| Author |
Message |
    
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2721
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 12:33 pm: | 
|
Enjoy your immigration debate.
I think you've earned it. |
Darryl Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7005
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 12:45 pm: |
|
"You can move to France but you can never become a Frenchmen. You can move to Japan but you can never become Japanese. However, if you move to America YOU CAN become an American."
-Ronald Wilson Reagan
|
Madden 11
Citizen
Username: Madden_11
Post Number: 879
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 12:53 pm: |
|
"You can't move to America."
-George W. Bush |
Darryl Strawberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 7006
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 12:55 pm: |
|
You're obviously not familiar with the administration's policy. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4632
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 1:42 pm: |
|
Straw is right on this one. It's the Congressional Republicans who are being hard-assed, the administration wants to be more lenient.
This is without characterizing in any way why they want to be lenient or whether it's a good idea, just that in this debate Bush is the one who wants easier immigration policies. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5451
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 1:45 pm: |
|
What could be easier than what we have now? |
Alleygater
Citizen
Username: Alleygater
Post Number: 1467
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 2:03 pm: |
|
Well we could let the Republicans have Arnold as the next president as they want. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4634
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 2:11 pm: |
|
I meant, easier in comparison to what Frist et al want, not in comparison to what's in place now. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1568
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 2:12 pm: |
|
One of the few things I agree with W on. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 865
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 5:34 pm: |
|
This is a beautiful move by the Congressional Repubs. They can look tough on immigration while at the same time giving them an issue to move away from Bush. This is all politics and it is a good strategical move by the Repubs. While most of you are liberal on the immigration issue, the individual districts that are in play like hearing tough talk. This may give the appearance of a Republican infight, but it's all about getting the vote. If Bush has to play the opposite role to keep Congress Republican then so be it. They are all laughing behind the scenes anyway. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 118
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 5:48 pm: |
|
If we want to reform our immigration policy, we have to get a handle on illegal immigration. If we want to get a handle on illegal immigration, we have to secure our borders.
In an article on how Mexican Diplomats do everything in their power to aid and abet illegal immigration, Heather MacDonald makes this observation:
The gall of Mexican officials does not end with the push for illegal entry. After demanding that we educate their surplus citizens, give those citizens food stamps, deliver their babies, provide them with doctors and hospital beds, and police their neighborhoods, the Mexican government also expects us to help preserve their loyalty to Mexico.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/15_4_mexico.html
Is there a Spanish word for chutzpah?
Cheers
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5453
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 7:31 pm: |
|
"cajones"? |
Montagnard
Citizen
Username: Montagnard
Post Number: 1920
Registered: 6-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 8:00 pm: |
|
Why would anyone want to become an American? There's an advantage to living and working here, but if there were genuinely free movement across the borders, the situation might be different. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5238
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 9:16 pm: |
|
Quote:This is a beautiful move by the Congressional Repubs. They can look tough on immigration while at the same time giving them an issue to move away from Bush.
Unfortunately, many of those Republicans seem to believe that being "tough on immigration" requires that they be xenophobic, nativist and and borderline racists (See, e.g., Representative Tancredo). If that's the banner that they gather under, a lot of the immigrants, children of immigrants, and grandchildren of immigrants will turn their backs on them. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5454
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 10:05 pm: |
|
And what has Tancredo said that is xenophobic, nativist and borderline racist?
And let's be clear, though it's politically inconvenient to one side of this debate. We're talking about ILLEGAL immigrants, not all immigrants.
|
Unowen
Citizen
Username: Unowen
Post Number: 27
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 10:11 pm: |
|
Even though I do believe that illegal immigrants should be punished because they entered this country illigaly, it would also be a mistake for us to turn them away for two reasons.
a) Most illigal immigrants who enter and eventually settle down in this country act like legal, law-abbiding citizens (pay taxes, try to stay out of trouble etc.)
b) Illigal immigrants believe it or not actually help our economy. Most of them work as cheap laborers and rise the productivity of cheap goods. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 868
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 10:17 pm: |
|
I'm not discussing the merits of the argument but the political ramifications. This is a good issue for the Repubs. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5239
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, March 27, 2006 - 10:39 pm: |
|
Quote:And what has Tancredo said that is xenophobic, nativist and borderline racist?
And let's be clear, though it's politically inconvenient to one side of this debate. We're talking about ILLEGAL immigrants, not all immigrants.
Cjc, read some of Tancredo's rantings. He is definitely talking about all immigrants. And he is definitely hostile. |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1834
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 6:57 am: |
|
Southerner is so right. As we've all come to learn, there is nothing Bush loves more than making himself look bad to his base, especially to when the plan is make other people look better and stronger on an issue, even if he's not running for anything. Brilliant reasoning. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5455
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 9:29 am: |
|
Nohero -- you made the charge. There must have been one statement you can produce that crystalized in your mind that Tancredo is a racist.
And if he's talking about ALL immigrants as you say (from Mexico, Ireland, China, Canada, etc) then a case that he's racist is hard to make. That's if your allegation turns out to be true. |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 121
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, March 28, 2006 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Here is Rep. Tancredo's statement on the Senate Judiciary Committee and the pro-illegal alien weekend rallies:
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Chairman of the 94-member House Immigration Reform Caucus, issued the following statement today on immigration matters:
“The immigration rallies over this weekend and today show how disordered our immigration system has become. For years, the government has turned a blind eye to illegal aliens who break into this country. It isn’t any wonder that illegal aliens now act as if they are entitled to the rights and privileges of citizenship.
“The McCain-Kennedy-Specter bill that came out of the Judiciary Committee today provides nearly universal amnesty for the more than 12 million illegal aliens in the U.S. The bill also adds hundreds of thousands of foreign workers to a background check system that is already on the brink of collapse. The Judiciary Committee even adopted Durbin’s amendment, which reduces penalties so that visa overstays will continue to undermine our immigration system.
“If the Senate follows the Judiciary Committee’s lead, the prospects of getting a reform bill to the President’s desk this year are slim, to say the least. No plan with amnesty and a massive increase in foreign workers will pass the House. Amnesty and foreign workers are fundamentally incompatible with the House’s approach and, according to every recent poll, they are not what Americans want. Americans want enforcement first, and disagreement over foreign workers should not prevent us from securing our borders.”
http://tancredo.house.gov/press/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=1170
This doesn't sound unreasonable to me. This is a serious problem and it looks like the Senate plans to punt.
Cheers
|
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 31
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 11:59 am: |
|
Southerner-
"I'm not discussing the merits of the argument but the political ramifications. This is a good issue for the Repubs."
This is a classic strawman to divert attention from the Republican disaster area Capital Hill has become. Here's the game, pick a strawman and get all your talking points in a row. Get two sets of talking points to feign sincerity for the Republicans. Then get asshats like Dick Hardball to pound Democrats on exactly what their position on illegal immigration is. Yeah, in that it's a manufactured issue, when Laura Ingraham trying to tell us everything is coming up roses in Iraq can't get traction, yeah it's a great issue for Republicans. It confuses the issue. Let's stick to bread and circus. Idiot..
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13326
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 5:18 pm: |
|
I agree. This is a non-issue. We, as a country, are not willing to pay minimum wage and payroll taxes for all jobs, which creates the vacuum which sucks people in from other countries.
This issue will go away without any real change. Collectively, we don't actually want change.
|
The Libertarian
Citizen
Username: Local_1_crew
Post Number: 1851
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 6:36 pm: |
|
This issue will go away without any real change. Collectively, we don't actually want change.
how very libertarian of you |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13332
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 6:45 pm: |
|
I ask in earnest, what viewpoint does the libertarian view bear on this issue? I would assume that it allows anyone to immigrant who wants to, but perhaps that's not a good assumption.
|
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 32
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 10:05 pm: |
|
"I ask in earnest, what viewpoint does the libertarian view bear on this issue?"
Answer the guy. This is an effin' fake issue. What does a libertarian think?
|
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1058
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 10:37 pm: |
|
Good issue for Repubs? SO thats why they will wait untill after Nov. to deal with it?
Or because they would lose the Latino & Independant vote? prior to Nov. '06.
What are the penalties for a corporation that hires Illegals? Is it meaningful? |
3ringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 127
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 7:01 am: |
|
Foj,
You asked:What are the penalties for a corporation that hires Illegals? Is it meaningful?
I think the penalty is supposed to be $10,000 for each illegal alien hired, with the possibility of jail time for reperat offenders. You ask if the penalties are meaningful, the answer is clearly no, if the statistics here are accurate:http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/051101_nd.htm
Enforcement of existing laws would be a good place to start.
Cheers
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13338
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 7:46 am: |
|
A few weeks ago on the Brian Lehrer show, a guy called in and told stories of working as an illegal alien. He said he got one job that lasted a few weeks. He and a gang of other men dug some troughs for cables. This was for Verizon. When they were done, Verizon didn't pay them a dime. Since they were illegals, they didn't have any recourse. They just did the work and then walked.
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13350
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 12:50 pm: |
|
March 31, 2006
Op-Ed Columnist
The Road to Dubai
By PAUL KRUGMAN
For now, at least, the immigration issue is mainly hurting the Republican Party, which is divided between those who want to expel immigrants and those who want to exploit them. The only thing the two factions seem to have in common is mean-spiritedness.
But immigration remains a difficult issue for liberals. Let me say a bit more about the subject of my last column, the uncomfortable economics of immigration, then turn to what really worries me: the political implications of a large nonvoting work force.
About the economics: the crucial divide isn't between legal and illegal immigration; it's between high-skilled and low-skilled immigrants. High-skilled immigrants — say, software engineers from South Asia — are, by any criterion I can think of, good for America. But the effects of low-skilled immigration are mixed at best.
True, there are large benefits for the low-skilled migrants, who may find even a minimum-wage U.S. job a big step up. Immigration also raises the total income of native-born Americans, although reasonable estimates suggest that these gains amount to no more than a fraction of 1 percent.
But low-skilled immigration depresses the wages of less-skilled native-born Americans. And immigrants increase the demand for public services, including health care and education. Estimates indicate that low-skilled immigrants don't pay enough in taxes to cover the cost of providing these services.
All of these effects, except for the gains for the immigrants themselves, are fairly small. Some of my friends say that's the point I should stress: immigration is a wonderful thing for the immigrants, and claims that immigrants are undermining American workers and taxpayers are hugely overblown — end of story.
But it's important to be intellectually honest, even when it hurts. Moreover, what really worries me isn't the narrow economics — it's the political economy, the effects of having a disenfranchised labor force.
Imagine, for a moment, a future in which America becomes like Kuwait or Dubai, a country where a large fraction of the work force consists of illegal immigrants or foreigners on temporary visas — and neither group has the right to vote. Surely this would be a betrayal of our democratic ideals, of government of the people, by the people. Moreover, a political system in which many workers don't count is likely to ignore workers' interests: it's likely to have a weak social safety net and to spend too little on services like health care and education.
This isn't idle speculation. Countries with high immigration tend, other things equal, to have less generous welfare states than those with low immigration. U.S. cities with ethnically diverse populations — often the result of immigration — tend to have worse public services than those with more homogeneous populations.
Of course, America isn't Dubai. But we're moving in that direction. As of 2002, according to the Urban Institute, 14 percent of U.S. workers, and 20 percent of low-wage workers, were immigrants. Only a third of these immigrant workers were naturalized citizens. So we already have a large disenfranchised work force, and it's growing rapidly. The goal of immigration reform should be to reverse that trend.
So what do I think of the Senate Judiciary Committee's proposal, which is derived from a plan sponsored by John McCain and Ted Kennedy? I'm all in favor of one provision: offering those already here a possible route to permanent residency and citizenship. Since we aren't going to deport more than 10 million people, we need to integrate those people into our society.
But I'm puzzled by the plan to create a permanent guest-worker program, one that would admit 400,000 more workers a year (and you know that business interests would immediately start lobbying for an increase in that number). Isn't institutionalizing a disenfranchised work force a big step away from democracy?
For a hard-line economic conservative like Mr. McCain, the advantages to employers of a cheap work force may be more important than the violation of democratic principles. But why would someone like Mr. Kennedy go along? Is the point to help potential immigrants, or is it to buy support from business interests?
Either way, it's a dangerous route to go down. America's political system is already a lot less democratic in practice than it is on paper, and creating a permanent nonvoting working class would make things worse. The road to Dubai may be paved with good intentions.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
|
SLK Lives!
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1127
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 9:14 pm: |
|
Uh oh, Reingold and another one of his NYT OP-Ed post...
Thread kill! 
-SLK |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5284
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 9:57 pm: |
|
Thread kill? Not so fast, SLacKer.
And so you're back
From outer space ... |
SO Ref
Citizen
Username: So_refugee
Post Number: 1668
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 10:06 pm: |
|
Meanwhile...
Americans seeking jobs in booming Bangalore - More U.S. workers heading East to beef up their resumes, launch companies
|
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13367
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 3, 2006 - 12:24 pm: |
|
SLK, you can make a comment on me and my style or you can make a comment on the commentary that Krugman wrote. Or whatever you like.
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1886
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 3, 2006 - 3:38 pm: |
|
Nothing like taking the principles embedded in the Bill of Rights and crapping on them by creating a disenfranchised underclass for whom those rights don't apply... very chic, very "nouvel americain..."
And how odd that such a maneuver benefits the corporate interests which play "pocket pool" with the President and his Veep and drive down wages for legal workers in the country. That's not by the way the result of competitive market forces. It's skulduggery, something this White House and many of its supporters in Congress are quite expert at doing.
In the meanwhile, let's let SLK continue to shoot from the lip and answer "5 O'Clock" when asked what the weather is. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5484
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, April 3, 2006 - 3:43 pm: |
|
Innis -- How are 'republicans' in the pocket of big business, but Democrats like Ted Kennedy aren't on this issue? |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1887
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 3, 2006 - 3:50 pm: |
|
CJC:
Go back and take a reading comprehension lesson or two. I said above "this White House and many of its supporters in Congress." Where did I use the term "Republicans" in my posting above?
I have as little respect for the other big party as I have for the one in the WH.
Neither one as currently operative focuses on the interests of the governed.
|
Steve R Jones
Citizen
Username: Sjthinker
Post Number: 64
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 3, 2006 - 7:36 pm: |
|
Q: What's the difference between the USA and Mexico?
A: There are more Mexicans in the USA |
Steve R Jones
Citizen
Username: Sjthinker
Post Number: 65
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, April 3, 2006 - 7:39 pm: |
|
 |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5285
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Monday, April 3, 2006 - 10:24 pm: |
|
The comic isn't very funny.
What is funny is that there's a whole bunch of right-wing flacks carrying on about some sort of Mexican-American separatist movement.
Mostly, it's something those right-wing flacks are using to stir up fear - 'cause fear sells, you know.
Apparently, "fear of Muslims" is not enough for them, so they are pushing "fear of Mexicans" now.
I'll be interested to see how they manage to come up with some sort of Muslim-Mexican plot against the U.S.
Yes, this is my way of saying that I don't think very much of them. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 877
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 12:44 pm: |
|
Reingold,
What a great post. Thanks for your permission allowing us to post whatever we want. I feel better knowing I have your approval. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 13396
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 4, 2006 - 12:51 pm: |
|
My implication was that SLK made a choice. I don't know if you find criticizing me interesting. If so, I don't know why, when you could be talking about a commentary that I found interesting. Even if you disagree with Krugman's commentary, I think comments about it have a potential to be more interesting than comments about what I say.
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page