is better” is the message I’m seeing here, which is a proposal that’s quite open to debate aside from the fact that this is an openly racist statement on its face.
Of course there have always been white slobs building the freeways to for union wages, so it’s not like all caucasians are wealthy business leaders and slave-shop mongers.
Yeah it’s really improved here. Now almost everyone can’t afford to be here.
March 10th, 2006 at 8:57 am
[...] Ooops, I meant HRC, of course. He’s had enough with her getting away with saying any lame crap that comes into her angry little head and he’s saying so and looking at Clinton policies. Good piece. [...]
March 10th, 2006 at 9:01 am
b,
Where’s your evidence that illegal immigrants pose a significant crime problem? I can show you evidence that they are net tax payers, that they work incredibly hard at shitty low-paying jobs with few if any benefits and essentially sacrifice their own aspirations for their children’s. I’m sure some of them get in trouble, too, but my local correctional facilities, since you mention them, are notable mostly for their disproportionate numbers of dark-skinned petty drug offenders — the vast majority US citizens — serving shockingly long sentences imposed by out-of-control politicians trying to impress fear-mongers like yourself.
Your assumption about illegal immigrants being criminals is no different from past fear and paranoia about the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, the Jews etc etc. The descendants of those immigrants are now part of the bedrock of this country. Or would you, like your historical forebears, espouse a United States for white Protestant Europeans only?
March 10th, 2006 at 9:07 am
sorry to hog so much space, but gotta answer mark a. york:
“racist… on its face” to celebrate america as a cultural, linguistic and ethnic melting pot?
listen to yourself.
March 10th, 2006 at 9:07 am
“My hometown in Western Kansas is now a literal cesspool of poverty and crime thanks to meat packing plant and their largely illegal work forces.”
So with impeccable logic, this commenter proposes that the solution is to build a wall down in Texas and put a federal bounty on the heads of illegal immigrants. That’s like dropping a glob of honey in the middle of the kitchen floor and proposing to get rid of the resulting ants by fencing in the yard and chasing the little fellas down one by one with a pair of tweezers. (Before the PC police arrive, that was an analogy, not a simile.) Targeting employers in a handful of industries would cut the problem radically. Of course, there’s a GOP senator waiting in the wings to give a speech claiming it would take a police state to enforce labor laws, etc. etc. And many of those who attack Hillary here would applaud his stirring defense of freedom for capital to skirt regulation.
March 10th, 2006 at 9:14 am
is the Senator from New York fundamentally right or is she wrong on this?
The real point, apart from the issue itself (who cares about those), is that if she’s declared us a police state and a plantation this far ahead of the election, what will America be, rhetorically, by election day? Innocent insects slowly being dissolved in the acidic maw of Bush’s Venus Fly-Trap? An earthly recreation of the fecal pool from the Inferno? How high will she have to dial that stuff up in 2-1/2 years if she’s starting there?
Somehow it all makes me think of that silly V For Vendetta movie coming out, based on a comic book which was convinced that Margaret Thatcher’s election would lead straight to 1984, man, instead of what it actually did lead to– a really bitchin’ gallery and restaurant scene. Surely there has to be a form of opposition that stops short of apocalyptic hysteria.
March 10th, 2006 at 9:14 am
Once again, Cooper gets it wrong.
Countries have a right to defend their borders, taking advantage of natural defenses as necessary.
The Americans who are responsible for those 3500 deaths are those who encourage illegal immigration. That includes “liberals” as well as those who directly profit off illegal immigration.
Very few people would try to illegally cross our borders if they knew they couldn’t get a job or public services.
It’s those that give them jobs and fight to give them non-emergency services that are largely responsible for the deaths.
The reader should see my comments on Cooper’s other recent entries about immigration for much more.
March 10th, 2006 at 9:19 am
“is that if she’s declared us a police state and a plantation this far ahead of the election, what will America be, rhetorically, by election day?”
Freddy, the real point is that you’re a bloviating bullshitter who’s taken her words out of context – to the point of dementia. Flaming ignorance or hysterical malevolence ? Take your pick, folks. But recognize the direction that crap, hyperbolic rhetoric is floating in from…
March 10th, 2006 at 9:21 am
“I have to go to the bathroom,†Chairman Mao
“I have to go to the bathroom.†George W. Bush
March 10th, 2006 at 9:21 am
“Surely there has to be a form of opposition that stops short of apocalyptic hysteria.”
Ya think ?
March 10th, 2006 at 9:25 am
That “Anchoress” thing is kinda scary…
March 10th, 2006 at 9:26 am
A Couple of quick responses: Hillay can say whatever she pleases. She has a right to be a as dupliciyous and hypocritical as she pleases. I dont really care what she says about he Sensenbrenner bill or anything else because I have known since the beginning that she lives in a moral void.
As to illegal immigration: I have no prolem whatsover with tight enforcement, employer sanctions, worksite inspections even a fence if it makes you happy. But none of that work unless there is an acknolwedgement that with a 10 to 1 wage differential and with the Mexican and other economies in shambles AND with the need that American business has for a growing pool of unskilled workers, we must acknowledge the need for and then provide a LEGAL channel for these migrants and, yes, an amnesty program for those already here. That doesnt put me too far off from the Border Agent commenter.
March 10th, 2006 at 9:32 am
Marc… This is one more reason that I’ll slit my wrists if the woman becomes the dem nominee. Of course she’d been the lesser of two evils. But her unwillingness to have an honest discussion about much of anything is…deeply disheartening.
Reg, annoyingly, the LA Times links never work past the first week. Here’s a site that I notice has archived that particular immigration-related piece of mine… that Marc was kindly trying to link. Thanks for noting.
http://www.streetgangs.com/topics/2005/091805banned.html
March 10th, 2006 at 9:39 am
“I have known since the beginning that she lives in a moral void.”
The beginning of what ?
Seriously though…Marc, as someone who’s surely more hardline on this issue than you are, I’m kinda shocked that you would throw in “even a fence if it makes you happy”. The two “enforcement” proposals that are most often heard coming from the Right are the two that are most repugnant – building a “Berlin Wall” the length of our border with Mexico and proposals like 187 that turn school teachers and nurses into cops and punish the families of illegals. I guess you were being flip, but a “fence” is one of the most screwball, wrong-headed proposals I’ve ever heard of (with all due respect to Robert Frost). The issue is, as you accurately state it, about labor markets. Deal with it there – pro or con. But don’t turn America into something akin to, dare I say it, Sharonist Israel.
March 10th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Hi to you too Reg– I knew my reappearance would make you chime like a clock!
March 10th, 2006 at 9:40 am
I presume the reason for expunging illegal immigrants is to provide greater employment opportunity for the native born (are you picturing a white person?), maybe something approaching full employment. But that doesn’t gibe with Republican macroeconomic policy. Republicans don’t want anything close to full employment because that drives up the price of labor. This isn’t a small thing. Republicans will never support policies that drive up labor costs because they primarily identify with business owners and not workers. So we see Bush’s guest worker program. Here’s an opportunity to keep labor costs, down which keeps our efficient society running cheaply, and simultaneously prevent those workers from benefiting from the efficient society to which they contribute. Meanwhile, no appreciable difference in the job market for legal residents will appear. Supporting Republicans and expecting an approach to illegal immigration that will lead to an increase in jobs for the American-born is at cross-purposes.
March 10th, 2006 at 9:44 am
Yeah, Freddy. Everytime the cuckoo bird pops out…
March 10th, 2006 at 9:45 am
Of course the fence is wrong and offensive, Reg. But it aint gonna get built. Everyone in Washington knows it, including Hillary who was simply demagoging in the issue.
The beginning? Well for me it was the 1992 campaign when I got to ride in Big Bill’s plane and watch him set up the show around the execution of Rickey Ray Rector. That pretty much explained it all.
Also.. ur gonna hate this– what I learned from Whitewater made me sick. NOT the trumped up part pushed by the Right.. I didnt care about that. All I had to do was see in the words of the defense what the Whitewater project really was and that the Clintons were prinicpals in it and it told me oodles. It was a shakedown land deal aimed at poor people who live in trailer parks. Gag me.
My beef with Clintons is primarily with their soiled personal character. All the rest, their opportunist politics– flows from that. And I mean flows.
March 10th, 2006 at 9:47 am
PS: Marc’s right. Clinton was really hideous on immigration. It was a knee jerk thing for him because it was the issue that he felt cost him the Governorship of Arkansas in 1980. (If you’ll remember, he was tossed out after one year term, but then came back to win again as more of a centrist 1982.)
It was the only election Bill lost, and he never, ever forgot it. …and was afraid to make a brave move on immigration ever after.
I’m no immigration expert, so don’t believe my analysis. But you’d also hear the same thing — as Marc and Dan Kowalski will concur—from the head of Clinton’s immigration policy, Doris Meissner.
March 10th, 2006 at 9:49 am
“I presume the reason for expunging illegal immigrants is to provide greater employment opportunity for the native born (are you picturing a white person?)”
Mavis, when I get exercised about this, I’m actually picturing either a “native born” black person or a brown person who’s either “native born” or in a family of recent legal immigrants. Probably 17 to 30. And living in a neighborhood where unemployment has gone beyond being an individual’s problem to an epidemic.
March 10th, 2006 at 9:54 am
Rector is a good answer.
The rest of it, not so much.
March 10th, 2006 at 9:57 am
HRC is clearly pathological … and Democrat Socialists shouldn’t be undertaking all these parsings and relativities just to experiment with her in office. Once was clearly enough.
Fortunately, her constituents are already disillusioned:
March 10th, 2006 at 9:59 am
[Hillary] hasn’t found her style yet, which is troubling for her and for her constituents.
Hillary would need constant polls to decide anything which is WHY she would be “style” and no substance anyways… just as Bill was. The Dems will be making a HUGE mistake putting all their bets on her for President, it’s a SURE loser! Until the public knows how it feels about the borders, Hillary won’t.
March 10th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Melting pot? Framed in a “brown is better white is not” context? Please. It’s racist statement. Stated that way it’s a takover and fodder for Michele Malkin. Why invite it? We don’t really have a melting pot now only a mosaic of other cultures walled off and conpeting with each other as groups not individuals. This is a disastrous course.
Whitewater displaced trailer park residents? Recreational lots on the White River? Quite a goof trout stream too. I just dion’t but this concept.
“It was a knee jerk thing for him because it was the issue that he felt cost him the Governorship of Arkansas in 1980.”
Actually it wasn’t. He cracked down on logging and a papermill operation and I believe the chicken business over environmental controls and policy. He went on to craft the best environmental record since TR. Since I was involved with this I can’t resist. The letters are posted on my blog since I was “dared” to do so. Everything changed with junior in office. He reversed everything and installed industry lobyists in the place of qualified scientists.
Most of this bashing is just not qualifed, but opinion can be any old thing true or not.
March 10th, 2006 at 10:21 am
Marc,
The deal is that Hillary has taken a position on illegal immigration that’s indistinguishable from yours…
and you’re mad as hell and won’t take it anymore !
March 10th, 2006 at 11:23 am
Marc, can you cite the evidence of our purported “need” for unskilled workers? If the unemployment rate is not hitting record lows, then, no, I don’t see a “need” for unskilled workers from Mexico. Say you want about a humanitarian motivation for an amnesty program of sorts, and that’s a debatable point. But to try to get mileage out of this issue by aligning with business interests is slimy and disingenuous. Trust me, I’ve been there: I spent years schmoozing with local Chamber of Commerce members to tout how different we immigrant organizations were from other social service groups because we had “motivated” workers to offer the business community (code word for “docile”). I eventually saw the error of my ways. And so I’d advise against similar “creative” uses of the immigration cause. At least be honest about the our country’s “needs”, and who the hell’s needs these are.
March 10th, 2006 at 11:28 am
If Hillary Clinton is nominated as by the Democrats in 2008 as their presidential candidate, I am going to change my party membership. It is bad enough that my contributions to the Democratic Party over the years have gone to people like John Breaux, Zell Miller, Bill Clinton, and Joseph Lieberman. If that woman gets the nod in 08, that will be the last straw for me.
March 10th, 2006 at 11:41 am
Clinton knew about Mena. The right was right about that but couldn’t push it to its logical Iran/Contra conclusion. Clinton also promised Bush sr. that he’d cover his ass if vice-versa. The Clintons are as low as the Bushes.
March 10th, 2006 at 11:45 am
Not accurate.
It’s certainly true that the Clinton administration wass’t exactly bold or honest about immigration (compared to Bush? Riiiight) — but it was a LOT better than the Congress, which actually enacted most of the policies you’re bitching about, precisely because your SOURCES — those blessed immigration advocates — were dumb as rocks.
Item: in 1994, the first national figure to oppose Prop 187 (largely promoted by Republicans, like Hal Ezell and Reagan INS head Nelson) was the late Barbara Jordan. But she didn’t just oppose Prop 187 as bad policy, she promoted an alternative: worksite verification.
Item: As one, your ‘immigration advocates’ opposed Jordan — who, at that moment, also became the first to oppose the welfare ban. (August-September 1994)
Item: from 1994-1996, immigration advocates kept their mouths shut about the welfare ban, having made common cause with CATO’s argument “immigration yes, welfare no”. During those years, conservatives called better verification “the Mark of the Beast” (Grover Norquist), and wanted to know if we were going to barcode babies (Stuart Anderson, later Bush’s top immigration policy guy).
Item: 1995, the Jordan Commission urged that priority for legal immigration be given to the wives and kids of legal permanent residents.
Item: 1996, the Republican Congress rejected that priority, egged on by AILA (whcih claimed this was merely the ‘amnesty echo’ , and would go away).
Item: When legal immigration reforms were defeated, the worst anti-immigration provisions passed, because the Republican House in particular saw no need to bargain them away.
Item: the absolute nastiest provisions, e.g., the 3/10 year ban, were moved in Conference by Republican Senator Spencer Abraham — the darling of the immigration advocates. (Who had just hired Anderson.) Then the advocacy community gave Abraham the “defender of the melting pot” award.
The list goes on.
So it’s more than a bit disingenous to blame the Clinton administration for failing to veto acts of Congress that originated in the corner immigration advocates had unfailingly painted themselves into.
And, oh yeah — the border stuff? That wasn’t Clinton’s initiative, it started with Silver Reyes, the highest ranking Border Patrol guy ever elected to Congress, and WHEN COMBINED WITH INTERIOR ENFORCEMENT, it’s surely the smartest way to manage the border. The point isn’t to arrest people crossing the border, it’s to STOP people entering without inspection. The coyotes take ‘em into the desert because once they are across the border, there is no enforcement.
I look forward to your persuasive advocacy for 1) better worksite enforcement based on electronic verification of the Social Security #, and 2) delivering visas to the wives and kids.
Or, you could just bash Hillary.
March 10th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
I Know all of you will ignore my comment……..but are you all so blind that you will still defend the 2 most (in Marc’s words) morally bankrupt politicians ie: The Clintons, to come down the pike since God know when? No matter what?
Most of you are the prime example of what’s wrong with what’s left of the Demoratic Party. Open your minds and let some fresh air come in!
March 10th, 2006 at 1:26 pm
There are two problems with excessive immigration (which is, for my purposes, very close to illegal immigration): it increases overpopulation, and reduces wages. Much of the U.S. is already overpopulated – especially the coasts (just look at housing prices there). As for wages, had the minimum wage ($1.60/hr around 1970) kept up with inflation, it would now be about eight dollars an hour. It’s about $5.20. Had it kept up with productivity (which has doubled – see http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=070804D ), it would be about sixteen dollars an hour! And wages in general have stagnated – see http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=011206D . So the minimum wage, and wages in general, are way too low. And excessive immigration lowers them still more.
I do agree that cracking down on employers of illegal immigrants would be the best approach.
March 10th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Our new found friend India is constructing two walls, not one as we are considering. One is to protect them in Kashmir for the same reasons that the Israelis are building a wall and the other a 1,864 mile fence to seal off the Indian-Bangladeshi border. The fence at the Bangladeshi border will be just under 10 feet high and will run almost all the way around Bangladesh’s land border with India. The stated aim of the fence is to stop infiltration of terrorists, prevent smuggling and end illegal immigration. I support them and us in this, but it is interesting that we I haven’t heard a peep out of anyone on this action by India; especially at the UN.
March 10th, 2006 at 1:59 pm
“Brandon has it right. Just a few well publicized felony convictions of those employing illegal immigrants, and youi would see this problem go away pretty quickly.”
You mean just like with music downloading?
March 9th, 2006 at 10:31 pm
Aside from your “Clinton did it!” blast from the past and stern reminder that the First Lady at that time didn’t break with precedent and issue broadsides against her husband’s policies, is the Senator from New York fundamentally right or is she wrong on this? Is it a great idea to create a new class of felons or should she take your counsel and refrain from harsh criticism of this bill:
(News clip) The House measure would make unlawful presence in the United States, which is currently a civil offense, a felony.
Clinton said it would be “an unworkable scheme to try to deport 11 million people, which you have to have a police state to try to do.”
Just asking…
(Also the link to rosedog’s LA Times mag piece doesn’t work. Is it anywhere else ??? )
March 10th, 2006 at 2:37 pm
People who get huffy about immagration are like fire breathing partisans on The Middle East; they generaly have found an axe in this heartbreaking problem and they are only too happy to grind it all over you. I don’t know what to do about this mess; which seems to me generally a symptom of the worldwide race to bottom on wages. Sure, start talking like that and see if you can get elected to the clean up committe for the next Pancake Breakfast.
Luckily, we don’t have have to back further than a week to
see Cooper’s misbegotten “gotcha” with the Clintons on the Port’s deal. It is good to see Cooper freely admit his Clinton Obsession; oh that it were the first step toward recovery!
So, we can pretty much assume here that “Campaign Spin fantasies” means “a version of the story without good guys and bad guys out of a Gene Autrey flick. ” If the new measures enacted under Clinton were so horrific, why did they completly fail to stem the tide of illeagal immigration? Am I really to despise Clinton for (even lousy) anti-terror legislation in the pre-911 years, when our Congress and Media were content to endlessly rub our noses in the deficanties in Ken Starr’s fantasy life?
What if we sent 10 billion of that Iraqi money down to
Mexico as aid in helping them develop a viable economy; at the same time demanding a livable wage for service industry jobs in our country? Politicos don’t talk that way for the same reason Cooper doesn’t write that way….. there’s no job in it.
So, he drags his self loathing over to attacks on the Clintons for not being the altruistic do gooders of our dreams.
But consider Cooper’s last pre-11 Weekly piece, a great yucking it up over Gary Condit and how it was hilarious it was that the media fixated over such stuff instead of, oh, terriorist legislation and other lofty stuff. Talk about not having the decency to put a sock in it.
In the meantime, the level headed are stuck with Hillary Clinton’s sole big plus as a candidate or anything else: She drives the dopes crazy.
March 9th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
That’s hardly the point, Reg. It’s a bullshit statement because even the authors of the House bill know very well they are not going to deport 11 million people. She’s waving around a bloody shirt after going the last number of years (since her hubby left office) with NO proactive immig reform proposal. It’s cheap politicking, it doesnt get us to where we should be or even toward that goal and it’s rather unseemly coming from her.
March 10th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Marc — two issues.
Is not increased illegal immigration as Mexico falls ever deeper into a pit of corruption and violence and no jobs as good an explanation for increased deaths on the border as Clinton’s policies of increased border enforcement at some points? The deaths roughly correlate with declining investment in Mexico and increased investment in Asia (chasing cheap labor again).
Second, if we cannot stop illegal immigrants from coming into this country in massive amounts, doesn’t that just require the US to openly intervene in Mexico by military means to order the nation to our liking?
If we are obliged to employ all of Mexico’s poor and unemployed, then certainly we have the right to intervene in Mexico by force and do what we like there.
Why not simply invade and annex Mexico?
Your view that we cannot regulate who comes into this country from Mexico implies the annexation and absorption of Mexico into the US as a dependent territory.
Why can’t we deport 11 million people? For one thing you’d see employment levels and wages go up. If they are not citizens they should go. All it requires is will. Deport a few at a time, with exceptions made for those who add value to America (kids with good grades, special talents, the like). Along with heavy fines for employers of course.
You are right however on Hillary. She is not only factually wrong but sounds as politically adept as Al Gore crossed with John Kerry. Dems would be wise to dump her for Vilsack (a guy I really like).
[Mexico has been a mess for generations, abetted by the immigration lobby and remittances to keep it afloat, instead of a short, sharp crisis and genuine reform which means honesty, no corruption, and the state stopping the various armed bands from imposing violence on the people. Every illegal immigrant only cements the corrupt system in Mexico further. See: Philippines, remittance society.]
modest –” Culturally, economically and politically it seems to me laden with benefits, just as earlier immigrant waves were. Marc and I both live in Los Angeles, which used to be a bastion of white supremacy and union hostility but has become considerably more progressive as it has turned browner y mas espanol. That’s only a good thing.”
Well it’s a plus if you want cheap nannies or gardeners for your Malibu mansions. And great ethnic food for cheap. It’s a minus if you’re a working class white guy (I know Modest, you’d rather they all just died or something) and a minus if you’re a working class African American or native born Latino guy. Because you get your wages undercut. The Drywaller’s Union (which was mostly White and African American) was destroyed by illegal scabs, and then formed a Union with only ex-Illegals (at much lower wages). Which is now surprise surprise under attack by new waves of illegals. Unionism (as opposed to excluding social networks, try and get into the Drywaller’s Union now as a working class Black or White guy) is mutually exclusive with illegal immigration. Because Unions restrict the labor supply to create higher wages.
So much for “progressive.” Which is shorthand for getting rid of working class white and black and native born Latino guys (who are too troublingly conservative in social outlook) and replacing them with a constantly churning underclass various Tammany Hall figures can exploit (see Mayor Tony).
Mexico — BUILDING A WHACKING GREAT FENCE ON IT’S SOUTHERN BORDER. To keep out poor Guatemalans and such. Yeah tell me why we can’t build a fence.
March 9th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
So turning a civil offense into a felony is the way to go ????
I guess I’m missing your point, other than that Hillary is a hypocrite who has no right to speak out on anything because her of husband. I got that part of it.
March 10th, 2006 at 3:57 pm
Let’s see if this works.
March 10th, 2006 at 4:29 pm
India’s building a fence ? Mexico’s building a fence ?
Well then, by all means, let’s get cracking on ours.
March 10th, 2006 at 4:34 pm
I can agree with some of what Rockford says. The drywallers are part of the Painter’s or were. My uncle retired from that union but it was a long time ago.
March 10th, 2006 at 4:35 pm
He only says, ‘Good fences make good neighbors’.
Spring is the mischief in me, and I wonder
If I could put a notion in his head:
‘Why do they make good neighbors?
…
Before I built a wall I’d ask to know
What I was walling in or walling out,
And to whom I was like to give offence.
Something there is that doesn’t love a wall,
That wants it down.’
March 10th, 2006 at 6:00 pm
“ While our current immigration mess has bi-partisan roots, it was precisely the Clinton administration that is most responsible for our contemporary border nightmares.â€
It takes a village to build a police state—by George, we got one! Don’t you think if our government wanted to seriously deter illegal immigration they would have? Obviously they are not interested.
Now the Clintons are a very special couple—I would classify them as veiled chameleons (Chamaeleo calyptratus) this the most commonly bred and available species of its genus in herpetoculture. The popularity of the veiled chameleon is due to a number of factors: veiled chameleons are relatively hardy, large, beautiful, and prolific.
It is not uncommon to encounter this species as reptiles whose color and spots change to suit any political climate, they are especially known for the amount of bodily waste that they throw incessantly on those around them.
Unfortunately, veiled chameleons are all too often purchased by unsuspecting buyers, who without acquiring the correct information prior to their purchase, have found themselves in a messy situation, the unwitting purchaser is constantly being crapped on by the chameleon and then forced to clean it up!
March 10th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
It’s good to see Cooper responding to comments. Unfortunately, AFAIK, he’s never responded to mine here.
Regarding the typing teacher’s comments, illegal immigration mostly hurts Hispanic American citizens and legal immigrants, as well as blacks. In fact, over half the black males between 16 and 60 (?) in NYC are unemployed. Despite that, Bloomberg supports illegal immigration.
Regarding The Wall, we already have walls. Did you know that? More walls around urban areas (El Paso for instance) would make a lot of sense. In less populated areas border drones and other forms of sensors.
Mexico is a corrupt country, but they’re hardly poor. They have more millionaires than Germany. The problem is that they have crooks at the top.
Those crooks are able to maintain power because of those who support illegal immigration in the U.S. It’s people like Cooper – as well as those who employ illegal aliens – who give the Mexican government a safety valve. They can just send their problem population to the north, and pick up billions of dollars in remittances in return.
It also leads to Mexico’s corruption flowing north, as banks and corporations profit off illegal activity and then donate to politicians who look the other way.
Check out my link or immref.com if you want to learn the truth about this issue rather than Cooper’s or Insty’s spin.
March 10th, 2006 at 6:50 pm
# TallDave Says:
March 10th, 2006 at 7:38 am
There’s only one solution to the immigration – make Mexico a decent place to live.
Unfortunately, that’s a tough one. But we could be doing more.
Well, like any tough task, you break it down into less ambitious subtasks.
Here’s my modest proposal. With the election on July 2 the PRI will be back in power or possibly even the PRD. Within five years, ten at the outside, Mexico will once more be struggling with the possibility of defaulting on their national debt. The US government can simply pay off all of their debt in return for Baja California. Here is a hint: what explains the difference between property values in San Diego and Tijuana? How many points do you think that developing 2000 miles of waterfront property along the Pacific Ocean and the Sea of Cortez will add to the US GDP?
By the time we have absorbed Baja California and made it part of the USA, the Mexican government will be up to their nose holes in debt again and we can do the same thing with Sonora.
March 10th, 2006 at 6:58 pm
The initial first question be, with what? We’re way beyond broke now and plummeting further every day. Chameleons aren’t the problem. Snakes can be though if you happen to be one of the ones eaten. Clinton tried things and and we had money when he left office. We sure don’t now. That’s the difference between an snake and a chameleon.
March 10th, 2006 at 7:02 pm
I think there are at least three major issues that get mixed into spumoni in this sort of discussion. That they are all legitimate points should be the first point. That they are somewhat contradictory is the other. That there could theoretically be solutions to the problems is the more important point that seldom is recognized.
Point the first: In the short to medium run, a huge pool of low price labor obviously pushes down the wages that would otherwise be made by the native born. Many of the lost jobs belonged, or would belong, to native born African-Americans. Other jobs used to be union or at least well paid. Now, we see a race to the bottom in construction, roofing, slaughter house work, hotel work, and so on.
Point the Second: In the long run, the United States will be a very different place if it grows to a population of half a billion, then three-quarters of a billion. The growth rate, fed by immigration, predicts those numbers given another half-century and century or so. In a future world that will be largely unable to produce cheap petroleum (ever hear the term “peak oil”?) and which will need to recover an earlier form of agriculture, this does not promise a happy future for our progeny. A U.S. which maintains its population more or less at its current level would be a far happier place.
Point the third: There is a terribly serious humanitarian issue here that is also wrapped up in a never-spoken-about political issue. The fact that Mexico has been ineffective in creating a U.S. level standard of living may have many causes, among them U.S. meddling (call it imperialism if you like) and political criminality at the local level. That there are demonstrable reasons doesn’t make life easier for those who must endure it. Still, it is a legitimate question as to how much of the treatment for this problem should be provided by the U.S. The problem is complicated still further by the argument that NAFTA had the effect of putting small farmers out of business in Mexico. The never to be talked about issue is probably the more important to the U.S. — if things get bad enough in Mexico, the whole political structure could fall in something approaching a civil war.
One aside: I think the lamest retort among apologists for illegal immigration is the argument that we should go after the employers with criminal sanctions. I think that people dust off this argument simply because they know full well that it wouldn’t happen. It’s a rhetorical “talking point” that allows its vendors to pretend to intellectual legitimacy. At least Marc has the honesty to ignore such an obvious subterfuge and call for a more open border system. I don’t agree with him because I take points 1 and 2 (above) seriously, but I understand the argument.
Final remark: To argue that immigrants are a boon to the economy, and therefore we should ignore our own laws and sovereignty is the weakest argument of all. As a nation, we make lots of decisions that cause us to forego some economic advantage in order to achieve some other goal (preserving national forests and parks, for example). To argue that we need illegal immigration because we need cheap labor (even in agriculture) is to place our own benefit at the checkout line above other equally valid considerations.
March 10th, 2006 at 7:04 pm
Mark–they are both reptiles.
March 10th, 2006 at 7:12 pm
Each year hundreds of criminals die because we arm our policemen. Despite our armed policemen criminals still commit crimes. Disarm our policemen and all those criminal lives could be saved. Since crime is a reality we have to live with, the only real solution is to find a way for people to commit crimes legally. I suggest we make all criminals Republican congressmen.
March 10th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Mexican drug lords are calling the shots in what the UN estimates is a $142 billion a year business in cocaine, heroin, marijuana, methamphetamine, and illicit drugs on US streets.
Today, the Mexicans have taken over and are running the organized crime, and getting the bulk of the money.
One consequence of the new dominance of Mexican cartels is a spike in violence, especially along the 2,000-mile US-Mexico border where rival cartels are warring not only against Mexican and US authorities, but also against one another for control of the lucrative transit corridors.
While the Colombian cartels still control most of the production of cocaine and heroin, the more profitable part of the trade – transport to the US, and distribution there – has come under control of various Mexican cartels.
Well, it seems the whole world his going to pot! And since corrupt official are no dopes they would rather not miss out on the high cash rewards found in the drug trade!
March 10th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
According to the authoritative National Academy of Sciences’ 1997 study, the MAXIMUM economic benefit of immigration to the United States is “as much as” $10 billion a year…..
… in a trillion dollar economy. Do the math.
That’s like picking up a dime off the street, when you have three 20s, a ten, three fives, 12 singles, 6 quarters, 11 other dimes, 5 nickels and 21 pennies in your pocket. I mean — you’d pick up the dime.
But you wouldn’t cross the street to do it.
Moreover, the National Academy of Science pointed out that like most good things, immigration ain’t free. The small economic benefits are national — and the costs are all local.
Taxpayers in California pay $1,000 a year more in taxes because of immigration, mostly in education; in New Jersey, it’s about $300 more a year.
So whenever you hear an economic argument for immigration, realize: this, is a con. It’s somebody who wants a subsidy in the form of government-supplied labor. (Chief among the rent-seekers are immigration lawyers: the single most telling stat on immigration is the 500% increase in immigration lawyers in the last 20 years.)
The real value of American immigration is CIVIC, not economic.
And on that score, Clinton rules: record levels of naturalization.
You could look it up.
‘Course, whether you’re looking at the real options for dealing with illegal immigration, or for reforming legal immigration, or for how we got into the mess, or what to do about it: our host has nothing to say.
Except — to bash Hillary.
March 10th, 2006 at 7:30 pm
p.s. According to the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs, as much as 90 percent of the cocaine sold in the US is smuggled through Mexican territory. Mexico is also the No. 2 supplier of heroin, the largest foreign source of marijuana, and the largest producer of methamphetamine. Moreover, Mexican criminal groups now dominate operations in the US, and control most of the 13 primary drug distribution centers in the US.
March 10th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
Another comeback to Mark York, apols for the delay:
“Brown is better white is not” is your chosen interpretation of my words. It’s not what I said.
My point was that I prefer the Los Angeles of Mayor Villaraigosa to the Los Angeles of Mayor Yorty. I have nothing against white people. I’m white myself.
(And no, Jim Rockford, I don’t have a death wish for low-skilled white workers. I think all workers, migrant or not, should have basic protections, living wages etc etc. But, for the moment, we don’t live in that world. We live in a world where undocumented workers are exploited in jobs no US citizen would do — witness the current desperate shortage of ag workers in Arizona and elsewhere.)
As for the melting pot being less than perfectly melted… you’re right, of course, but — I can almost feel another discussion about “Crash” coming on. Save us!
March 10th, 2006 at 8:04 pm
Hillary will say whatever her pollsters tell her the majority on that particular day want to hear. She has no principles of her own, aside from those she dare not speak.
And let’s not pretend, Reg, that she was just the good little housewife during Bill’s admin. She was an active partner, if not the driving force, in policy decisions. She ruled with an iron ash tray.
Does the phrase Healthcare Plan ring any bells? Sure, it wasn’t even legal for her to head those infamous secret talks about abolishing private doctors in this country, but that doesn’t negate the fact that she was the architect of the whole thing.
And police state? With Janet Reno as enforcer, the Clintons ran one of the most frightening juntas of the past century, killing children by burning down their compound in Waco, tearing a child at gunpoint from his relatives’ arms to send him back to Castro’s Cuba, and calling their critics a “vast rightwing conspiracy”, blaming Rush Limbaugh for the Oklahoma City bombing.
No, Bill was not interested in policy. He was only in it for the cheap floozies and the free food.
And now she wants to be seen as a hawk. Oh, please. A vulture maybe.
And who could forget this:
http://www.korlapundit.com/korlapundit/images/hillarysuha.gif
March 10th, 2006 at 8:11 pm
But they were hawks–has everyone forgot about a country called Yugoslavia?
The bombing of Yugoslavia was, overwhelmingly, of specifically civilian targets: homes, roads, farms, factories, hospitals, bridges, churches, monasteries, columns of refugees, TV stations, office buildings. The bombing was not intended to maximize civilian deaths, but neither was it intended to minimize them. The aim of the bombing was to destroy civilian installations on which people’s lives and comfort depended, killing a few thousand random civilians for good measure, and thus weakening the will of the population to resist, so that they would submit to NATO occupation.
On paper, at least, NATO failed to achieve its precise objectives, and had to settle for what it could have achieved without bombing. At Rambouillet, NATO had insisted upon NATO occupation of the whole of Yugoslavia. This has not been obtained, and seems to be off the table for the moment.
NATO had demanded occupation of Kosovo, followed by a referendum after three years. Given other provisions encouraging the racist Albanians in the KLA to terrorize the rest of the population of Kosovo (Serbs, Gypsies, Turks, Muslim Slavs, and non-racist Albanians), this was, as everyone acknowledged, tantamount to guaranteeing the separation of Kosovo from Serbia after three years.
March 10th, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Given your venomous demeanor, Korla, it would seem to me that Hillary is right up your alley. Sheesh, “poor Rush Limbaugh.” The same clueless twit who attacked Hillary and Bill’s daughter as “the family dog.”
March 10th, 2006 at 9:09 pm
Yeah why rescue muslims from genocide from their fellow countrymen when it clearly isn’t worth the bother.
March 11th, 2006 at 12:03 am
Americanist: Say what u please, but you make urself a fool. I have tons to say on immigration policy and much of it has been posted on this blog. Failing that, you can always Google/ But that’s a foolish and quite ignorant assertion you have made.
March 11th, 2006 at 12:19 am
TallDave Says:
“There’s only one solution to the immigration – make Mexico a decent place to live.”
Well, Mexico is a very decent place to live — if you have money, but I know what you mean and I agree.
Maybe the folks who reflexively object to NAFTA and World Trade should get a counter-theory of wealth; I’m all ears. Where does wealth come from? How do historically poor countries like Mexico get their share?
What does Mexico need? What does Ecuador need?
Who cares?
March 11th, 2006 at 1:26 am
I’m coming into this after more than 90 comments but just want to say that only modestproposal has put his/her finger on the real issue in my view: We need to question the entire notion of borders whether it be between the US and Mexico or between France, Germany, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, etc etc. What are borders for? How legitimate are any “us vs them” distinctions? It is a laugh to see Americans engage in nativism when they are a nation of immigrants. Those who make a distinction between “legal” and “illegal” immigration are only fooling themselves in light of real word realities and those who dream of a wall between the US and Mexico and just nativist fantasists.
March 11th, 2006 at 1:27 am
PS–As for the main point of Marc’s post, Hilllary is the ENEMY of anyone who wants to see the Democratic Party reformed and progressive. She cannot be attacked enough for her opportunism and dishonesty.
March 11th, 2006 at 5:34 am
Then do tell us, Marc, how a former First Lady got to be the bad guy in a debate over immigration?
I noted what, 16 specifics — and so far, all you’ve had to say is Hillary sucks.
March 11th, 2006 at 6:14 am
MARC, BLAME IT ALL ON THE CLINTONS, AND THAT’S THE BEST YOU CAN DO.
March 11th, 2006 at 7:54 am
Balter says: “Those who make a distinction between ‘legal’ and ‘illegal’ immigration are only fooling themselves…”
Yeah — those of us who believe in American citizenship are real suckers.
Good thing we have folks like Marc Cooper to straighten us out, show us how we can blame our stupidity on a former First Lady.
March 11th, 2006 at 8:28 am
“Los Angeles, which used to be a bastion of white supremacy and union hostility but has become considerably more progressive as it has turned browner y mas espanol. That’s only a good thing.”
That’s the quote. When it was a “bastion of white supremacy” would be bad.
“but has become considerably more progressive as it has turned browner”
Would be “good” if you consider progressive good. So yes that’s exactly what you saud and meant. I think it’s an innaccurate statement. Since Villarigosa just got into office there isn’t much data to back that up.
March 11th, 2006 at 8:33 am
The Hillary card is a red herring for anyone using it as the fulcrum of their reasoning. We saw how badly she was misquoted here. It’s really bad journalism at the very least. When the argument turns on personalties those making it don’t have much of a case of their own. They just know they have bad “feeling” about an individual. And they can base that on just about anything they choose. Like trailer parks on the White River that don’t and never would exist.
March 11th, 2006 at 8:43 am
“those of us who believe in American citizenship”
“Believe” in American citizenship? Believe in what sense, as some kind of superior quality? As something earned by one’s accomplishments or by how hard they work? If the latter, then immigrants are the most deserving!
“The Hillary card”
Would this refer to her Congressional voting card? I am sure this is not what you meant, but I will say that anyone who voted to empower Bush to go to war is disqualified from presidential office on my voting card, from John Kerry on down. Find us a real, honest candidate for 2008 and then we won’t have to attack Hillary anymore. But don’t expect any progressive worth his or her salt to stand by silently while she marches onward.
March 11th, 2006 at 9:03 am
Oh please Michael. They all voted for it due to being buffaloed and misled. There are no candidates who were against the invasion for regime change. It’s pitiful but true. They believed it despite the pitiful facts. If you’re looking for the peace and pacifist candidate good luck and say goodnight Dick. The Nader camp awaits.
As for citizenship it is indeed a right that has to be earned. You can’t do that by going on the lam under the table and shipping the money back home. Not in my citizenship book.
March 11th, 2006 at 9:15 am
“They all voted for it due to being buffaloed and misled.”
Say what? We are not talking about the hapless American people here, but Senators and Representatives in the U.S. Congress. We are talking about complicity, not victimization. Complicity is a willful act and the carte blanche handed to Bush et al. was willful. Some did not buy it, is it too late for them to run or must we choose from the candidates the Democratic leadership crams down our throats? Isn’t that what we did in 2004? No lessons learned?
March 11th, 2006 at 9:16 am
PS–and save the appeals to “realism,” another word for political cowardice.
March 11th, 2006 at 9:32 am
Here you go, still plenty of time to pick your candidate for an election that is 2 1/2 years away:
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2002/roll455.xml
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237
March 11th, 2006 at 9:39 am
Oh oh wait wait no delete button too late to realize my mistake! We have to choose a candidate that is ELECTABLE, like, like… John kerry!
March 11th, 2006 at 9:46 am
Balter, I remember proposing a similar “open borders” argument–in my 8th grade Spanish class. That your idea resonates with 8th-grade minds is, well, kind of telling.
March 11th, 2006 at 9:48 am
“That your idea resonates with 8th-grade minds is, well, kind of telling. ”
I totally agree: Kids have a much stronger sense of fairness and justice than cynical adults.
March 11th, 2006 at 10:01 am
Mark York et al… You guys are really something. Go into the tank for Hillary. Please. Real deep.
Personally, I can’t wait until she is elected… y’all deserve her.
Just as a matter of record. Hillary was not misquoted or mischaracterized here. She has an abominable record on immigration — the deaths of thousands and the heartache of hundreds of thousands are the direct results of the Clinton admin policy on this issue. She is but a rank opportunist who, now yes, is paying lip service to a better policy (but for which she has taken no risks or any pro-active moves).
So she was “buffaloed” and foold by George W. Bush? You sure you want to assert that? You weren’t but she was?
March 11th, 2006 at 10:18 am
Well marc weren’t they all? The basic premise of giving Bush the option if necessary applies. Of course judging by the way he does things it should have been apparent he’d decided, but that isn’t what many of them thought.
Immigration policy was bad insofar as he didn’t wall off the whole border or let everyone in? If the solution was easy we’d have one already.
Did you read the quote about the police state? All she was saying is it was impossible to implement and thus farcical. That’s not her policy on its face. I’m in the “anyone but Bush or another Republican” camp, but the goggle-eyed wistful longing for an idylic hero is of a fictional nature and nothing more.
March 11th, 2006 at 10:24 am
In that case I nominate Tom Udall D-CO.
March 11th, 2006 at 10:26 am
“but the goggle-eyed wistful longing for an idylic hero is of a fictional nature and nothing more.”
Sorry to have to repeat myself, but this is early 2006 and the Democratic primaries will be in 2008. Could someone tell me who decided that Hillary Clinton is already the nominee? Has anyone here heard of something called politics? Or do we just open our mouths like little birdies and swallow whatever we are fed?
March 11th, 2006 at 10:30 am
This is not an endorsement, even though I know this guy, but even in NY there are alternatives to Hillary:
http://www.tasinifornewyork.org/
March 11th, 2006 at 10:36 am
Michael.. surely you jest! Politics? Here’s the truly sad part… we already had Anyone But Bush… his name was Bill Clinton. He led his right back to Bush.
York.. wake up man! I didnt say Hillary was proposing a police state! I said she was denouncing the Republican proposal to deport aliens.
I, in turn, was denouncing her for her cheap demagogy. When the OkC. bombing was used by The Other Clinton in 1996 to justify expansion of the death penalty and to justify expedited and expanded deportation of LEGAL residents, where was Hillary’s big mouth then? Where was it when her husband signed away FDR’s federal welfare safety net the same year? At least one of Hillary’s long time associates, Peter Edelman, had the decency to resign his sub cabinet post over that little horror. And what was Hill doing? Frankly, who cares anyway? One has to be really really brain dead to consider her seriously as someone with principles or a program. All politicians dodge, weave and scheme some of the time. But that’s all she does. Maybe she can offer u some tips on commodities trading? Making a 100 to 1 profit on a minor investment aint so easy.
Anyway… let me repeat again… I WANT her to be elected. I cant imagine how much fun it will be to hear folks like you apologize for her for four years. It was pretty damn entertaining last time around!
March 11th, 2006 at 11:15 am
btw, since Mark has picked Tom Udall (of New Mexico, perhaps you were thinking of Mark Udall of Colorado, who also opposed the war resolution?) as his candidate, here are his remarks on the House floor before the war vote. If Hillary was too buffaloed to echo these sentiments why in God’s name would ANY Democrat want her as the candidate?
http://www.tomudall.house.gov/display2.cfm?id=5820&type=Issues
March 11th, 2006 at 11:44 am
Marc, you’re veering perilously close to lying. Senator Clinton was not ‘denouncing a Republican proposal to deport aliens.’
What Senator Clinton referred to as a ‘police state’ provision is in the House immigration bill. It would expand the definition of human smuggling, with all of its criminal penalties, to include anybody who helps an illegal alien.
Let’s see how classy you are when you’ve been caught being flat wrong.
Just how would YOU describe the law enforcement methods necessary to prosecute a day care program for illegal workers in a church basement as if it was a snakehead operation?
Evidently you object to this accurate characterization of the tactics necessary to enforce such a provision, viz,, against churches, clinics, and the like, and yet you ALSO object to sensible measures like Operation Hold the Line in El Paso.
Evidently, I don’t know your work, your integrity, so please, enlighten us all.
If you’ve ever supported the Clinton administration’s extensive (and controversial) tests of electronic verification of work eligibility based on the Social Security #, I’ve never seen it. Cite something I missed.
If you ever objected to the Bush administration’s complete refusal to enforce immigration law within the United States, I’ve never seen it. A quote, please?
Who looks like a fool, Marc?
Kindly correct my misunderstanding of your extensive record advocating sensible, effective immigration reform.
Tell us how YOU would make the distinction between legal and illegal not only effective — but meaningful, if NOT through the combination of the border strategies initiated by the Border Patrol sector chief in Brownsville, later El Paso, and finally across the whole Mexico border AND interior enforcement based on those Clinton-era tests of electronic verification?
What’s your alternative, dude?
And – if you DON’T have one, kindly explain just how you would maintain the value of American citizenship that has been eroded for so long precisely because of the failure to make the distinction between legal and illegal, permanent and temporary: do be specific, and make as many catty remarks about Senator Clinton as possible.
Be sure to contrast record levels of naturalization under the Clinton administration with the last six years.
Be sure to contrast how you would deter illegal immigration with that benighted strategy of border protection and worksite enforcement, which was moving, however slowly, under Clinton.
Do straighten out those of us who believe in American citizenship, based as it has always been on a God-given birthright (ratified by the 14th amendment which many Republicans want to repeal) and on the rule of law.
And be sure to find a way to make this all about a junior Senator from New York.
March 11th, 2006 at 11:50 am
Yeah I got my Udalls switched.
“her husband signed away FDR’s federal welfare safety net the same year?” Oh pushaw. This makes the wingnut argument in caricature: liberals support welfare which goes on and on for generations. I don’t want to be saddled with that baggage. Federal welfare is only available to women with children. Trapping them there was never a solution. I’m afraid signing it away was inevitable. Now if he’d signed away social security I’d have been pissed. That’s the FDR safety net. And denouncing deportation was bad because? It was her doing it and thus disingenuous? Fair enough, but still pretty slick usage of an off the cuff remark, and standard fare in opinion journalism.
March 11th, 2006 at 12:01 pm
I agree with Udall but it was a futile effort. There were no numbers to defeat the resolution no matter if they all voted against it. Symbolism may elevate someone on this position but the country in general would only have deemed them cowards as we’ve seen ever since. How does one win an election carrying that backpack?
March 11th, 2006 at 12:54 pm
“But don’t expect any progressive worth his or her salt to stand by silently while she(Hillary) marches onward.”
I think I want to be a progressive because it sounds so……well, progressive. What is a progressive BTW? What is the differences between one of these and a liberal or the left? Is Marc a progressive, or really one of those other thingies he’s been called here?
Inquiring minds want to know.
March 11th, 2006 at 12:59 pm
Marc — I thought your original post about immigration policies that kicked this all off was pretty darn good. I actually did read most of the links to Cornelius and Kowalski (ah, a Kowalski — that most beautiful name!). Those reports were devasting! And so, I thought it was very appropriate to call Hillary out for it. As for reforms, I’m with the ‘go hard on the employers who hire illegals’ faction as the best place to start. Some sort of amnesty (even if limited) is going to have to be factored in. A fence? Puh-leeze.
From the comments I read today, I think I’m mostly in league with Rosedog and Balter (and Marc), regarding the Democratic Party’s future if its to be lead by Hillary.
Some have said on this thread that what occured (as politics and policy) during President Clinton’s tenure should be tendered as Bill’s record and that Hillary should be judged on her own achievements (or lack thereof). I must disagree. Hillary squeezes every drop out of her time as First Lady for political gain (her election as a NY Senator is mostly due to what?!), and blanantly tries to disregard the messes. Hillary is merely the other half of the Clinton-Self-Aggrandizement-Corportation. Opportunists and Carpetbaggers. Call me anti-Hillary, anti-Clinton if you want, I’ll gladly plead guilty.
March 11th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
“Oh pushaw. This makes the wingnut argument in caricature: liberals support welfare which goes on and on for generations…I’m afraid signing it away was inevitable. ” York, you truly have no idea what you’re talking about on this point. There was nothing inevitable about what happened with the Clinton sellout on this issue. We’ve gone round on this blog before about what happened at that time, so I won’t belabor the point, but you’re completely out to lunch on this one.
March 11th, 2006 at 3:14 pm
Rob.. ditto.
York: My, that’s awful generous of you, you know, ceding the end of Federal Welfare. I suspect you have never been in need of it so wtf do u care if Clinton cashes it in — and on Republican terms no less.
As a matter of fact, u are wrong. The welfare system has not been scrapped. What Clinton did was remove the federal safety net and turned the proram over to the states. Instead of guaranteed funding, the programs then became to bloc grants AND a number of punitive conditions and time limits.
In fact, this was one of Clinton’s biggest deceits. He ran on a program of ending “welfare as we know it” by proposing something much more comprehensive, supportive and rehabilitative. And then using the same phrase, the bastard just ended welfare.
You can talk a blue streak about this guy and ur not gonna move me one inch. After having had the distinct displeasure of being on his 1992 campaign plane as he shuttled back and forth to Arkansas to carry out the execution of retarded prisoner Rickey Ray Rector.
He’s not much of a man, that Clinton. That folks should be pining for the good old days of his administration tells underscores the moral vacuity of American politics. Makes me shudder.
March 11th, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Mark York thinks it’s objectionable to dislike white supremacy.
Either he doesn’t know what white supremacy is, or he IS a white supremacist.
One of the most revealing things about the blog back-and-forth is how many white supremacists there appear to be out there. Hence my challenge to “b”, many, many posts ago, asking if he/she would espouse an America for white European Protestants only.
That’s the upshot of all this anti-immigrant hysteria, my friends. Michael Balter, thanks for backing me up on this — and for pointing out that the difference between legal and illegal immigration is minimal to non-existent when it comes to popular attitudes.
(As a matter of bureaucratic organization, the difference highlights, above all, the unworkable hypocrisy of a US government that clearly wants the immigrant labor but isn’t prepared to say so out loud because it’s much more convenient, in a tough globalized economic marketplace, to keep the jobs as fluid, underpaid and expendable as possible.)
March 11th, 2006 at 4:25 pm
“the difference between legal and illegal immigration is minimal to non-existent when it comes to popular attitudes.”
Bullshit…
This “anybody who opposes illegal immigration is a racist argument” is one of the best one’s since “If you’re against invading Iraq you’re pro-Saddam”
And the argument that borders and nationality are meaningless is just too goddam stupid to even bother to refute. It’s interesting that the only people I’ve ever heard who make essentially the same argument as regards labor markets other than wooly-headed lefties are dogmatic libertarians. The common thread is immersion in ahistorical, sophomoric idealism – Ayn Rand meets Karl Marx over cappucino as the cafe intellectuals announce that we’re either too racist or too nationalistic or too anti-capitialist to embrace a labor market unbridled by borders.
Citizenship, in the political sense, is one of the few means average people have to assert even minimal control over the “creative destruction” of capital and attempt to create something akin to civil society and to argue that it’s meaningless is anti-social, not progressive. To devalue it even more than it already is in a corporate-dominated culture – even in the guise of some humantiarian or internationalist rhetoric – is, in practice, driving into the ditch of political nihilism.
March 11th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
On the contrary I don’t think you know what it is.
Well since I’m not a female with a child, sometimes many, sans husband I could never get welfare under FDR or anyone since. AFDC has always been on the states supplemented by the feds. What Clinton did was compromise with the five-year and off plan. I’m afraid that’s the gist of it. Five years; training and off. I question the job placement end of it though. I’d be skeptical there would be a job as there sure aren’t for me. I’ve been on food stamps and that’s the only welfare program open to anyone to my knowledge.
Bush is the one who cuts food stamps not Clinton. Hatred blinds just about anyone to anything if they so choose.
Immigration legally, which still exists, simply won’t allow for enough to ever stop it. I hate to bring this back to procreation but that’s the point source of the trouble. I’m just a carrying capacity wildlife biologist. Life at the carrying capacity of the land e.g. ecosystem is rough, and decimating factors take over.
Is every white protestant a supremacist? That’s some real funky reasoning.
March 11th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
Marc, I don’t think you ought to be hoping for a Hillary victory in ’08 even if it would provide you with quite a bit of satisfaction watching folk like Yorkie the Terrier choke for the vote for a 4 year period of time. After all, 4 years of HRH-HRC would practically guarantee the presidency and congress to us republicans until 2032 for sure.
March 11th, 2006 at 4:40 pm
“I won’t belabor the point, but you’re completely out to lunch on this one.”
Well, that settles it. The alternative was welfare forever. This is another one of those racial straw men. I haven’t seen anything that leads me to believe anyone knows what it consisted of before the change.
March 11th, 2006 at 4:42 pm
That’s wishful thinking roper. Your current stranglehold may keep you out until then.
March 11th, 2006 at 4:46 pm
How do you feel about Clinton not coming from “legacy money” like the Bushes. I guess the ole anyone can start poor and grow up to be president here just doesn’t resonate with the masses anymore. They’d rather hagiograph old money carpetbaggers and war profiteers instead. No difference indeed. we really have lost it big time.
March 11th, 2006 at 4:52 pm
“After all, 4 years of HRH-HRC would practically guarantee the presidency and congress to us republicans until 2032 for sure.”
I don’t think that’s true, but if it is, it’s really the only hope you folk have left for political survival in the wake of the BushCo, Deadwood Dick and DeLay’s Legions of Lobbyists meltdown.
March 11th, 2006 at 4:55 pm
GMR – America hates Clintons. Remember how Bill’s approval numbers were only three times those of Cheney’s during the impeachment fiasco ??? Yeah, nothing like a Clinton to make America all angry and divided against itself.
March 11th, 2006 at 4:56 pm
if Hillary had a dick, she’d be a shoo-in.
March 11th, 2006 at 5:10 pm
Also, GMR, don’t use the HRH snark unless you’re willing to apply it to little George The Second. You’re a flaming hypocrite.
34%. Get used to it.
March 11th, 2006 at 5:32 pm
“Citizenship, in the political sense, is one of the few means average people have to assert even minimal control over the “creative destruction†of capital and attempt to create something akin to civil society and to argue that it’s meaningless is anti-social, not progressive. To devalue it even more than it already is in a corporate-dominated culture – even in the guise of some humanitarian or internationalist rhetoric – is, in practice, driving into the ditch of political nihilism.”
Reg drives that ‘borderless’ idea off the road into a ditch with the precision, clarity and conciseness that could make Robert Frost envious. I know I am.
March 11th, 2006 at 6:03 pm
Oh no, it was only a matter of time before the KPFK-ish “it’s all about race” loons crawled out from their rocks. Yeah, what Amerikkka needs right now is to erase its borders once and for all, just like… um, just like… hmm, uh, there has to be some country out there that’s enacted such a policy, right?
Thank God for pragmatic, intelligent comments like reg’s.
March 11th, 2006 at 6:10 pm
A policy recommendation:
The US gov’t should offer all people in the world a green-card work visa — for some $20 000 (about half the avg. US annual salary); which the workers will have to pay off, like a loan.
Anybody in the US illegally should be fined $20 000 and deported — and allowed to come back for $40 000 (the $20 000 fine plus $20 000).
Anybody, including new immigrants, can report a suspected employer of employing illegals, and get a $1000 bounty if an investigation shows the company employing illegals. Employers would pay a $20 000 fine/ per illegal employee.
Why stop at punishing employers, why not also fine landlords who rent to illegals?
Finally, all green-card aliens should be paying some $50 / month for English lessons, to go down $10 / month for each 2 years of training proficiency they demonstrate. Big complaint is the non-English speaking issue.
Make the benefit of coming to America less, and less will want to come.
But both Reps and Dems are dishonest about how many immigrants they’re willing to accept openly. I say, set a price, see how many come, and if it’s still too many, set a higher price. I’d guess at $20 000, 10 mil, $200 billion offers a lot of cash to the US gov’ t to solve the problems of the immigrants.
And pressure by immigrants on home buying, and thus increasing prices of homes, is almost certainly more than $10 billion / yr (about $1000 increase in home price per illegal).
March 11th, 2006 at 6:21 pm
Boy, Tom, for a self-proclaimed libertarian, that’s some bureaucratic scheme you’ve cooked up there. Must be some new-fangled Eastern Bloc take on the whole “market-driven” approach.
March 11th, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Marc Cooper – well stated! It’s hard to believe the mind-set of some people on here.
March 11th, 2006 at 6:47 pm
Well-stated reg. We won’t elevate you to national poet just yet, but good work nonetheless. It is hard to believe Cummings. Insert _______of your choice.
Yeah that’s Republican big govwernment if I’ve ever seen it. Pure Homeland Security territory.
March 11th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
GM.. You could very well be right. It was during the Golden Age of Clinton that Democrats lost both houses of Congresses, and saw a majority of states lose their legislatures to the GOP.
Now, let’s see what why was that? Because Scaife funded some foundations and Ailes founded Fox?
Or might it have had something to do with a) triangulation b)Clinton being a repulsive scumbag or c) both?
As I said I really dont care. Im fairly certain that the Dems will nominate Hillary. She might even win, depending on how horrid the GOP candidate is. What wont change very much at all is daily life for most Americans nor for anyone on the receiving end of US policy. Cool. No sudden surprises.
Tom Grey… you need a hobby!
March 11th, 2006 at 7:34 pm
“What wont change very much at all is daily life for most Americans nor for anyone on the receiving end of US policy. Cool. No sudden surprises.”
ain’t that the truth….
March 11th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
I think in 2004 anyone but bush was a defen dable postion but i’ll be damned if i ever support Hillary. To see libs like Mark defend every awful, atrocious and reactionary postion their tribal leader,even when it sets back the progress liberalism has made in this country, is really nausiating. Yes, and Clinton’s defenders on the left have an excuse for what he did to welfare: that he had no choice, he was just a victim of public opinion. But this isn’t true. For one thing, he could have done what Bush did–just not raised the issue. Most people don’t like welfare, but ask them if poor mothers should have some support and they’ll say “yes.” Whether they think of welfare recipients as lazy and immoral or simply as poor women trying to raise their children and stay afloat depends to some degree on the images political leaders evoke. People are very susceptible to education and argument on this issue. So Clinton’s other option would have been to do some real educating-explaining the plight of poor women, the inadequacy of wages and child care, and so on. But not only did Clinton fail to explain the need for welfare, he actually used the issue to stir up resentment in order to get himself elected. Instead of trying to change the stereotypes and misconceptions, he exploited them to get into office.
March 11th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
reg, you are the same old curmudgeon you always are. You bet I’m willing to call GWB HRH. He is screwup and his flatfootedness on many issues is phenominal. But, he is STILL better than John “Do you know who I am” Kerry would have been, and I don’t expect you to agree with that.
So, get off your damn high horse, discuss issues and stop trying to out pound the right. It pisses the right off and makes you look stupid.
March 11th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
“not only did Clinton fail to explain the need for welfare, he actually used the issue to stir up resentment in order to get himself elected. Instead of trying to change the stereotypes and misconceptions, he exploited them to get into office.”
Well said, Ahmed.
What I have never been able to figure out is how the hell is it that liberals can say, “Screw welfare,” but when it comes to programs like their social security or medicare (popular programs), liberals don’t consider those programs to be “welfare,” despite the fact that these programs have not been self-sustaining for decades now! They fit the very definition of “welfare,” since it represents a liability to tax payers.
But to the mainstream liberal mind set – read, Reg and his merry band of liberal idiots on here – such programs are “entitlements,” and damn anyone tries to privatize them, like George W. Bush. Why, privatization would be the same thing that these same yuppie Clintonites did to….impoverished children in 1996, who aren’t old enough to vote. Talk about bullying, not even to speak of hypocrisy.
March 11th, 2006 at 8:36 pm
“not only did Clinton fail to explain the need for welfare, he actually used the issue to stir up resentment in order to get himself elected.”
No surprise I think this is just ignorant conjecture not supported by fact. Child care is a crucial part of this equation. It was well-explained in full and funded at one time. Is it now? And what are the stats of the program? Anyone care to volley? Or is ad hominem attack all there is now? I think the latter.
Yeah reg and I are idiots yadda yadda bla bla bla… Such brilliant discourse.
Should these women be allowed to procreate on someone else’s dime in perpertuity? Is it their God-goven right to do so? Why? These are the tough questions you fail to answer.
March 11th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
“awful, atrocious and reactionary postion their tribal leader”
Yeah see this is more Home Country bias showing up. We are not “tribes” here. The British tribe? Caucasian tribe? Perhaps clan?To say this is to not understand anything about the West.
March 11th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
Man youre dense. All I meant is that when it comes to the democrats (your tribe, duh..hmm im guessing you dont get sarcasm buddy) people like you will defend anything whether it be demonisation of poor people, scapegoating of immigrants, welfare reform, get tough with crime idiocy, the death penalty you name it. I find it rahter pathetic and here i applaud Marc Cooper
March 11th, 2006 at 8:55 pm
Another note to Mr clash of civilisations aka the dimwitted biologist, who is also a misreable author. I’ve lived, studied and worked here for more then half of my life and have always been involved in my communitty and in civic life. The xenophobic conjecture that I dont understand the “west” is not only pathetic but rather stupid to, no?
March 11th, 2006 at 8:57 pm
Ahmed, you’re endorsing me? Damn! There’s go my shot at challenging Schwarzenegger!
March 11th, 2006 at 9:05 pm
I should mention thats its a very tepid ,luke warm and qualified applause Marc
March 11th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
“Should these women be allowed to procreate on someone else’s dime in perpertuity? Is it their God-goven right to do so? Why? These are the tough questions you fail to answer.”
I will respond to your question with an answer, after I first respond with a question of my own: should you and any other middle aged people seniors be allowed to eat, drink, and smoke whatever you want and expect taxpayers to pick up the medicare bill that will take care of their health problems – even though your/their health problems came about because of your/their own dietary and lifestyle choices?
I am a vegetarian, have a cholesteral level that is microscopic, and I exercise vigorously three times per day. Should all Americans, in your book, be forced to be like me in order to collect their medicare?
When you turn in your food stamps, should Big Brother be poking its head over your shoulders to see if what you are buying is nutritious? Hey, maybe I as a vegetarian don’t want you to be buying any meat products.
To answer your original question: Yes, women have just as much right as you or any other American to make bad decisions in their life. And no, women and especially their children should not be singled out for starvation, homelessness, and poverty because pathetic yuppies like you insist on these women having the high standards that you don’t establish for yourselves and other baby boomers.
March 11th, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Mark says “Yeah reg and I are idiots”
That statement is a half truth in that its grossly unfair to reg
March 11th, 2006 at 9:37 pm
I wasn’t calling children in that previous post “bad decisions.” What I meant was not being safe in intimacy. Not the actual act of bringing a child into the world.
March 11th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
That’s right, and if you’ll notice I never called Reg an “idiot.” I called his yes man an idiot.
March 11th, 2006 at 10:44 pm
GMR: “discuss issues and stop trying to out pound the _______.”
Physician, heal thyself.
March 12th, 2006 at 2:58 am
I find it very funny that His Lordship, the trained biologist, is always seeking to piggyback on someone else’s far more cogent arguments with a “what he said”, or “me and so and so”, when those comments tend to differ in very many important ways from the proclamations issued by milord.
Pompous blowhards with inflated senses of self-worth are always seeking to attach themselves to their betters.
Oh yeah, F*ck HRC and f*ck the Dems if they actually push her on the rest of us.
March 12th, 2006 at 5:04 am
Physician, heal thyself.
LOL, if I could do that (or if you could) I wouldn’t have cancer now would I?
Reg, Woody and I and others bring issues to discuss. Perhaps inelegently as does bush, perhaps not. I don’t have the verbal skills of you, or Cooper or Rosedog, but I have thoughts, ideas and convictions. You however, seem to delight more in making absurd remarks about anyone on the right without discussing what they have to say except when it comes to attributing their thoughts/ideas to wingnuttry. You are much more eloquent (and occassionally I agree with you) but you usually argue like York does, with malice. At least that is my perspective. But who knows, I’ve been wrong before, perhaps I’m wrong this time too.
March 12th, 2006 at 5:56 am
Rule #7 of “How to Make Enemies and Influnce Your Ego”: Attack individuals, not ideas. Make it personal.
March 12th, 2006 at 8:16 am
The “physician” comment was completely inadvertent and idiotic in context. Thanks for reacting with a sense of humor.
GMR – your assertion that you and Woody stick to issues and I just being malice to arguments is laughable. Woody, for one, is one of the most classically wingnut clowns I’ve ever encountered. He literally can’t tell the difference between a liberala and a communist. Just absurd. Recently he called Alan Dershowitz “a radical”. I just don’t get it. You have also attacked me as some sort of loon in the past for suggesting that Iran was the major outside beneficiary of the BushCo’s war. You just howled at me for that. Now it’s commonplace observation. Don’t act holier than thou when it comes to reductionist attacks on those you disagree with. Now am I angry at the people who, as Ambassador Kahlilizhad himself put it, opened a Pandora’s box in Iraq and the yammering apologists and blogmeisters who’ve been spectacularly wrong about every controversy related to the war but attacked people like me as somehow less patriotic or informed than them in the course of their loudmouth arrogance and ignorance. You’re damned right I am. I would have to be a fool or a eunuch not to be angry.
March 12th, 2006 at 8:29 am
Also GMR, read my comments on this thread as regards the immigration issue and compare them to the folks – apparently such as yourself – who think that personal attacks on Hillary Clinton are absolutely essential to understanding current political discourse on legislation in DC.
To be fair to the Clinton-phobes, I do understand as do most
Americans that politicians are famous for being consistent, idealistic, visionary, for speaking from their hearts and acting boldly without fear or favor. Why Hillary Clinton would depart from these Beltway virtues never ceases to astonish me. She’s just a whore. No principles. She should take a lesson from President Bush who’s stuck to the tenets of conservative ideologym the issues he campaigned on when he first ran for office and – most impressively – hasn’t deviated from the outspoken criticisms he made of his father’s policies when the old man was President. Impressive. I guess the difference is that Hillary is such an evil bitch, God doesn’t deign to speak to her.
March 12th, 2006 at 8:48 am
For the record, if I didn’t make it clear. I think it’s perfectly appropriate to argue that Bill Clinton did a terrible job on immigration policy. But when Hillary takes a position that is essentially correct, hanging her for hypocrisy or suggesting that she’s completely devoid of any moral sense because of what was done under her husband’s administration is just cheap and wrong-headed. Unless one believes that First Lady’s can or should act completely autonomously from their husband’s decisions as President – which is just a totally nutty and fantastic notion – let Hillary stand on her own record. You don’t have to like her or defend her. I don’t, more often than not. But don’t reduce yourself to cheap, hysterical personality-bashing. I know I’m the guy who’s arguments are, in your view GMR, cheap, hysterical and ad hominem, so I guess I’ve had a diminishing influence on poor Marc and some of the rest of the wife-beaters (Bill’s) here. I want to apologize for poisoning the well and plead with all of you – don’t do as I do, do as I say.
March 12th, 2006 at 9:03 am
I applaud your criticism of Hillary’s hypocrisy but just have to ask.
You obviously care about the welfare of immigrants coming into the US.
What about the welfare of US Citizens who’s property is stolen and destroyed by these immigrants?
What about those who are threatened by immigrants or smugglers or even killed?
I lived on the border Marc. We had scores of aliens crossing our property nightly. Did we have any right to stop them?
March 12th, 2006 at 9:05 am
I’ll leave Mark York to his delusions — I can only hope they are delusions, or straigtforward historical ignorance — that there was nothing wrong with Los Angeles when blacks, Latinos and Jews were systematically excluded from the city’s power structure, when blacks had to be off the streets after dark in much of LA county and were excluded from whole categories of employment, when Jews were not admitted to the downtown country clubs, when the LAPD would arrest and beat the crap out of Mexicans just for laughs etc etc etc. It’s clear as day that the single biggest erosion of white supremacy in LA over time has been demographics, which in turn have been determined by population flows, especially immigrant flows. Mayor Yorty could never now be elected and personally I see that as an unambiguously good thing, as do the many, many white Angelenos who are not reactionary bigots.
As to Reg’s point about policing the borders — I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting an accountable system of border control. But here are a couple of facts I think we can all agree on:
1. The southern border of the US is highly porous, and always has been.
2. Current policy is an incoherent, unworkable mess.
In the light of these two facts, the only workable way to get the border back under control is to acknowledge that many of the people crossing are wanted and needed to service the US economy and to grant them status accordingly, so they can cross safely, have some basic guarantees once they get here, and not have to worry about perishing in the attempt. Bush’s guest worker proposal is one such way forward, though not necessarily the only one.
The problem with the attitude prevalent here — let’s militarize the border and stop them coming, and/or arrest them once they have arrived — is twofold. One, it will never work. Two, it’s not ultimately in the US’s interests. And three, it places blame for the problem on the migrants when the real problems, as I said earlier, are a combination of bad trade policy, bad labor policy, and nativist fear and paranoia.
Before policing the flow of people, whose personal undesirability is very far from being proven, why doesn’t the US police the flow of illegal drugs, which we KNOW to be illegal and dangerous? I haven’t heard any of you talk about that. My experience on the border suggests that, once again, the solution is one that looks at demand as well as supply. Why have none of the big drug dealers on the US side of the border ever been inconvenienced by law enforcement? Why is all the drug war rhetoric aimed at the Mexican side of things? I would mind the imbalance less if the system worked, but it clamorously does not.
March 12th, 2006 at 9:59 am
“but you usually argue like York does, with malice. At least that is my perspective.”
I don’t counterattack with malice until malice has come my way. I suppose being called a racist and bigot ciount as reasoned debate, but this hyperbole is often a first response to any question of dogma. I didn’t see Jim Hahn included. What about Tom Bradley? Only Yorty? Yeah I get the message loud and clear. Same old race bait. I think it distorts an already tortured past.
March 12th, 2006 at 10:10 am
Yeah quite a few more ad hominems by an active civic leader apparently although there is no way to verify it, but since marc has condoned it by not responding to the slams I will always answer this bigot and foreign racist from South Africa. It’s clear this troll is sticking and thinks she can run me off with my publishing efforts: not on your life sister.
Let’s recap: I’m poor and unemployed living in a rent-conrolled trailer park, yet I’m against poor people and demonize them acording to this source’s interpretation, and because I’m a biologist who works intermittently for the US Government saving endangered species this is proof of my stupidity. Amazing. Wildly radical. And all because I stepped on her favorite cause for even suggesting Palestinians may have some responsibility for their own fate. What a myopic fool.
March 12th, 2006 at 10:17 am
“As to Reg’s point about policing the borders”
I don’t completely disagree with your point, but I want to make clear that my approach to this doesn’t focus on the borders but on regulation and enforcement of industries that have consistently used illegal labor to “downsize” wages, working conditions and unionization. And I don’t care about “illegals” at all at the level of casual labor or small-scale individual enterprise.
March 12th, 2006 at 10:22 am
“I will respond to your question with an answer, after I first respond with a question of my own: should you and any other middle aged people seniors be allowed to eat, drink, and smoke whatever you want and expect taxpayers to pick up the medicare bill that will take care of their health problems – even though your/their health problems came about because of your/their own dietary and lifestyle choices?”
Right, dodge the question with a straw man. Predictable move. I believe insurance companies already do this. You smoke up go your rates. On the dole is a different matter. You get $117 a month in food stamps for a single person. Each child adds a few dollars more. AFDC run by the states accounts for about $400 a month or so. Choices of having kids or not are up to the women. Men have one answer to this question and it’s always “Yes.” These men are shiftless scumbags. If the women can’t control this they have to be influenced to. I don’t see any other way.
The vehement illogic of people like you is tradgic.
March 12th, 2006 at 10:29 am
“But don’t reduce yourself to cheap, hysterical personality-bashing”
Well reg what would that leave?
March 12th, 2006 at 10:32 am
“It’s clear as day that the single biggest erosion of white supremacy in LA over time has been demographics”
You may have a point there…but as a liberal Democrat I had always assumed it was because of the tradition of Hollywood “brotherhood” movies, from Gentleman’s Agreement through To Kill A Mockingbird to Mi Familia to Crash. Oh…and Frank hugging Sammy.
March 12th, 2006 at 10:34 am
“But don’t reduce yourself to cheap, hysterical personality-bashingâ€
“Well reg what would that leave?”
For me, obviously nothing, but I would hope that others could still pull themselves from the muck.
March 12th, 2006 at 11:17 am
“I believe insurance companies already do this. You smoke up go your rates.”
As I think that I made quite clear, I wasn’t talking about private insurance companies…I was talking about Medicare….they don’t implement higher insurance rates for smokers or for people who eat and drink like Caligula.
March 12th, 2006 at 11:44 am
It’s still a straw man. Medicare is complicated. The subscriber’s pay into the program when they work and even monthly after 65 unless disabled sooner. How much do the recipients pay into AFDC before they collect? Your argument fails on its face. Cranking out illegitimate children one can’t afford to pay for is selfish and clueless. They need help in stopping this cycle. This same thing drives Mexican immigration: large families unsupportable from the local resources available, but they at least want to work and will.
I’m wearing chestwaders as it is, but if no name-calling and other ad hominems come in the first place none will be returned. Or, you could be silent and let lies stand. Lies should not win anywhere regardless of who tells them. The Internet is a cornucopia of propaganda and lies. Dispelling as many as possible seems like a civic thing to do but may well be too ambitious.
March 12th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
“I’m poor and unemployed living in a rent-conrolled trailer park”
Man I feel sorry for the guy in the trailer park slot next to you who is forced to put up with your “i could have been a contender” bile. Okay reg, youre right i’ll try to put an end to the useless attacks on charater. That said my position on york is unalterable. I’ll be going hard at this ignoramus for as long as I’m reffered to, rather stupidibly, as a “foreign racist from South Africa”, a “bombthrower” someone who doesnt understand the”west”, et cetera. This guy is incapable of engaging in rational arguments and instead lives in the gutter, that much seems rather obvious. but i’ll try and bite my tongue
March 12th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
Modestproposals statements of fact are are absurd on their face. I don’t know if he is completely ignorant of the facts or intentionally lying but it has to be one of the two.
1. Mexico is NOT a poor country. It has the fifth richest economy in the world.
2. Lou Dobbs recently reported that 33 percent of our prison population is now comprised of non-citizens. Plus, 36 to 42 percent of illegal aliens are on welfare. So, for a good proportion of these people, the American dream is crime and welfare, not coming here to work.
3. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that the average Mexican illegal alien costs U.S. taxpayers a whopping $55,000 each ( I wont vouch for those numbers and they vary greatly)
4. and as I have already stated above from personal experience. Mexicans are not crossing the border over some neutral ground. The land they tresspass on belongs to American citizens. They destroy property, they steal, they assault and on occasion murder these U.S. Citizens.
In light of these well documented facts his comment Before policing the flow of people, whose personal undesirability is very far from being proven is absurd.
What experience to you have with the Mexican border Modest?
March 12th, 2006 at 3:16 pm
Here are a few of those harmless illegals modest was talking about:
Kris Eggle a park ranger in the Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in southern Arizona on August 9, 2002 was shot down by Mexican drug dealers who were using Organ Pipe as a route for their smuggling.
David Nadel was a familiar community activist in Berkeley, California was murdered in the club by an apparent Mexican illegal alien, Juan Rivera Perez.
the murderer of Phoenix high school student Tanee Natividad merely crossed the border into Mexico to escape law enforcement. A local television station was able to track down the murderer in a bar just a few miles across the border without much effort.
two girls who were raped on October 24, 2002, by three members of a Salvadoran street gang located in Somerville, Massachusetts. Aged 17 and 14, both victims are deaf and one has cerebral palsy. Later reports indicated the men arrested for the crime were illegal aliens.
David March, a Los Angeles County Sheriff who was killed when he pulled over a car for a routine traffic stop. The driver was a dangerous Mexican drug dealer, Armando Garcia, who had been deported twice and has a long history of violent crime. After shooting Sheriff March twice in the head, Garcia was able to escape and is believed to be in Mexico, where officials refuse to send him back for trial. Garcia is also wanted for two attempted murders. I believe this guy is currently in the process of being extradited to the US after the US promised not to execute him).
Eighteen-year-old Tricia Taylor of Detroit was in court in December 2002 to hear the plea of the illegal alien who caused her to lose both legs above the knees. Jose Carcamo was driving under the influence and speeding when he drove over a curb and smashed Taylor into a wall. One report stated that Carcamo has had 17 violations since 1995.
Sister Helen Chaska was murdered in late summer 2002 by being strangled with her rosary beads — the beads were found imbedded in her neck. She was also raped, as was another nun who accompanied Sister Helen during walking prayers. Both women were in Klamath Falls, Oregon, doing missionary work when the crimes occurred. Her accused murderer is Maximiliano Esparza, who is in the United States illegally, and was convicted in 1988 of robbery and kidnapping in Los Angeles.
It has been a decade since Oregon State Police Trooper Bret Clodfelter was murdered by an illegal alien.
The provided link has a lot more.
March 12th, 2006 at 3:35 pm
“2. Lou Dobbs recently reported that 33 percent of our prison population is now comprised of non-citizens. Plus, 36 to 42 percent of illegal aliens are on welfare. So, for a good proportion of these people, the American dream is crime and welfare, not coming here to work.”
WASHINGTON — The nation’s prisons and jails held 2,131,180 inmates as of June 30, 2004, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. Two-thirds were in federal and state prisons, and the other third were in local jails.
(snip)
The number of noncitizens held in state or federal prisons increased 1.4 percent in the year ending June 30, 2004, reaching 91,789.
End clip
Unless nearly all of the prisoners held in local jails throughout the country are non-citizens, that 33% figure is obviously fictitious and not even close to the mark.
March 12th, 2006 at 5:03 pm
“up with your “i could have been a contender†bile”
This what I hate about Internet trolls and their smear campaigns against real people that can be found. Your characterization is way off the mark, in fact a work of fiction just like the rest of your posts about what I’ve said and mean, if you think I’m complaining about failing. Failed is your ad hominem. You would know more about that than I. I’m selling two books in New York and writing a third while studying law and interviewing for newspaper jobs. As far as I’m concerned you’re radical nutcase who attacks verbally anyone who dares challenge your agenda. Personal attacks is all you have. I get that just fine. I’m sure your neighbors are thrilled with being attacked for being Pro-Isarael and smothered with a Free Palestine flag when they say good day on the way by.
March 12th, 2006 at 5:14 pm
You can’t get welfare as an illegal. They used to get medical care from LA County but it was so abused here at Olive View that they had to shut it down. My source is the Mexican-American “ability to pay” ORSA screener for the ValleyCare clinics. They were flying in from Mexico needing dialysis and taking the bus to the hospital from the Burbank airport.
I don’t trust your crime stats either. You’re way too agenda-driven to be even remotely objective. I certainly believe littering and trashing border properties and the like based on the diapers I used find in the creek down here.
March 12th, 2006 at 8:13 pm
PS….Um…Ugly…..about your other facts…..for the record, not only is your welfare stat completely whacked, undocumented immigrants (or illegal aliens as you call them) aren’t eligible AT ALL for most benefits except education for their kids and emergency medical treatment. DUH!
And while we’re on the subject, legal non-citizens comprise about 4 percent of those on public assistance of any kind….(Note: 4 percent is about the percentage that non-citizens comprise of US population as a whole)….and that percentage number getting assistance has been steadily on the decline since 1996.
Oh, but, if the non-citizen folks have citizen kids….yeah…those American citizens CAN get assistance, like Medicaid, if they’re poor enough. (The horror!) Yet, for the record, in terms of stats, those kids are counted in the non-citizen category since they reside in households headed by non-citizens.
Really. Do a little research past wingnut websites. Try, say, government sites. Whatta concept!
March 12th, 2006 at 8:16 pm
Mark…. I posted before I saw yours re: welfare. You got it right.
Reg… Thanks for correcting that idiotic 33% supposed Lou Dobbs stat. (I’d like to think that Lou Dobbs isn’t quite that…uh…uninformed.)
To be clear, the 2004 Department of Justice stats you cite include federal and state prisons plus all jails. (2006 stats are not yet available.)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pjim04.pdf.
If one goes one step further and does the math, according to the DOJ, non-citizens comprise .04 percent of those incarcerated in the United States—in prison or in jail. That’s FOUR PERCENT….NOT THIRTY-THREE. And that includes all the people incarcerated as they fight immigration cases and/or wait to be deported.
Ugly…darlin’, check your facts. It ain’t that hard.
March 12th, 2006 at 8:44 pm
Rosedog, thanks, you’ re a real professional. It really does take an effort to achieve objectivity to find the truth. I’m old fashioned in that I think the truth is determinable independent from one spin or the other. It stands alone.
March 12th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
First of all thanks for the link Rosedog. I can’t find your 4% figure.
This is what I see on page 5:
20.5% of all federal inmates are non citizens.
overall 6.5% of all state and federal inmates are non citizens.
A total of 91,789 non citizens are in state and federal prisons.
I have a feeling those numbers are under-reported. It shows California’s state rate as being 10.9%. I am almost certain that number is wrong but I will do some more research.
Lets assume you are right and the numbers I linked to earlier are wrong. 91,789 is still a very big number.
As to your point about welfare are you saying that there is no such thing as welfare fraud?
Do you agree that many illegal alliens cary forged identification, and forged or social security numbers?
I call them Illegal immigrants because that is in fact what they are. You can call them whatever you want in a blatant attempt at political spin.
March 12th, 2006 at 9:23 pm
“Cranking out illegitimate children one can’t afford to pay for is selfish and clueless. They need help in stopping this cycle.”
You keep trying to deny your hypocrisy. I still don’t exactly understand why you feel like you as a grown man are “entitled” to food stamps and Medicare, but that children (who don’t exactly “crank” themselves out) should be thrown off of assistance. What makes you so special? Talk about being narcissistic!
AFDC is (was) not anymore of a drain or liability to taxpayers than your favorite pet programs. In fact, this big “problem” that you cite – AFDC – took up less than half of one percent of the national budget when it was “reformed” in 1996.
Medicare prescription drugs alone will cost over 900 billion dollars over the next 10 years (and that is merely the “projections”). That takes up far more of our budget than AFDC.
There are far better ways of cutting down on illegitimacy….and I say this as someone who is in fact against abortion. Education – mandatory parenting classes, for instance – is something we don’t have. Mass distribution of contraceptives (which your weinie president Clinton abandoned, along with Dr. Elders, whom he tossed out). Universal child care, and HEALTH CARE as a part of the constitution!
But these suggestions will simply fall on deaf ears, I am afraid. I don’t blame you, really. You have been manipulated like so many others into scapegoating a segment of the population that is an easy target for people who have no qualms about hurting children, whether intentionally and/or incidentially.
March 12th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
And by the way, I didn’t say anything a while back, but how could you – a supposed biologoist – possibly say with a straight face that Clinton had the best environmental record of any other president?
If anyone from the Sierra Club – an organization that in 2000 stated that Clinton had in fact “the worst” environmental record – heard this, such a ludicrous statement would doubtless result in peels of laughter.
March 12th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
“I’m sure your neighbors are thrilled with being attacked for being Pro-Isarael and smothered with a Free Palestine flag when they say good day on the way by”
Wow….pretty scary stereotypes at work here….I didn’t know that this blog was a hangout for the JDL crowd…Oy Vay.
March 12th, 2006 at 9:54 pm
Ugly….
91,789 is .043 percent of 2,131,180, the total number of inmates in all facilities. The four percent isn’t on the website. I just did the math. BTW, it’s roughly the same as it was in 2002. So we aren’t seeing a rise.
Federal facilities are where immigrants are held for deportation, so that number will be the highest. But, the 4 percent is the number to look at as it accounts for everybody, federal facilities included.
About welfare fraud….sure, there’s always fraud, among citizens and not. But it’s unrealistic to believe that fraud accounts for any kind of appreciable numbers in terms of undocumented immigrants seeking public assistance. To the contrary, most undocumented people are scared to death to expose themselves so tend to wait on things like medical care until it’s a full on emergency—and, yes, that adds to our already overburdened emergency rooms.
But in terms of run-of-the-mill public assistance—food stamps, GR, WIC et al, the hoops one has to jump through are….significant and personally invasive. I know a lot of women who honestly should be on assistance who avoid it because they don’t want government workers in their lives. (Not that the welfare abusers don’t also still exist. They do. I’ve known more than I’d like to admit over the years. But I’d wager few—in terms of real numbers—are undocumented.)
PS: I wasn’t intending to give you a hard time about your terminology. I was simply substituting the term I prefer while acknowledging yours.
PPS: And what in heaven’s name makes you think the Department of Justice under George W. Bush is underreporting its numbers of non-citizens presently incarcerated? Their agenda would be-e-e-eeee??????
March 12th, 2006 at 11:24 pm
Oh, geez. I just noticed I bobbled the number above. I meant to say that 91,789 is 4.3 percent (.043) of 2,131,180. You know what I mean.
(Got facts. Need proofreading…proofreading… proofreading.)
March 13th, 2006 at 8:20 am
can you explain the difference between the reported number on the DOJ site and yours?
I qouted their stat verbatim.
here it is again:
overall 6.5% of all state and federal inmates are non citizens
not saying you are wrong, I just don’t understand why the numbers are different.
The Bush admin which has been trying to sell a guest worker program since before he was elected would want to minimize the numbers of illegal immigrant criminals don’t you think?
However if the numbers are wrong, as I believe the are I would attribute it more to under reporting from state governments due to incompetence more than anything else.
I think most states would want to maximize that number in order to lobby the feds to cover more of the tab.
March 13th, 2006 at 8:46 am
I’m a government scientist Cummings or does this esacpe you?
“If anyone from the Sierra Club – an organization that in 2000 stated that Clinton had in fact “the worst†environmental record – heard this, such a ludicrous statement would doubtless result in peels of laughter.”
I’m sure laughing. This is a bald-faced lie. I have the policies. Produce this evidence at once. It’s patently untrue on its face.
March 13th, 2006 at 8:51 am
Ugly….Go to the DOJ website and the 2004 midyear report and read from the beginning….the very first paragraph. The 6.5 number doesn’t include jails in states, only state and federal prisons. The 4 percent number includes all those incarcerated in the United States, thus is the number that gives us the truer picture. (Again, I used their figures to do the math. You’ll not find the 4 percent in this report, although in their 2002 report they did break it out that way.)
Also on page 5, where you got your 6.5 percent, you’ll find that they say that the non-citizen inmate number is holding fairly steady in the last few years.
The key to reading stats in all cases, not just this one, is to read the whole kit ‘n’caboodle so you can better make sense of the individual numbers. Obvious as that sounds, a lot of people (and publications) tend not to do so. They pull a single number without looking at all of it….thus inadvertantly publish stuff that misleads. (Forgive me if I’m taking a teacher like tone. I don’t mean it that way.) I’ve seen folks like the NY Times do this same thing on this and that story, like when they’re quoting from health studies. Makes me nuts.
Cheers. I’m off to gainful employment.
March 13th, 2006 at 8:53 am
Hell, I worked on the policies. We shut down clear-cut logging. Biologists ran the agencies for the first time ever. Ever hear of the Clinton Roadless Rule reversed by Bush? New national monuments? It takes some blind hubris to refute an expert in the field with 20 years of experience in environment research to make a foolish claim like you just did. It would take a massice reeducation program to inject reality to the biased comments here.
The whole place is Left-Woody Right-Woody.
March 13th, 2006 at 9:00 am
“The 4 percent number includes all those incarcerated in the United States, thus is the number that gives us the truer picture”
Yes. You have to know what question the specific data are answering. You can’t pick and choose to get the number you want.
March 13th, 2006 at 9:03 am
“a supposed biologoist”
Typical ad hominem completely devoid of reality. There’s no supposed about it and the record is on my blog for anyone to read.
March 13th, 2006 at 10:01 am
http://www.sierraclub.org/planet/199611/endorsement.asp
Yeah they clearly didn’t like him.
March 13th, 2006 at 10:09 am
http://www.sierraclub.org/pressroom/releases/pr2004-07-12.asp
http://www.sierraclub.org/ca/sequoia/Monument/white_house_release_41500.html
Yeah that’s quite a dismal record.
March 13th, 2006 at 10:15 am
‘First of all thanks for the link Rosedog. I can’t find your 4% figure.’
Math, dude….
March 13th, 2006 at 10:22 am
As I read the DOJ report, it didn’t include the numbers of non-citizens in local jails. Which is why to get anything approaching the “Lou Dobbs” number, almost every last one of them would have to be a non-citizen. Also “non-citizens” doesn’t mean that people are necessarily illegal. Probably most are, but the two terms are not synonymous and the DOJ figures would include resident aliens or any other non-citizens here legally who comitted crimes.
Upshot…the figures you were passing off were beyond absurd.
Next time you might doublecheck your information before you post. Don’t put yourself in a position where the insane people have to help you with your homework.
March 13th, 2006 at 10:24 am
“almost every last one of them” refers to people incarcerated locally, which were themselves approximately a third of the total number incarcerated at all levels of government. Sorry for lack of clarity…
March 13th, 2006 at 10:41 am
“20.5% of all federal inmates are non citizens”
I didn’t get that far in the DOJ report when I first objected, just the aggregates on the first page. Purely on supposition, so I’m prepared to stand corrected if anyone can come up with documented information, I would bet that a large number of those federal inmates are in there on violations of drug trafficking and represent a professional criminal class of smugglers who are not representative, even fractionally, of the “illegal immigrant” population that comes into the country seeking low-wage work. It’s hard for me to imagine somebody swimming across the Rio Grande with a pound of coke in their backpack. A large percentage of these people were more than likely “mules” who flew into a major airline hub with a passport and would have headed back if they hadn’t been caught.
March 13th, 2006 at 11:56 am
“20.5% of all federal inmates are non citizensâ€
No. from p.5. The number refers to those held in feferal and state prisons in Calif. NY, Texas, Florida and Nevada.
March 13th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
Scratch “state.” Just federal in those states.
March 13th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Nope.
(Not that anyone really cares as this point. It’s just the OCD side of my personality coming out.)
20.5 percent represents the portion of non-citizens in all US Federal prisons.
6.5 percent represents the portion of non-citizens in state and Federal prisons combined.
4 percent is the percentage when all those incarcerated are counted—meaning state, Federal prisons and jails throughout all US states.
Border states like Calif, TX, Fla et al account for the majority of non-citizen inmates held in state prisons…..
Granted, it’s confusing. But keep in mind I nearly failed statistics. So if I can read this sh*t, anyone can.
March 13th, 2006 at 1:36 pm
The fact that the percentage of non-citizens (which as I said before isn’t precisely the same category as “illegals”) declines the more inclusive it is of state and local jail populations is interesting and makes the argument that crime by illegal immigrants is epidemic seem even more specious. State and local prisons are where the vast majority of people prosecuted as common criminals would show up.
March 13th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Reg….exactly. Federal prison is where people fighting immigration cases specifically, are held, thus the higher percentage for Fed facilities. Sheesh.
Judging purely by the numbers, immigrants seem to have the same crime rate as…well….citizens. (Or lower, now that I think about it, as legal-non citizens represent about 4 percent of the population, and all non-citizens—documented and not—represent 4 percent of the incarcerated population.)
Okay, now I’m really back to work. It’s some sort of sad comment on the present state of my strange pysche that thinking about these numbers feels soothing next to what I’m actually SUPPOSED to be doing.
March 13th, 2006 at 5:07 pm
It would seem that David Brower would disagree with you, Mark A. York, concerning Clinton’s environmental record. But, what the hell does he know, he’s just the founder of the Sierra Club and one of the foremost environmental thinkers in world history.
In fact, the Sierra Club endorsed Clinton for re-election in 1996 by a “close” 7-5 margin over Dole.
This is pointed out in the below link, along with this statement by Sierra Club founder David Brower: “President Clinton has done more damage to our environment than Reagan and Bush [the first] combined.
Furthermore, if you attended Ralph Nader rallies in 2000 (which I did), you will remember Ralph pointing out that the Sierra Club gave him worse ratings than any other president that they rated.
It could be that David Brower and Ralph Nader just don’t measure up to Mark A. York, and that you, Mark, know better than them. I dunno. All here hail in the wisdom that is Mark A. York.
http://www.freedom.org/prc/news/20000801/30.html
March 13th, 2006 at 5:29 pm
That’s why I’m the scientist anf you aren’t. Brower is dead. I’d be surprised if you’re read “Encounters with the arch druid.”
Nader doesn’t know his head from his ass on environment and forest policy. If Brower said that he died stuck on stupid. The record solidly refutes you and them. But yweah I’m just someone who works for Interior and the US Forest Service, what would I know. What a stupid twit.
March 13th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
Freedom huh? I read the list of diatribes from these wingers. These are not the writings of real journalists.
“Scorched earth will be Clinton legacy
Submitted by: Mary Shephard
According to today’s Washington Post, there’s feverish activity in the White House as the Clinton Administration draws to a close to try to pin down a legacy before Bill Clinton is out of office. Of course, he already HAS a legacy – Monica and impeachment, but he’s looking for something a bit different.”
Yeah this is real environment specific. So I suppose the Clinton Roadless Rule protecting 58 million acres that I worked on for ten years under three presidents before HE got it through pales in comparison to ad hominems like that? If it was so bad I wonder why Bush “reversed” it soon after he was installed in office? Yeah not a lick of difference. Cooper sure got you pegged: self-loathing far left. And completely irrelevant by virtue of chronic cluelessness.
March 13th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
I guess Clinton didn’t get the memo. I read the Brower quote and even know the Earth Island Institute leader now. Chad Hansen. Quoted him in my book even. Brower was a radical idealist and real life requires compromise and change by increments. The statement about the Clinton record came after just three years and his measures he cites are absolutist in scope and nature. Change comes slower. I know because I worked to achieve it. And we did. But there’s more to do. Radicals get nothing since they don’t recognize gotten-gains. There is no cup with them at all therfore they never gain purchase. it’s the slow plodding of professionals that gets the job done.
“President Clinton, who has created or expanded national monuments covering about 4 million acres in the West, called Brower “one of the earliest and most ardent defenders of the extraordinary natural heritage that enriches and unites all Americans.â€
“Over more than half a century, from Cape Cod to the Grand Canyon to the Alaska wilderness, he fought passionately to preserve our nation’s greatest national treasures,†Clinton said. “His fiery activism helped build and energize the modern environmental movement, rallying countless people to the defense of our precious planet.â€
March 13th, 2006 at 7:58 pm
Here is the quote by Brower. I accidently posted the wrong link.
http://www.1hope.org/clinton.htm
Included is a laundry list of how your friend Billy boy has let a lot of us down.
“What a stupid twit.”
Correction – What a BLOODY stupid twit who calls himself an environmentalist, and who says that Clinton had the best environmental record of any President.
I have provided your link that you wanted “immediately”, case closed, you lose.
March 13th, 2006 at 8:22 pm
“Cooper sure got you pegged: self-loathing far left.”
I’m not sure that he ever called me that. If he did, please produce the post.
Although, I will say that I have been accused of being “self-loathing,” but that was by an ex-girlfriend, and had more to do with heavy drinking than it did with politics.
Actually, I come to this blog because I get the feeling that Marc Cooper and I are similar on a lot of positions. You, on the other hand, seem so enamored with the phoniest of phonies in American politics that you might do well to consider a career not in law, but in selling snake oil.
March 13th, 2006 at 8:25 pm
Okay Boys. Clean break. Back to ur corners. enough.
March 13th, 2006 at 8:35 pm
“Although, I will say that I have been accused of being “self-loathing,†but that was by an ex-girlfriend, and had more to do with heavy drinking than it did with politics.”
One word: Moderation.
March 13th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
“One word: Moderation.”
Four years clean.
March 14th, 2006 at 12:15 am
Okay, I feel better now. Cummings and York have agreed to keep coming back. (Hi, Mark! Hi David! It works if you work it.)
NOTE: I’m not being ironic or hostile. Just humorous in an affectionate sort of way.
March 14th, 2006 at 8:55 am
That’s what happens with a lack of control. Some folks are want to lose control than others one of the ways humans are different individually. This may be a sign of your idealism and uncompromising politics.
March 14th, 2006 at 9:05 am
All of those high crimes against the environment are compromises, whci is you you see them is a harsher light than they warrant. The timber salavge rider was exploited by business and he withdrew it in a later plan. I worked on it. These are the out of context rantings of radical idealists. You’re too naive to know the difference. I’m a conservationist and professional biologist working on endangered species. The things cited are blown out hyperbole. There’s enough to fix without flaw-inflation. Environmentalist is a nut-tag. Looks like I was right about that too.
March 14th, 2006 at 9:42 am
I’m probably not the one to be able to creditably make this comment, but did you guys (and gals with a courtly bow to Eleanor and Rosedog) ever notice that comments here spend more time trashing each other than intelligently positing your own arguments?
Just askin’.
March 14th, 2006 at 2:04 pm
Excellent point, GM.
March 14th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
No roper you wouldn’t, but posting counter arguments doesn’t do much good either. No one reads them, and if they do everyone reverts to their own source of personal spin. The idea that Bill Clinton has the worst environmetnal record ever because David Brower said so if a tantrum in 1994 is false on its face. It would require one to examine the whole record and address less extreme sources instead of the genetically engineered corn crowd. Feel free to address that.
How many years in conservation work does the oppoenent here have? These are legitimate questions, but as long as wingerville agendas count as knowledge it won’t matter much. Pity, that.
April 27th, 2006 at 4:11 am
Hillary will be a breath of fresh air in the White House, after 8 years of a stumbling Bush.
July 12th, 2006 at 9:03 pm
Now That Were Done Ringtone…
Download the ringtone of the popular song: Now That Were Done …
August 6th, 2006 at 9:46 am
epdm roofing epdm roofing
August 16th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
10th grade math…
enjoyed reading your daily posts. I hope they dont become too infrequent…
September 6th, 2007 at 9:56 am
Peel Away Ads…
Peel Away Ads…
May 15th, 2008 at 1:02 pm
022876c532a0…
022876c532a00aecdc4d…
May 23rd, 2008 at 12:27 pm
precision targeted traffic…
Thanks,…
June 26th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
poker regeln…
Dear best video poker casino tropez bonus code russian roulette black and tan jack de juegos de poker…
May 6th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
thanks
October 23rd, 2010 at 3:43 pm
I agree your viewpoint. My reading has shown your views to be true, but I have also seen the opposite from different sites like this one. Do you have any thoughts for locating more legitimate ideas on natural health or related topics? I would certainly appreciate it!
November 12th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Nice post. Keep up the great work.
May 2nd, 2011 at 6:09 pm
I love poker! Not great at roulette I find cards are much more fun
June 30th, 2011 at 11:17 am
Darn, Taylor Swift is actually looking hotter as well as steamy the more aged she gets. Not really very smoking very hot, but nevertheless.