Immigration Deal
I'm still waiting to see that much-predicted but still hard-to-see backlash against the recent upsurge of the pro-immigrant movement. Yeah, a couple of hundred Minutemen are putting on bullet-proof vests and getting inordinate amount of publicity for their tiny numbers...
Meanwhile, word comes that the U.S. Senate has reached an agreement to pass a compromise, but decent, comprehensive immigration reform bill in the next few weeks. That far outweighs the anctics of a few dozen guys armed with walkie-talkies and bumper-sticker policy "solutions."
Reading the various analyses, like this one in the WashPo, it's clear that the impetus for the Senate deal is fear -- fear by the White House and by the Senate Republican leadership that they will deeply alienate the growing Latino vote if such a measure is not approved. Enough fear, in fact, to push them to oppose their own conservative base smack dab in te middle of a difficult election season.
The more enlightened Republicans are also trying, of course, to deprive Democrats of being able to campaign against the draconian Sensenbrenner bill approved last December by the House. It ain't beanbag, y'know. But it ain't so bad, either. Better the Republicans should be struggling to defuse a Democratic onslaught than they be out there trying to generate and ride some xenophobic wave into the November mid-terms i.e. better they be competing for the votes of Latinos rather than scapegoating them for short-term advantage.
This is what you call progress, no matter how limited its size and scope.
The agreement by the Senate in no way guarantees passage of this reform into law. Whatever comes out of the Senate will still have to be reconciled with a much more instransigent House. And the chances of that are slim, to say the least. The best part of the Senate deal, however, is the bi-partisan agreement on how the conference team with the House will be formed. There's an assurance that the Senate conferees will be composed primarily of the pro-reform faction, including --possibly-- the entire Democratic caucus of the Judiciary Committee. This should prevent a Senate capitulation to the House right-wingers. Which means a stalemate is likely.
But given from where we've been coming over the last decade, this is a good sign. To have a pro-immigrant bill out there approved by a GOP-dominated Senate, even one that doesn't become law this season, nevertheless, moves the ball forward. Call it the 50 yard line.
May 12th, 2006 at 5:52 am
And, of course, no mention of the fact that “the best part of the Senate deal” wouldn’t have come to pass had Chief Zombie Leader, Harry Reid, not stuck to his guns, been severely criticized for it by none other than Marc Cooper, and held out for a stronger hand in influencing the coming legislation toward a less punitive compromise.
Money quote from WaPo news article on the agreement:
Reid acknowledged on the Senate floor yesterday morning that he “didn’t get everything that I wanted” in the agreement, but he said Frist did not either. Reaching the agreement is “not easy with the political atmosphere,” Reid said.
Reid had taken criticism for refusing to move forward on the bill after he complained that Republicans were trying to undermine it with amendments and insisted that Democrats be allowed to have a say in who serves on the conference committee. (end clip)
Thanks, Marc, for more objective analysis of the immiigration issue and, of course, I look forward to more of your ongoing reviews of The Night of the Living Democrats.
May 12th, 2006 at 6:27 am
Bull. Reid didn’t move ahead as he simply wanted to gain political points. The requested amendments that drew his attention didn’t have the votes, anyway. It’s not plausible to believe that a Democrat did something that didn’t have helping the party as its first and foremost priority. Any good that it does after that is just the fallout.
When the Minutemen first came out, I gave them the same shrug that most other people did. The only positive thiing that I saw about them was that the founder was an accountant.
Now, after watching Congress pay more attention to illegal immigrants for potential future votes and ignoring something like 7 out of 10 citizens and after seeing that our government has been tipping off the Mexican government as to the locations of the Minutemen and our own Border Patrol and after seeing that proposals to legalize these intruders are similar to those amnesties under Carter and Reagan that were supposed to end this influx but encouraged more…well, I actually appreciate the Minutemen now and admire them more than our own government. That’s the side state of affairs in this nation–thanks, you might note, to liberals who push for every handout, give-away program, and concessions to “victims” (a word actually used by them to describe these people who brokeour laws) to the detriment of others who are here legally, deserve higher pay being held down by a flooded labor market, have to support social services far beyond the contributions of the illegals, and will eventually have to give up the English language for Spanish after they become minorities. (Yeah, I pushed it on that last one, but it sure has happened in a lot of cities where you can’t find a sign in English for miles.)
Thanks a lot, Left. Commie scum.
May 12th, 2006 at 6:29 am
Not “side” state of affairs but “sad” state of affairs…if you couldn’t figure it out. Sorry.
May 12th, 2006 at 6:45 am
What Reg said.
May 12th, 2006 at 7:00 am
So Woody admires the Minutemen, who have tangible and documented links with White Supremacists, NeoNazis and other racists. Good for you.
May 12th, 2006 at 7:22 am
What Reg, Woody….and Randy said.
Frist is Bush’s boy, we all know that. We all(so) know what Bush wants and it has nothing to do with the plight of poor migrants. It has everything to do about keeping business profits and the economy good at the expense of labor, even if it means having to illegalizeing the slaves already here in order to be sure a ready supply of more keep coming.
I don’t get it Marc. I thought you were pro-labor. Oh, I guess you are…but at the international, not national, level. George Bush and his big lobby contributors thank you very much.
May 12th, 2006 at 7:45 am
What Jim R said.
The newly proposed legislation is a joke, as are the political parties that are wrangling over it. Democrats, Republicans alike are selling us, and legal or illegal immigrants down the river. One winner: Big Business.
May 12th, 2006 at 8:21 am
There’s nothing wrong with coalitions with White Sumpremacists from Woody’s perspective. But alliances with ANSWER at antiwar protests are worthy of endless condemnation. Situationalist ethics in action?
May 12th, 2006 at 8:26 am
I didn’t mean that last part of my rant.
JCummings, I haven’t researched the Minutemen other than to view coverage of them, but I haven’t seen anything that supports your comment that they are racists, etc., and I disagree that anyone siding with their border policy is likewise. That is unfounded name calling which doesn’t address the issues of problems with illegal immigration and concerns of thinking Americans. BTW, Democratic Senator Robert Byrd was in the KKK. That should condemn the entire Democratic Party and their supporters.
May 12th, 2006 at 8:29 am
Now that makes no sense , and you must see it. Byrd was a member of the KKK 40 years ago and has completely condemned the organization since leaving it long ago. That compares with people who are now members of white supremacist organizations and/or associate with such organizations? Now, this is truly situatioonal ethics.
May 12th, 2006 at 8:33 am
“Mark Potok: As a general matter, the media did an exceedingly poor job of covering the Minuteman Project. The organizers said they were bringing in excess of 1,300 volunteers to Arizona, but brought significantly fewer than 300. They claimed the volunteers were being vetted for possible white supremacists by the FBI — only to have the FBI completely deny that this was the case. They said the only people who would carry guns would be those with conceal-carry permits. In fact, almost no one was checked for permits. Almost none of this was noted in most mainstream press accounts — accounts that in many cases were completely uncritical, even adulatory, in their treatment of the Minutemen.
Most important of all, the organizers of the Minuteman Project claimed that they would be keeping out white supremacists and other racists through their vetting process. In fact, there were at least six men participating who were members of the National Alliance, a neo-Nazi group whose members have been involved in crimes including assassination, shootouts with police, the machine-gun murder of a Jewish talk show host, bank robberies, plots to bomb Disney World and more. At least two of these men actually discussed setting up sniper positions along the border sometime in the near future. In addition, there was at least one member of the Aryan Nations, another major neo-Nazi group, participating in the Minuteman Project. No mainstream press account mentioned any of this.
Most press accounts ignored the bigoted past statements of organizer Chris Simcox, and almost all uncritically accepted self-congratulatory and inaccurate assessments from Simcox and co-organizer Jim Gilchrist. They also suggested, in many cases, that the Project had “shut down” some 20 miles of the border to illegal immigration; in fact, they only operated along a stretch of some two miles. One press account also described Project volunteer Jim McCutchen in flattering terms in a lengthy profile; completely ignored were McCutchen’s anti-Semitism and his contacts with the white supremacist hate group Council of Conservative Citizens, which has described blacks as a “retrograde species of humanity.”
Overall, I think the blandly positive tone of the press coverage has contributed to similar efforts that are springing up elsewhere — not to mention California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s description of the Project as a great thing that should be emulated.”
http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=19008
“On April 2, as the month-long effort got under way, the Minuteman Project held a protest across the street from the U.S. Border Patrol headquarters in Naco, Ariz. Prominent among the demonstrators were two men who confided that they were members of the Phoenix chapter of the National Alliance ¡½ the largest neo-Nazi group in America. One of the two, who sat in lawn chairs throughout, held a sign with arrows depicting invading armies of people from Mexico ¡½ a sign identical to National Alliance billboards and pamphlets, except without the Alliance logo.
The presence of Alliance members was not much of a surprise, and there were likely more than that pair. “We’re not going to show up as a group and say, ‘Hi, we’re the National Alliance,” Alliance official Shaun Walker told a reporter in the run-up to the protest. “But we have members … that will participate.”
In fact, National Alliance pamphlets were distributed in Tombstone and this predominantly Hispanic community just two days before the Minuteman Project got going. “Non-Whites are turning America into a Third World slum,” they read. “They come for welfare or to take our jobs. Let’s send them home now.”
Many other white supremacists had promised to attend, including members of the neo-Nazi Aryan Nations, but it was difficult to know if they showed up.
One well-known extremist did appear. Armored in a flak jacket and packing a .38-caliber snub-nosed revolver, Joe McCutchen joined other volunteers patrolling the barbed wire fence separating the United States and Mexico near Bisbee, Ariz.
McCutchen is the recently appointed chairman of Protect Arkansas Now, a group seeking to pass legislation that would deny public benefits to undocumented workers in that state. More to the point, he was identified by the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens as a member in 2001 ¡½ a charge he denies, though he admits that he did give a speech that year to the group that has described blacks as “a retrograde species of humanity.” As recently as summer 2003, McCutchen wrote anti-Semitic letters to his hometown newspaper in Fort Smith, Ark.”
http://www.splcenter.org/intel/news/item.jsp?aid=13
May 12th, 2006 at 8:45 am
So far I’ve seen two Minutemen that aren’t “white.” Flooding an already crowded country is a wave but not one of the future. The question od ecological space will always rule over the species here and that includes hominds.
May 12th, 2006 at 9:15 am
The quote above from the SPLC amounts to guilt by association and says that the MMP isn’t as good at screening as they could be, nothing more.
If you want to play another game of guilt by association, note that those who oppose the MMP are on the same side as Bush and the Mexican government. The latter even has opposition research regarding the MMP on their website. And, take a look at the proposals here: portal.sre.gob.mx/ime/pdf/IV.8_Anexo.pdf Especially see IV B, “Information sharing with community-based organizations, religious organizations, the media, Government officials, etc.”
Anyhoo, here are some questions for immigration “reform” supporters:
1. The Senate wants to double legal immigration to two million per year. How many millions will that add to our population over the coming years?
2. The Senate wants to give amnesty to untold millions of illegal aliens. How many millions will that add to our population over the coming years?
3. The amnesty will be seen as an amnesty in every other country, even if the Senate lies and tries to call it something else. How many millions more illegal aliens will come here to take part in future amnesties?
4. Since the government isn’t enforcing our laws currently, what makes you think they’ll enforce the new laws? Won’t the same corrupt forces that keep them from enforcing our current laws simply keep corrupting them? And, won’t those corrupt forces have even more power?
5. Won’t future illegal aliens know that all they have to do is march in our streets, making a show of force and demanding that we capitulate, and they’ll be given what they want?
6. How will that make us look to explicitly hostile countries like China, North Korea, Iran, etc.?
7. The GAO says that the USCIS – which would administer any “guest” worker or amnesty scheme – is already tremendously backlogged and won’t have a fraud management system in place until 2010. From a management perspective, how will this not be a massive failure?
8. How will the rife-with-fraud and tremendously backlogged USCIS keep terrorists out of the program?
Immigration “reform” is a recipe for disaster.
The senators who support it do not represent the vast majority of Americans and are not doing what’s in the best interests of this country.
May 12th, 2006 at 9:18 am
Aaron quotes: “Most press accounts ignored the bigoted past statements of organizer Chris Simcox…”
I’ve read this quote on “WorkingForChange” and a few other sites, but I haven’t been able to find the “past statements” Simcox has made. I do not defend this group, but am honestly interested in the organizer’s true mindset. Could you provide a link (short of something ridiculous like La Voz de Aztlan) to verify that quote?
May 12th, 2006 at 10:16 am
Woody says: “JCummings, I haven’t researched the Minutemen other than to view coverage of them, but I haven’t seen anything that supports your comment that they are racists, etc.,”
I don’t have the facts to comment either way on the veracity of this claim myself. Neither does Woody, by his own admission here, but he goes on to contradict the claim anyway because he has not “seen anything.” Woody you are below your usual low standards today.
May 12th, 2006 at 10:36 am
There are reports from the Southern Poverty Law Centre and the Anti-Defamation Leage (who I don’t normally cite.) It goes beyond not screening members, the heart of the movement are bigots.
May 12th, 2006 at 11:37 am
from an early april post……..
i still have high hopes. even though the politically savvy talking heads now think this issue is dead–the idea being when a collapse of this scale occurs it just doesn’t come back for several years–i don’t. this debate has now spread way beyond the beltway. i think when congress goes on its two week easter break they are going to get an earful. now that it is topic number one in the cafes i don’t think its going away. if the polls are correct, folks want the border closed and they are split on amnesty vs the boot. like most they get lost on back taxes, citizenship fees etc. simplicity of approach seems to rule. even tonight on the lehrer hour, mark shields was mocking the convoluted three step senate nightmare.
now that people are focused on the steady 10,000 a week illegal traffic into the country folks want action and they want it now. the fence no longer looks expensive when they consider we are spending upwards of 10 billion to build levies around a city below sea level, that will surely flood again. all this to protect a city of 500,000 vs a fence that will protect 300 million from the associated cost of rampant illegal immigration.
i’m still naive enough to think as time goes by the odds favor the most simple of plans–a complete fence and then a 10 year green card straight line to citizenship. the reason–it works. each side gets half of what they want. anyway, we shall see……..
April 5th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
there will be a fence and its probably going to look like this……
http://www.weneedafence.com/images/Fence_Idea.jpg
after that everybody here will get a green card. probably a ten year path vs the current five. break the law and you are gone. if you don’t sign up for a green card you have told the system everything it needs to know. immigration, as we know it from latin america, will grind to a halt for many years as the current population is assimilated. we’ll let in just enough to keep salad prices steady! the jib jab now is the dance of the cranes to move the electorate to accept this obvious outcome.
10,000 more came across the border last week–is this a beautiful country or what.
once the border is closed most of the problems associated with the illegals will disappear. the communities where they live will get dispersed as have all previous ethnic communities. english usage will increase dramatically. they know language skills equal dollars. with a green card and a bright future in hand they will be the new irish. knowing that if they break the law above a misdemeanor will get them thrown over the fence with no possibility of return will help them remain model citizens. over time 30% of our prison population will drop as the illegals are sent home.
despite what you may have heard they love the USA. these are not stupid people. they know how god forsaken their homelands are. they send money home because they are decent folks. but make no mistake they have pride as well they should. if you disrespect them they will let you know it. they know the sacrifice they have made and they also know the contribution they are making. sell them short at your own peril. as a group, we are lucky to have them…….
things are looking good. the senate, the house and bush on monday night will have finally put the ‘horse before the cart’. securing the border first and then talk about the rest. it was all so obvious……….
May 12th, 2006 at 11:38 am
Balter, how stupid can you be? Is this the intellect level of Marc Cooper’s friends? You tried to smear me by using an honest admission on my part combined with a false claim of contradiction on your part. How about sticking to the issues rather than forcing me to respond to your shrill, French styled whines? Sheesh.
I was stating that I’ve seen nothing to the effect of what JCummings said–period, without admitting that he’s right or wrong. If he had credible evidence (for which wildly hysterical and misleading rants by leftist blogs don’t count), then he could have backed up his point. He didn’t, but I was graceful enough to give him a “maybe.” But, you want me to prove wrong a dubious claim that was not admitted or proven. That is, you’re asking me to prove a negative.
So, how many times a day do you beat your wife? Can you prove it?
===========
Aaron, if a political party has a leader who is a former member of the KKK, then when was that party a racist organization? Was it then? Is it now? Jesse Jackson is a Democratic activist. Are the Democrats the party of race whores and demagogues? Most liberals are Democrats and stupid. Based upon these assoication, the Democrats are a pretty sorry lot. (Well, I guess they really are.) You want to smear with guilt by association, and it works both ways.
BTW, when will people on this site understand the proper meaning and use of situational ethics?
May 12th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Unfortunately, the ADL seems to be engaging in smears and logical fallacies. Examples at my link.
May 12th, 2006 at 12:09 pm
Must be having a special on bile and venom at Cracker Barrell today.
May 12th, 2006 at 12:14 pm
Minutemen=White Supremacists, NeoNazis and other racists.
well said.
May 12th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
You guys are complete morons. Why in the world should people who broke the law be rewarded????? Try going to Mexico and doing that and see where it lands you. And why do you always make the ignorant statement that if you are against illegal immigration you are a supremacist or racist? Then I guess you should call all those hispanics hording in the streets racisist especially the ones chanting ‘la Raicza” — meaning “the race.”
Maybe you will think twice when your children grow up, don’t speak spanish and lose out to a highly qualified job because they are not bilignual.
And yes, there is a backlash — just because we value our jobs and do not “march” like morons in the street does not mean we do not vote. Look at Virginia and Washington State where “pro day labor center officals were overwhelmingly voted out of office.” So, do us a favor — before you “mouth” off, get the facts straight and think of your children.
Morons.
May 12th, 2006 at 12:36 pm
This is off topic, Marc, but I have an interesting suggestion. Perhaps we can use the comments section here for an experiment. We can see how many people changed their points of view on issues after being called stupid, morons, whores, wife-beaters, scum, psychos, etc. to the point of view of those hurling the insults.
Should be interesting.
May 12th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
There was another black spokesman at the rally, so it’s more than just a KKK Aryan Nations type of deal. It’s just an issue position and that is this: illegal immigrants shouldn’t be allowed to come here or rewarded for doing so, or gain enter only to reproduce which they do at a high rate of fecundity. It’s about people not certain colors of people.
May 12th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
“We can see how many people changed their points of view on issues after being called stupid, morons, whores, wife-beaters, scum, psychos, etc. to the point of view of those hurling the insults.”
And many of these brotherly comments come from one who mentions from time to time his religious values. I wonder what religion that could be? Surely not Christianity.
May 12th, 2006 at 2:00 pm
As I said, the ADL is usually absoutely full of shit, but their study of this is impeccable.
May 12th, 2006 at 2:05 pm
Hey, what religions and what political party and what internationalists are those who start the mud slinging? Anyway, I didn’t call anyone a moron, but I can think of a couple.
I’m reminded of a true story for when one of my sons was about five. He wanted something that I wouldn’t give him. (I don’t remember what, but that doesn’t matter.) After I told him “no,” he had his words and then thought about the worse thing that he could call me and said, “you, you, …(he paused to think of something really horrible) …you, DEMOCRAT!
How sharper than a serpent’s tooth it is to have a thankless child.
May 12th, 2006 at 2:25 pm
True story:
Teddy Roosevelt was campaigning once and during his speech, a tipsy man stood up and said “I sir, am a Democrat.”
TR responded and asked him why, to which the man replied, “Because my father was a Democrat and his father before him was a Democrat!”
TR then asked the man, “If your father was a jackass and his father before him was a jackass, what would you be?”
To which the man responded, “A Republican!”
May 12th, 2006 at 2:36 pm
“Aaron, if a political party has a leader who is a former member of the KKK, then when was that party a racist organization? Was it then? Is it now?”
I’ll chip in here.
Non sequitors really, but it’s no longer associated with the Klan as it once was, so plainly by those standards the embrace of racism is not in the same category. The Dems do buy into a lot of the Republican southern strategy and appeal to all kinds of paranoid white middle class fears of blacks, but that’s another story.
Now, of course, none of that changes your utterly illogical comparison of a group that now allingns itself with white supremacists and a Party that long ago rejected the KKK and such organizations as part of its membership. Your comparison makes no sense.
May 12th, 2006 at 2:39 pm
“You guys are complete morons. Why in the world should people who broke the law be rewarded????”
We’ve got a president whose whole life has been built around the proposition that it’s ok. You live in a country where money buys you the right to do as you please, within and when necessary outside the law. Get real. When you go after powerful lawbreakers with the same vigor as you wanna go after people with little means to defend themselves outside of marching for their rights…then let’s talk.
May 12th, 2006 at 2:45 pm
I have to agree with what Illegal Immigration Introduction said, and some of what Michael Rana said, but without the insults. I don’t see a need to be insulting anybody in this debate.
May 12th, 2006 at 2:53 pm
What’s the difference between illegal haters and racists? Certainly debatable. They’re effectively driven by the same shit, well, apparently 90% of them, which is hatred.
For someone who hates illegals (and face it: Hate is what it’s about, otherwise you don’t flush in anger) to condem racists is oxymoronic. The sentiments behind these people are the same, and only backed up by different arguments. They just feel a bunch of hatred toward a group and fervently try to rationalize their feelings. The only difference here is that the illegal haters have the law to lean on, whereas racists don’t.
And no, that does not mean that you cannot oppose illegal immigration without being a racist. What it means is that the anti-illegal movemet in general, is drvien by hate. The hate comes first, the come the backing arguments.
The Sensennbrenner, gee, if that was Germany in the 30′s he’d be partaking in the crystal night. That’s policy without compassion. It’s sort of like cockroach eradication; you just do whatever it takes to get rid of the problem. These people are the last ones who should brag about being Americans. What they stand for is selfishness.
And Woody, you’re full of shit. You seem to be the typical brainwashed conservative who’s “bought a package” of conservative notions from some online order. You all sound the same. The so called liberals may also, but at least they don’t scoff at compassion while hailing wars, torture, exectutions, like conservatives do everyday. Who the hell are you to moralize? You sit there and ridicule the very wrong things. You jackasses would mock Jesus if he were alive.
May 12th, 2006 at 3:36 pm
UpTheAnte wrote: And Woody, you’re full of shit. right after he wrote the anti-illegal movemet in general, is drvien by hate
Which seem to prove to me that he knows something about being full of s**t.
If Up”Yours”Ante thinks that the whole illegal immigrant debate is about hate, then he must be reading only liberal news sources and missed out on the many legitimate concerns. I’ve never said that I hate the illegals because I don’t. Heck, the only time that I get upset with them is when they drive 20 MPH below the speed limit on a two lane road. You’ve got to do better than that Up.
But, this whole process to deal with them is as flawed as previous attempts under Carter and Reagan. Ten years from now we’ll be having this debate all over again. Pandering for votes seems to be driving the Democrats and appealing to businesses might be driving the Republicans. No one cares about enforcing laws or addressing concerns of the 7 out of 10 Americans who don’t like what’s happening on this issue.
Then Up ended his comment with You jackasses would mock Jesus if he were alive. A federal jury Wednesday convicted the head of this city’s Democratic Party and four others of scheming to buy votes with cash, cigarettes and liquor last November to try to get key Democrats elected. http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/kmov_localnews_050629_estlvoterfraud.59ae440d.html
May 12th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
Good grief! Several lines of my comment were dropped when I posted it. I will try to reconstruct them here.
Do Over
Then Up ended his comment with You jackasses would mock Jesus if he were alive.
Hey, Up. Guess what! Jesus lives! You might have missed that bit of information at the Easter service.
==========
In Randy’s “true” story he wrote about a drunken Democrat. Now, that is believable, and things don’t change.
A federal jury Wednesday convicted the head of this city’s Democratic Party and four others of scheming to buy votes with cash, cigarettes and liquor last November to try to get key Democrats elected. http://www.kmov.com/topstories/stories/kmov_localnews_050629_estlvoterfraud.59ae440d.html
(Sorry. It had to be a problem with Marc’s site, as I rarely make a mistake.)
May 12th, 2006 at 4:49 pm
Woody. I didn’t say that all Democrats are great people, nor that all of those labeled as liberals are. I just said the truth about the average conservative pundit and backer. You are professional mockers of the good, and self-rigtheous and smug, and rude, and crude, and arrogant, chauvinistic, and whatnot. Read Max Boot, Ann Coulter, Limbaugh, and a host of others, and they’re full of it, and certainly not because their views “differ” from mine, but because, well, if you don’t get it, I’m just too tired to help you out now.
As for reading “liberal news”. Screw these cliche conspiracy theories. let’s get to the truth and forget about all these cliche notions about anyone who disagrees.
Online forums, letters to the editors: read them, and you’ll see for yourself. Communist news my butt, or “liberal”, I never read what I feel is biased, either deliberately or undeliberately. I don’t, unlike you, look up to biased information simply becasue it’s worthless.
Typical of staunch conservative to mock the truth. You tell them that the earth is round and they’ll go “Yer go back to reading yer liberal propaganda”. Screw that bullshit. Life is about more than liberal v.s conservative. Reality has shades of grey. It seems to be conservative pundits that label everyone who goes contrary to their narrow worldviews as a “liberal”. I’m sure many of those didn’t even think about it until some conservative hyena attached the label on them, and they subsequently had to live with it.
Again, reality is about more than “liberal v.s conservative”. You can try to square every dissenter condescendingly as a “liberal”, or an American-hating conspiracy theorist, but it won’t change the truth about others, regardless of what your propagandists tell you, or how many times they repeat it.
Woody. I didn’ t nessecarily say that you personally hate illegals. But many anti-illegals do , and it’s transrapent and their excuses won’t hide it. They are typically more “anti-illegal” than “anti illegal immigration”.
May 12th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
Woody to liberals: “Commie scum”
I’ve said I wouldn’t respond to this adolescent psychopath, but his political dementia is so gross that I can’t help but haul out the old “Fuck you, degenerate asshole !” in reaction to that bit of garbage following my comment.
(Remind me about my “rage”, Paul from M. )
May 12th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
Well, all these personal in-your-face comments and behaviors has driven Reg away. Hope you’re all happy.
Or maybe he’s just tired of the topic, and thinks he’s read all these comments, including his, on another thread.
May 12th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
I’ve called Woody a moron…which he demonstrably is, having proven it time and time again…but I’d never call him “Nazi scum”, because that’s a level of infantile argument I refuse to descend to even at my most malevolent moments.
Nobody’s driven me away…I’ve made my point about Reid and no one has refuted it. Also, threads that end up being driven by Woody’s third-hand drivel are, yes, tiring.
May 12th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
Speaking of the little devil. I was commenting when you posted Reg.
I think Woody was trying some humor with that ‘commie scum’ suffix. Guess it didn’t work.
May 12th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
I apologize for using the word Moron(s) to anyone hear. i just get so frustrated when I see people supporting illegal immigrants (yes, they ARE illegal) and when they get free health care and school for their kids at my expense. Then people want them to have citizenship and when they get citizenship they can then apply for Visas to have their family come here. It is just absurd that our Congress caters to this and people support this. But the Democrat party should be thrilled because if the House somehow agrees with any bill close to what comes out of the Senate, many Republicans will most likely stay home in November or vote for a third party candidate.
Again, I apologize for insulting anyone. Mike.
May 12th, 2006 at 6:36 pm
“I think Woody was trying some humor with that ‘commie scum’ suffix.”
I, personally, would rather be called “stupid” than “Nazi” or “Commie”. There are days when I actually am pretty stupid, so I don’t consider that beyond the pale – although I would rarely agree.
May 12th, 2006 at 7:07 pm
Now, after watching Congress pay more attention to illegal immigrants for potential future votes and ignoring something like 7 out of 10 citizens …
****************************
This isn’t only about the Hispanic vote. I always laugh when I hear that.
It’s also about the economy. Legalizing the immigrants creates a new market for home loans, bank accounts, insurance, etc.
The government calibrates immigration according to the needs of the economy.
And if we took a vote on every new group of arrivals would the Irish and other Catholics have been allowed to immigrate? Probably not.
May 12th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
Michael. Yes, indeed, isn’t it a terrible moral breach to support somebody who lacks papers. And since they don’t work their asses off, oh no, they line up outside social security offices each day, 365 days per year. And you can spot these “illegal alien” lines from miles away. Yesterday I saw a line of illegals outside an ss-office that spanned about 2 miles. No wonder why you hate these criminal scums, who don’t work , and totally lack value as people, and also lack dignity, because they are thiefs, scums, rapists and murderers. And they hate America as much as they just LOOOOVE to steal money from the citizens. The worst part is that they never work, but just beg for money and services, everyday. They spend their days begging for welfare, even demanding it, and if they don’t get it, they start demonstrating and complaining ad infinitum, and throw rocks at citizens. And they go to the E.Rs just for the hell of it! And let’s not talk about their school-crowding conspiracy. Anyone who supports these people must be completely derranged.
BLAH, they’re illegal. BLah, that’s all there is to it. Just like you’re just an infidel if you ask the terrorists. Morally wrong, or legally wrong, your attitudes suck the same. You’re shallow, judgemental, and conceited and take your own values and righteousness for granted.
Stop saying “them”. They’re not “them”. They’ve been here for the last decades. You see their worker input everywhere, such as when you park your car in the city, or go to a restaurant. Then, how the hell can you still view these workers as “them”. What arrogance. Otherwise, it must mean that you’re a fascist who look down upon illegals as is and by that keep an automatic distance. In either case, it makes you worse, not better. For you to call other people “morons”, is an oxymoron.
It’s not about supporting illegal immigrants for some obscure reason that’s based on some ideological script. It’s about giving people due respect and dignity, Regardless of them being illegal (as in lacking a damn piece of paper), or legal, but based on the fact that they’re humans. You know “humans”, just like you and your family think of yourselves as. Sure you’re not apes, even though you’re shallow as hell.
May 12th, 2006 at 7:19 pm
You nail it Julie.
May 12th, 2006 at 8:07 pm
“Hey, Up. Guess what! Jesus lives! You might have missed that bit of information at the Easter service.”
The tree goblins also live! And they watch us in our most private moments!!
May 12th, 2006 at 8:28 pm
I;ve never seen an issue where democrats and liberals –a tleast those who write about these things, all see somethign the same way
please tell me Why someone who comes from another country should be entitled to greater rights than anyone from their own country?
because they “contributed to our economy?” that’s an ecomonic farce. look, not saying that there is anythign morally wrong here, jsut saying taht that argument is misguidfed. the share of governemtn services back isproportinally greater. that’s all. its not an “anti” or pro immigratiothing, its just that there is are all kind of bogus argument made in the name ofsupporing this.
another is that since they “worked” they “desreve” this. that work was a benefit to them, a big benefit. same analysis as above.
the fact is, if one believes taht we shoudlnt have sucfh strict immigration laws (I thini theya re too lax,as this country has become mature, and over populated) that is fine. but why all these intellectually sophomoric arguments?
i think a lot of people here misconsture the fact that it is “illegal” with it being “bad.” again, what this is saying is that you simpoy dont agree with our immigraition laws. but call itlike it is. if you do, then again, it is unfair to tne entire rest of the world, and it us not in our interests either. if the latter is not the case, then, again, you simply disagree with our immigration laws.
meanwhile, at the very same time, the beginnings of Big Brother (see link in the name above). shouldnt there be some concern about this?
May 12th, 2006 at 9:07 pm
“Guess what! Jesus lives!”
Oh dear.
May 12th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
This administration’s handling of the border and companies that employ illegal aliens this has finally gotten me worked up enough to start to do something about it.
I am asking you to join me in taking every company in the nation that is employing illegal aliens to small clams court – again and again and again and again…..
Companies that break the law and employ illegal aliens have hurt us financial in many ways. They have depressed wages and caused our taxes to be raised, as well as ruined honest businesses.
So join me in identifying law-breaking companies, building evidence utilizing video, documents and affidavits. Then we will swarm the small claims courts, stinging them again and again.
Website and PR coming
May 12th, 2006 at 10:16 pm
On Monday, President Bush is expected to announce the deployment of up to 10,000 National Guard troops on the US border with Mexico. On its face, this is a political move, intended to shore up support among the Republican base going into the mid-term elections. However, it is indicative of something much more. It is a realization that border controls, in a world dominated by a morally neutral global platform that trumps the sovereignty of nation-states, have become a sham. This sham control has become an acute problem (particularly for the states on the border) as armed open source smuggling networks have “liberated” large sections of Mexico from state control (to really understand this, please read this review of Moises Naim’s book).
Unfortunately, like the pro-immigration protests that set this ball in motion, this action will yield the opposite of the intended effect. It will both speed the unravelling of the American domestic fabric and undermine any remaining confidence that the US federal government (particularly by its dependence on a grossly underfunded and overstretched National Guard) can provide anything of meaningful value.
Further, as we escalate the conflict, we may find that open source economic networks are more than able to defend themselves (as we are seeing around the world) as global guerrillas.
Posted by John Robb on Friday, May 12, 2006 at 08:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)
http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2006/05/border_collapse.html
May 12th, 2006 at 10:28 pm
Carter.
America has every right to sensible immigration laws, as long as the notion of “sovereign nation” exists or is relevant. Based on the current world order, there’s no reason in and of itself that America alone should have laxer immigration laws than anyone else. But the arguments for stricter immigration laws should be sensible, and based on something more than annoyances such as “they are illegal, therefore, etc, etc”. They should be based on rationality, not passion.
Passion’s a good thing, when being directed toward constructive ends. Touting the superiority of one’s birth country is not such an end. That’s to do with say, narcissism, and other luxury–if you will– desires. They give an illusion of meaning, but often end up causing more harm than good. Hitler’s Germany was an extreme example of that, albeit with racist and anti-semitic convictions. But at the core, strong nationalism is the same creature, and is vicious in one way or another, wether it’s here, in Iraq, in North-Korea, or England. That theory derives from the same truth on the individual level. No-one wants to hang out with a narcissist. They cause breakups and emotional distress to others in their surrounding.
On a national level the same principle applies, only that the consequenses will be more massive and severe.
More important it is to treat people well.
And when it comes to illegal immigration in U.S, the situation is quite unique. It is not like other Western countries; it looks different, and for logical reasons.
U.S is the world’s richest economy. It shares a 2000-mile border with a nation that’s much poorer, and where living standards are significantly lower. The tensions that arise from these gaps are natural, are not deliberate, let alone of criminal nature, save for in drug/human smugglers. Coyotes may prey on the desperate, and so on.
America at its inception, drew people for the same reasons that draw people today–illegal, and legal–the desires are the same, and aren’t deliberate, but rooted in deep human nature.
Simply, if you’re willing to accept a more complex reality than the “they broke the law-period”, you can still reconcile these facts, but without being hostile or antagonistic toward anybody.
Illegals in U.S, have effectively been allowed to feel hope and aspirations. They’ve been deliberately hired, and allowed to come in via the backdoor, which has given them a sense of welcoming (Indeed, some of them have lived and worked here for more than 20 years). From their point of view, it’s only a matter of an improved life, and a brighter future. Their intentions are innocent. Very innocent; and hapless. That’s why it’s wrong to punish them. You’d feel the same way if you knew some illegal(s). Obviously, to know someone in person yields a knowledge that not knowing someone in person doesn’t. When you don’t base your ideas on real experience and interaction, they will be deprived of everything but theoretical standards. Reality, comes before, theory. There wouldn’t be theory without reality, ok. Therefore reality outweighs theory in importance. And what this is about is a clash between reality and theory. Those who cite the law, v.s those who cite the human value, and actually some in between.
To deport all illegals would be at least as cruel as it would be to adopt a pet, and then reject it from your home because you couldn’t deel with the responsibilities. Thats’ why deportation of 12 million people is immoral.
Humans deserve better.
That’s an important view to have, before you solve the problem. You see disparities between Edward Kennedy and Sensenbrenner, not because one of them is wrong or right logically at face value. The difference is that one side misses chunks of important information on the non-legal aspect of the problem. Whereas the other understands both, and weigh them together.
And when you weigh the two aspects together, it should be a given that the people come before the law (otherwise, would you report your wife if she was speeding? She broke the law right?)
Especially in this case when immigration-laws have been highly ambiguous. You let them in one one side, and basically scold them 5-10 years later for having taken that backdoor invitation. That makes a mockery of human nature, is pathetic, cruel, and isn’t what America should stand for to anyone who values patriotism more than narcissism. You wouldn’t do that to your dog.
May 12th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
What UpTheAnte said, and has said before. For my money, UpTheAnte is the most insightful and compassionate commenter on this issue this blog has seen. Sometimes I think that the biggest political split of all is not between Democrats and Republicans, left and rignt, liberals and conservatives, or whatever, but between those who have compassion for their fellow humans and those who don’t.
By the way, Woody’s repeated comments about Latino drivers are, by definition, racist. Ascribing certain stereotyped negative qualities to all members of a particular ethnic group is a major feature of a racist outlook. You are a racist, Woody, not that you care.
May 13th, 2006 at 6:08 am
UpTheAnte says:
“Passion’s a good thing, when being directed toward constructive ends. Touting the superiority of one’s birth country is not such an end. That’s to do with say, narcissism,”
You should’ve been in charge that first march for dignity, when the flags from Mexico and El Salvador were flying high through the streets of Los Angeles.
“To deport all illegals would be at least as cruel as it would be to adopt a pet, and then reject it from your home because you couldn’t deel with the responsibilities.”
I have some friends that would not appreciate being characterized as an “adopted pet.” But since the analogy is yours, how about if you found another home for the pet?
Also UpTheAnte, did you see my note on the other thread? Ted Kennedy and Edward Kennedy are the same person. Wouldn’t want you to fail a test, if that one comes up.
Yes, Mr. Balter, it is important to have compassion for your fellow human. But apparently, only the ones who agree with you. Your statement is just full of compassion: “You are a racist, Woody” Tch, tch. Well, I’m sure you must be kind to your pets.
May 13th, 2006 at 6:23 am
Speaking of pets, why do most of the outraged anti-legal-immigration posters, speak of people coming across the borders, as though they are, in fact, feeble minded, who are in need of lots and lots of compassion? The people I know, are quick-witted and quite resourceful, and most (with apologies to UpThe) have a great deal of pride in their country of birth. I don’t think most of them want your compassion, they want to stay here, and work, and beyond that I think the majority will want the borders stanched, once they achieve amnesty.
May 13th, 2006 at 6:33 am
“Yes, Mr. Balter, it is important to have compassion for your fellow human. But apparently, only the ones who agree with you. Your statement is just full of compassion: “You are a racist, Woody†Tch, tch. Well, I’m sure you must be kind to your pets.”
Lynn, although you and I do not agree on the immigration issue, you always express compassion for the immigrants in your posts. Woody does not. So it is not a matter of agreement or disagreement that prompts my comments.
Here’s the deal with Woody. This is a discussion of illegal immigration. Woody sees a Latino face behind the wheel of a car going slow. He does not know whether that person is legal or illegal, a citizen or resident, what country he or she is from, or whether that person’s family has been in the country for generations. But somehow he thinks that this slow driver characterizes illegal immigrants, or more likely Latinos in general. He has made similar remarks about Asian drivers. If he said that all Black people drive Cadillacs, perhaps it would be more clear. Like I said, Woody is a racist. I don’t agree with Reg or Randy Paul on this issue, but they have never given me cause to think they are racists.
May 13th, 2006 at 6:47 am
Michael Balter,
Thank you for your post.
I’ve perused this blog for a couple weeks, and am aware of Woody’s comments, and of other’s of a similar mindset. As distasteful as it may be to you or me, he has the right to come on this blog and be offensive. You have the choice to ignore him. This frees up your time for more thoughtful discussion. And I for one, would welcome rational discussion of the topics. Heated, and passionate discussion can help one see another’s POV. That’s what I was hoping to find here. Not mindless drivel and name-calling.
May 13th, 2006 at 7:54 am
“As distasteful as it may be to you or me, he has the right to come on this blog and be offensive. You have the choice to ignore him.”
You’re right, Lynn, I do have that choice, and I often do ignore him. When it comes to racism, however, I choose not to.
May 13th, 2006 at 8:27 am
Remember when all the American nationalists would claim that Latin America was their backyard?
You love it when the darkies manicure your lawns.
How do you like your backyard now, “American Patriots”?
You are relics in your own homes.
May 13th, 2006 at 8:29 am
I’ll have to go with Balter on this one: Woody IS a racist. He was raised as one and thus, is. He mocks anything he doesn’t understand, insults scientists, journalists or anyone else that conforms to his stereoptyping.
May 13th, 2006 at 8:49 am
Michael and Jake,
Woody is goaded here, and given a platform to protest. If you call him on an inaccuracy once in a while, that’s fine, but drawing him out ad nauseum doesn’t serve any purpose, except to show that you are mentally and morally superior. Do you need to prove that? I think not. People eventually get it where he’s concerned. I see reasonable people I would like to debate or discuss issues with, but I don’t get into the fray because it has turned into a shouting match.
May 13th, 2006 at 9:30 am
Lynn, you are right, and several of us here have tried to put your advice into practice. But much easier said than done, because Woody has become an integral part of this blog and a lot of people respond to him. That makes it very difficult to have a coherent discussion that ignores him. We are trying to minimize the responses, however, but again I find the racism in particular unacceptable and obligating a response. Woody would have long gone on most blogs, and the fact he isn’t is a testimony to Marc’s dedication to free speech as you have pointed out yourself.
May 13th, 2006 at 9:33 am
That said, if Marc ever did ban him I would make a small donation to the ACLU and leave it at that.
May 13th, 2006 at 9:39 am
There are racists on all sides of the fence (perhaps border would be the better word). Our own homegrown are so much easier to spot. It’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Can our discussion delve into the hidden racists among us? In the end, they are the most lethal, because they purport to have high morals, and compassion, but wouldn’t deign to touch, nor associate in any meaningful way with anyone who just walked over the border, or, for that matter, those who’ve been here for years. Further, there are those from below the border who spit on “gringos,” and anyone who is not from their own country. I’ve been told by someone from El Salvador that Mexicans are stupid. I’ve been told by a Nicaraguan that you can’t trust Cubans. Years ago when I asked another good friend about this, I was told it is common, and through the years I have heard examples again, and again. I don’t think it’s a native trait, just a learned, and perhaps defensive behavior.
I know this is off topic regarding legal or illegal immigration, but I doubt it will ever be a topic Marc will post. Unfortunately, this world doesn’t have a society that doesn’t possess at least some racism. Still, if you want to make people aware, how can you only pick only the obvious?
Corporations! Now there’s a group without racism. They’ll take ANYBODY and exploit them. They keep the country afloat economically, and drag us through the ditches where morality is concerned. They need some reigning in and a swift kick in the ass.
May 13th, 2006 at 9:43 am
“I would make a small donation to the ACLU and leave it at that. ”
ACLU? Hmm. I’ve given them enough, for very little progress, in my view. But I might be willing to hit that little Paypal thingee in the left hand corner…
May 13th, 2006 at 9:52 am
“But I might be willing to hit that little Paypal thingee in the left hand corner…”
Now there’s an idea! Marc, since so many have complained about your going commercial, how much would it take to ban Woody? (or we could have an auction to see if reg or Woody gets banned–JUST KIDDING REG!)
May 13th, 2006 at 10:05 am
“how much would it take to ban Woody?”
I hate to think of getting him deported from Marc’s blog. Maybe he could have a “guest poster” status, that would allow only so many posts per topic, and if he violated the rules he could be returned to his native blog.
May 13th, 2006 at 10:31 am
“please tell me Why someone who comes from another country should be entitled to greater rights than anyone from their own country?”
Uhm, try again there, “illegal” immigrants don’t have rights to organize, “legal” immigrants sort of do and citizens also sort of do. Maybe if we enforced the right to organize unions for all 3 categories, wages would not continue to decline in the US?
May 13th, 2006 at 10:45 am
If Woody would stick to posts like this one from his native blog all would be forgiven. This is really pretty funny, did you make it up or steal it Woody?
“A lot of folks can’t understand how we came to have an oil shortage here in our country. Well, there’s a very simple answer. Nobody bothered to check the oil. We just didn’t know we were getting low. The reason for that is purely geographical.
Our oil is located in Alaska, California, Coastal Florida, Coastal Louisiana, Kansas, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, and Texas.
Our dipsticks are located in Washington DC.”
May 13th, 2006 at 5:23 pm
Well they banned me over there. Woody is part of a conservative action program on blogs run by liberals. They get a pass since theirs is the minority view. If you toss a liberal off the site for fighting too hard it looks like you’re being objective and not just sticking up for your own. It’s a trend I’ve noticed.
It just depends on who it is and if they hold the immunity idol. I find it quite shallow.
May 13th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Good grief. I don’t read this for a few days and find me mentioned. Guys, the topic was immigration.
Balter, you’re not going to get me upset, despite your inaccurate, desperate, and pathetic attacks. Also, it’s very, very clear that you don’t know the correct definition of “racist.” You just buy in to the left’s misuse of words and their cliches. (I’m trying to impress everyone by using a word derived from French.)
=======
reg, did you miss this?
I didn’t mean that last part of my rant. http://marccooper.com/immigration-deal/#comment-37551
=======
Jake York, you discovered that I’m part of the “vast right-wing conspiracy!” What tipped you off?
========
Okay, on to the latest discussion topic.
========
Oh, wait. To say something on topic, I’m still against sweeping legalization of people who intentionally broke the law by coming here.
May 13th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
“To say something on topic, I’m still against sweeping legalization of people who intentionally broke the law by coming here.”
If they go on strike to fight for back wages that are due for, say, 4,5 months, do you support the immigrant workers who are ‘illegal’ or the employers who threaten the ‘illegal’ employees with calling the INS to have them deported? The employers of ‘illegals’ would agree with your position of opposing their legalization btw.
May 14th, 2006 at 5:41 am
lorie, that’s like some mafia hit man seeking legal help to collect payoff money that he was shorted on a job. If it’s not legal, then he (and they) shouldn’t be doing it.
May 14th, 2006 at 5:47 am
Lynn. You don’t seem to do anything except disagreeing with posts, even when the points are obvious.
How you can be so asanine to suggest that I’m the one who likens the illegals to dogs, as opposed to those who want to deport them without regard for their personal destinies, is remarkable. The point was that the anti-illegal movement in general, is essentially willing to treat people worse than they would their dogs, or say, that some people would put more dignity into a stray dog than they would a community member who lacks a particular visa.
You send the people “home” to where they did their utmost to get out of. You obviously liked the analogy to dogs, making you feel more comfortable in that it let you frame your arguments against the illegals more conveniently.
As for racists exisiting on each side of the border. No kidding they do. Some Mexicans are racist bastards, indeed. Racism is universal, but also quite irrelevant to the issue at hand. At least for now.
The issue at hand is the cause for and of the illegal immigrants in general. Like you dismissed the importance of morality earlier on, calling it “futile” to discuss it as it as concerns the border crossings, so is it futile to discuss where racists are from. Except that discussing morality isn’t futile.
Moreover you imply that waving Mexican flags somehow equals racism, which seems quite common these days. Never mind that these Mexicans (and others) chose to live in the U.S, and not in Mexico. Or as if most of them hated their American employers, caucasian or otherwise. Sure, most of them are probably Mexican KKKs. What are you trying to achieve. Real chauvinists wouldn’t conceive of risking their lives for another country. That ought to strike you harder than them waving non-US flags.
You mean also to say, that the demonstrators didn’t have any reason to feel ethnically insulted in the first place? After about a million bashings on radio, TV and media, and a host of ethnically condescending comments from counter protesters and others. You’re going to take the massive feat of turning THEM into racists for waving non-US flags. Never mind that several thousand demonstrators waved US flags, and very much embrace America, which was their main point. It might just be that your concept of a flag is more dramatic than theirs.
They want to stay in America because they love, not “hate”, America. You seem to single out the exceptions. Some dismiss illegals as gang bangers. It’s stupid.
As for “Edward Kennedy” and “Ted Kennedy” being the same person, and you stick to it. Does that mean that you lack the capacity to understand a point unless the poster doesn’t mix up senators’ given names?
You’re a coward. You look for weaknesses to attack, seemingly deliberately. Look at yourself. Look at your own flaws.
The illegals “don’t want” compassion? No, I suppose they want more Sensenbrenners and Tancredos to be against them. When they’re facing the prospect of deportation and felony status, the hell would they need any compassion for. And sure, they’re too “strong”. They’ve got voting power and are really appreciated by most Americans, and so they feel great.
And the pride you ascribe to them is exactly what “half” the country is trying to rob them of, while diminishing them into cultural fabric dissolvers, non-assimilating criminals, invadors and so on, before kicking them out. Poor them for getting compassion on top of that.
As if many illegals didn’t live under constant fear. Talk about being in denial. If your family was being threatened to be torn apart through deportations, or if you faced the threat of being forced back to a country where you risked your life to get away from, not only would you feel fear, but you’re unable to relate to it as of now.
Woody. Please drop the nonsensensical claim that illegals intentionally broke the law. What a coward argument. And small-minded. That’s like scorning the Hurricane Katrina victims for shoplifting groceries and food during the time of neglect. Bet some would do that. In fact, some initially refered to them as being “looters”, as opposed to simply hungry. You and your laws. You don’t realize that there’s something beyond the law. Alternatively you’re just pretending.
May 14th, 2006 at 6:03 am
Woody. It wasn’t legal for Christopher Columbus to come here either. Nor was it for the early settlers to rape and kill the natives before claiming the land as theirs.
You chose to play some absolutist game.
May 14th, 2006 at 6:54 am
Michael Balter. I was meant to have written something yesterday, which vanished. However, besides that I appreciated your words on the personal level, I also think it would be good if more like you were visible in the immigration debate. Too many judgemental bashers currently. Then I said something that you, as well as Marc Cooper, and others, are good examples of what people can stand for even after being superpowerdly raised and despite the temptations of arrogance it may give, which many fall for. You’re just good examples of humans.
Lynn. You said that most illegals are alert minded individuals. Hell yes they are, because otherwise they wouldn’t have made the journey or stay. Heck many people are afraid of moving outside their local cities. Let alone of crossing a desert to work illegally in a foreign nation. That’s why they’re an asset to the country. They’re diciplined, determined people. That, beyond the immoral aspect of it, is why deporting them is short-sighted. So even from a selfish, economic standpoint, they’re viable to keep.
May 14th, 2006 at 8:52 am
It’s no conspiracy, you have a pass your ilk doesn’t offer others. That’s liberalism for you.
“It wasn’t legal for Christopher Columbus to come here either. Nor was it for the early settlers to rape and kill the natives before claiming the land as theirs.”
Exploration wasn’t legal? Oh yes it was there were no intenational laws or local laws governing North America at the time. There was no country, only local populations living under their own private customs. Humans fighting with one another has been with us always and that includes native versus native long before Columbus landed on the islands. Of course for Noble Savage mythologists it was a peaceful eden until Europeans came. This is the opposite pole from Woody but equally stupid.
May 14th, 2006 at 9:20 am
Michael Balter said: “What UpTheAnte said, and has said before. For my money, UpTheAnte is the most insightful and compassionate commenter on this issue this blog has seen.”
Just thought we ought to pay homage to UpThe’s posts, again.
Nothing like a little vitriol in the morning.
Truce, Up. I’m off for celebrate the traditional Hallmark Holiday with my progeny.
May 14th, 2006 at 9:36 am
Jake, it was legal to travel in international seas, yes. But the violation of sovereignty rights of the Indians wasn’t legal, nor does one need to belief in the myths of noble savages to recognize that, right?
May 14th, 2006 at 9:39 am
“lorie, that’s like some mafia hit man seeking legal help to collect payoff money that he was shorted on a job. If it’s not legal, then he (and they) shouldn’t be doing it.”
In other words, you would support the employers who hire ‘illegals’, deny them back wages owed, and then turn threaten them with turning them into the INS if they organize a union. Situational ethics in action once again. Or I should say relativism that favors those with power.
May 14th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Jake Elmore Says:
And to rape and to murder the natives before you lay claim on their birth land is therefore justifiable. And especially if compared to an illegal looking for work without papers. Uhh.
Geeze. “Exploration”, give me a break. Exploration that ends up with murder is not exploration, pal. Rape and murder isn’t exploration. They didn’t become legal crimes for no good reason. No wonder why the world looks the way it does.
And talk about being an extreme. You’re not even man enough to acknowledge the dubious moral “right” of stealing land from another people. And it’s about territory already claimed by a people. Forget about laws. Laws are artificial, not so are territorial instincts. Many of the early settlers were arrogant murderers who displaced tens of thousands of indians, and enslaved them, and murdered them. If that was OK because no legislator had spent time writing some law prohibiting it, it must mean that it’s OK to to anything, and everything, as long as it’s legally legal, no matter how atrocious the act is. Then you’d be willing to kill Jews if another Hitler rose to power because he’d legalize it.
There must’ve been the bible before those laws, anyway. You sound as though there was no moral guidance before the current laws. As if most laws are not based on the sense of human morality. And as if you don’t murder because it’s illegal, as opposed to because you have a conscience.
One side gave an extreme that was met by another extreme. Now, what have you done? Provided a thirld extreme. Welcome to the club.
And you know what else has been with us since long before “Columbus landed on the island”? Illegal immigration. But of course, to “Noble Savage mythologists” it must have started right after US implemented its first immigration laws.
Natives fighting eachother before Christopher Columbus arrived made it OK for the outsiders to snatch everything? What a fucked up arrogance. I just don’t see the difference. I mean that there’s the choice of saying, ok, we really screwed up, had no right to take other’s land, but done is done and we must now live with it. You seem to instead try to justify the colonialism alltogether. Because that was the point. The point was that you can’t take a totalitarian stance against illegal immigrants unless you’ve forgotten history.
May 14th, 2006 at 12:26 pm
“reg, did you miss this?
I didn’t mean that last part of my rant. http://marccooper.com/immigration-deal/#comment-37551”
Bullshit…this crapmonger says stuff like that so often, it’s obvious he means it.
May 14th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
Up the ante don’t get hostile. There was no soverignty of a non country. You can’t project your extreme relativistic views back through time. A thourogh reading of history paints a much more complex picture of relations with indigenous tribes. Murdering goes both ways, but as Jared Diamond has proven technological superiority will always win the day.
“One Stab was a great warrior, and he has a string of scalps hanging around somewhere to prove it, but he’s loyal to father now.”
The tribes are still here and with more land than most of us regular folks have. One has to go to third world countries to find genocides. They know how to do it best.
May 14th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
And by the way I’m calling Godwin.
May 14th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
“There was no soverignty of a non country. ”
Huh? They called themselves nations and we made treaties with them, most of which were broken as soon as the ink dried, no?
May 14th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
They called themselves a bunch of separate nations, with tribes contained therein but I’m unclear if they used that terminology or if it had the same meaning as in Europe. Yes treaties were broken, but not all were. Some were broken after fighting and dissent intra-tribally. The continent was not one unified country. This isn’t the nifty either or fallacy you paint and again the tribes are still here with big land holdings. Where did they get the land? Obviously deals were made and they got ancestral communal holdings.
May 14th, 2006 at 5:00 pm
Addendum: I didn’t get anything I haven’t yet bought and neither did my ancestors. White people aren’t a tribe and nothing is communal.
May 14th, 2006 at 9:46 pm
“Yes treaties were broken, but not all were. ”
Yes, but big ones were very much violated often simply because there was a hunger for more land and resources by settlers. I’m not saying the past can be undone, but it does point to the hypocrisy of the ‘outrage’ at immigrants who are really not even closely responsible for the major problems facing this country, whether ‘legal’ or ‘illegal’.
May 14th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
Jake. I didn’t mean to be hostile, at least I prefer not to. Just occassionally get mad, ok.
We’re talking about a principle here. The same argments that you use to justify the snatching of the Americas (Note, for the record, that the same things happened all the way south of the border, so it’s not as it’s a unique situation for US, but this specifically relates to the condemning rhetoric used against undocumented/illegal invidivuals and used in light of that) can be used for other invasions as well, but that doesn’t mean they were morally justified.
The point is that there’s no arguing wether this land belonged to non-Europeans. It didn’t, period. It’s the truth, and to deny that is arrogant. (Is this relativism? I think it’s absolutism).
You see, by your way of arguing the entire Africa was righteously colonized. But was it really? Of course not. You don’t go into somebody’s house and take it over based on some idea that the house wasn’t legally registered. Duh.
As for the indians being hostile. Right. They were. But that doesn’t justify other’s hostilities. And you can safely say that they didn’t pick the fight with the settlers since they were already here when the invadors came.
As for the natives having it better today. I wouldn’t listen to someone who excused the overtaking of their land for the purpose of establishing a nation to their own personal liking, to speak for whom is happier today (and maybe the casino owners are, but most natives are dirt poor in a society which demand money). At least, let the natives of back then speak for themselves.
Like, you could for instance say that Hitler was ultimately good for Germany because he built autobahn. Some would say that without him and his leadership Germany wouldn’t be what it is…etc. But so what. The moral inverse of such arguments weighs much heavier, which is that people were being gased to death by the millions. You wouldn’t even kill one person in your private life, would you? Or, if you did, and for any conceivable reason, you’d get life in prison, or worse. That must mean that it’s bad to kill, regardless of the perpetrator’s reasons.
Besides, a large amount of native men, women and children who were being murdered and displaced weren’t barbarians or even warriors. They were killed and chased off anyway. To imply that they deserved it because some Indians were violent, is a blatant arrogance. That type of mentality may justify any type of atrocity against any people since by it, it’s up to the perpetrator to define the premises of justification for their actions, as opposed to the victims who pay for them. That’s self-serving. Or, are you a racist? Seemingly, you sound as though the Indians weren’t worthy of any dignity and respect, and that They didn’t have any right to this land. You sound as if the Europeans had a right to this land. Amazing.
As for history being more complex than this. Sure, but the principle of respecting others’ home territories is not complex. To respect people and their homes isn’t complex.
Maybe you should have a conversation with Saddam Hussein. He’d agree with you.
May 15th, 2006 at 8:45 am
Godwin twice! Boy that is patheic argumentation. I have no reason to discuss reality with one so biased and blind from the white guilt crowd. My family worked with natives and they were welcome in our house, but progress is progress. Humans move as you can see now, but now isn’t then. We have borders, and laws and these must be respected. The old evil settler meme doesn’t work. They moved in and were butchered by the thousands but more came anyway. Did you expect Europeans to stay there and never come here? What would the country look like if that were true? Perhaps a novel would help? By all means show us what the alternative history would look like. I’ll look for it on Amazon. All of these people sneeking in now are just cheap slaves. I’m against slavery as most folks were from my neck of the woods before it was cool.
You’re anachronistic self-loathing weeping fails on its face.
May 17th, 2006 at 8:46 am
When you don’t look for the complexity you fail to see it.
It is right there in front of you.
Antonio Villaraigosa.
Barbara Boxer.
Phil Angelides.
Enough cheerleading. That goes nowhere.
July 20th, 2006 at 4:46 am
Kiss me w poker ruremsv
January 12th, 2007 at 1:01 am
Hey Michael, since you’re so against illegal immegration, why don’t you tell us the story of how you took off from the job that gave you the visa you came in on, absconded, became illegal and then eventually became legal like most illegal immigrants. You’ll notice I did not say you should be deported, nor did I call you a moron. But Michael, I know how you got here.
January 12th, 2007 at 1:02 am
the post above refers to Michael Rana
March 18th, 2007 at 10:41 pm
Like the site very much, thanx 4 your efforts webmasters
March 28th, 2007 at 2:50 am
This is great, look forward to looking into every area. Thanks for being there.
July 24th, 2007 at 5:27 pm
keyword…
I don’t agree with you in 100%, but you covered some good points regarding this topic…