GWB has enraged conservatives by calling them on their fear tactics and the abuse of the word “amnesty” when referring to the current bill, and even went so far as to imply that if you are against the current bill, you are against America. And I want to be the first conservative to say that Bush is right! While this bill is not perfect, it’s a huge step in the right direction. It’s comprehensive in that it covers security, immigration process, the need for temporary workers, and the plight of existing illegals here in the US.
As I mentioned in An Open Letter to Michelle Malkin, the conservative opposition to providing a path to citizenship for honest Mexicans who have been working and living here for years (and many have paid income taxes the entire time) is inhuman, impractical, and laced with the criminalization of people who are merely trying to provide a life for their families.
As a side note, I wonder how liberals will try to attack Bush’s motives for this stand he is taking against his party. I’m sure they won’t give him credit for thinking for himself – maybe big business is in his pocket telling him what to say on this issue?
As a side note, I wonder how liberals will try to attack Bush's motives for this stand he is taking against his party. I'm sure they won't give him credit for thinking for himself – maybe big business is in his pocket telling him what to say on this issue?
Seeker, how narrow minded of you. On the contrary, it is purely ironic that it has taken a shift in party control in Congress for Bush to even have a shot at a passing immigration reform. The fact that Bush is taking a firm stand now as opposed to the last go around when the Republicans had control is a reflection of political reality. Bush has the support of a large Democrats in Congress and very few Republicans. Based upon that political reality, of course the President is going to feel that he can take a stand. At a 30% approval rating he has nothing to lose.
As for your Big Business assumption, that is fundamentally flawed. Most big business, particularly high tech and skilled labor based businesses are 100% opposed to this reform package because it negatively impacts the H1B Visa program (see NPR report). As specified in this plan, it makes it even harder to bring in engineers, scientists, etc to fuel our hi-tech growth. That is bad for business.
Building upon that further, this whole opposition about supposed "amnesty" by Republicans is just a total non starter. The reality is (and I just saw this stat) that 70% of Americans favor a general amnesty for illegal imigrants already in this country so long as they pay their back income taxes. That is even more lenient than the Joint-Immigration package that is being put through the Congress.
Ultimately, this package is not the President's plan. It looks nothing like the plan that Bush tried to put through. It is the Congress' plan. The President will of course get the credit or the blame if it succeeds or fails.
– s
Hi Latino:
Bush has been so bad on so many fronts that we liberals don't need to question his motives on immigration. I assume his view on immigration is honest and since he is a Christian he takes seriously the Bible's mandate to treat foreigners in our land well.
your friend
keith
Ultimately, this package is not the President’s plan. It looks nothing like the plan that Bush tried to put through.
It doesn’t matter. He’s consistently taken this stand in opposition to his party, even before the last election. The question is, why?
Seeker, here is the problem – the vast majority of Republicans and Conservatives would not mind this bill so much if they were sure the border would be secured. But instead of engage in a debate on this issue, the administration has insinuated that those opposed must hate Hispanics and essentially be Nazi racists and the Senate has limited debate of a 1.000 page bill to 30 hours. How is that right?
Those of us who oppose this bill want the border to be secured first, then we can talk about everything else. The finances and economics involved are not going to be important if we can't stop people from coming to our country illegally whether they are Hispanics, Muslims or Canadians (doesn't really matter to me).
I did want to address this little point though:
the conservative opposition to providing a path to citizenship for honest Mexicans who have been working and living here for years (and many have paid income taxes the entire time) is inhuman, impractical, and laced with the criminalization of people who are merely trying to provide a life for their families.
First point, no one has to criminalize anyone. If they came here illegally that already takes care of that. It is not to say a person is a morally bad person, but they broke the law in coming here regardless of motives. We tend to look differently on a person who steals bread in order to survive, but we do not change the law to say that stealing is okay.
The "honest Mexican" that you mention is not the one that Conservatives worry about. Those are the ones that the vast majority of bill opponents want to work with to allow them to become fully functioning citizens.
But here's the deal, how is it fair to countless of immigrants who come here legally, go through all the process and are waiting in line to become citizens to be jumped over by millions of other individuals when they did it the wrong way.
I don't want to impugn the motives of anyone (the President's or the struggling immigrant trying to help his family), but I'm not worried about the motives. I'm worried about the consequences. There's a difference.
It doesn't matter. He's consistently taken this stand in opposition to his party, even before the last election.
Ah, but it does matter. Sure he has taken a really soft stand consistently even before the last election. But look closely at how much political capital he has been willing to spend up until now to push the Congress to support it. Prior to the election except for a few very strategically placed speeches he has done nothing to push the Republican Congress to take action…no meetings with the then Majority Leader of the Senate or House, no real sense of horse trading to get the votes…nada.
So, while you look at the surface of political rhetoric exposed by the Presindent over the last 8 years, I am looking for the specific actions taken by this same man to push his agenda through.
It also does matter what form the Immigration Reform bill takes in really determining how much effort the President has put into this thing over the last 8 years. The original bill only had a Guest Worker program and no means of those same folks getting citizenship. As you probably forgot, that bill was a what the President wanted and was a complete non-starter with his Republican Congress. He put it out there as a trial ballon and let it pop with very little pushing on his part. The new bill that has come up is only remotely passable because of the change in Party Control and the inclusion of a citizenship path for illegals. That is one of the few reasons LULU and AFW support the bill at all.
This is just another case of you looking for a quick on the surface answer of why Bush has taken a stand on an issue without any care or consideration of the details. Those details do matter particularly with the rife expansion of Executive Branch power at the expense of Congress as part of this Administration's reign.
So, I am sure you will just dismiss this analysis as being irrelevant because you want the typical American's Fast Food Happy Meal answer to a question that is really more complicated than you care to consider.
-s
But here’s the deal, how is it fair to countless of immigrants who come here legally, go through all the process and are waiting in line to become citizens to be jumped over by millions of other individuals when they did it the wrong way.
I don’t want to impugn the motives of anyone (the President’s or the struggling immigrant trying to help his family), but I’m not worried about the motives. I’m worried about the consequences. There’s a difference.
On this point, I am in full agreement with Aaron.
I do care about the details of how we get there from a policy standpoint, but ultimately it is the final outcome and impact that does matter.
I am not going to touch the question of securing the border first…it will only touch off another firestorm of debate and argument.
Silver, I too care about the details and how we get there, but I just don't care about motives. It doesn't matter to me if someone has the best (or worst) motives in mind – because, honestly, I can't know that. We can assume the best (or worst) about our political allies or opponents, but the motivation is secondary to outcome and the actual law.
If Bush has the best heart behind this deal, but it ends up with all the negatives that people are complaining about the motives are worthless. If we break the bank on Medicare, Social Security, welfare (all of which are struggling with the current population) and if we continue to allow millions to come across the border with no protections from terrorists or diseases (take the TB airplane scare for instance, but on the border any person with any disease could come without any checking or warning), then history will judge him for that not for his desire to help out those less fortunate (which is a lofty goal).
Its odd that on this issue many conservatives deviate from their standard position on things like welfare, etc. Whereas one minute they are arguing that the government subsidizing their behavior and lifestyle is detrimental to the individual in the long run, but then it switches and it is perfectly fine for the government to legitimize illegal activity. Why the difference?
Hi Aaron:
First thing: I think the immigration issue is morally complicated, far more complicated than a lot of people on both sides of the fence imply. Leftists like myself can see the issue of immigration as the capitalist way to pit worker against worker by essentially flooding the labor market with cheap labor, for example. This view is also shared by a lot of the what used to be called Reagan Democrats and IMO is the main reason they have been fired up over the issue, that and a little bit of racism. I would think that a person committed to free markets though would oppose the government attempt to interfere with the labor market by prohibiting certain workers from offering their services.
Anyway, you wrote:
Seeker, here is the problem – the vast majority of Republicans and Conservatives would not mind this bill so much if they were sure the border would be secured. But instead of engage in a debate on this issue, the administration has insinuated that those opposed must hate Hispanics and essentially be Nazi racists and the Senate has limited debate of a 1.000 page bill to 30 hours. How is that right?
I am really trying these days to follow Jesus’ command to take care of the giant log in my own eye before I worry about the tiny splinter in my brother’s eye, so i have to hope that I am not indulging in such sinful judgmentalism right now. But IMO racism plays a big role in the anti-illegal immigration view. Not for everyone, I don’t mean to imply that. But when I read the letters to my local newspaper I see this kind of thing a lot: I’m sick of seeing all those protests; they come here and break our laws and they have the nerve to demand rights?. The thing is, when they look at the crowd they can’t see the immigration status of the protesters–they are equating being Mexican with being “illegal”. For crying out loud, I’ve been at the protests and I’m a white boy from Kentucky!
Those of us who oppose this bill want the border to be secured first, then we can talk about everything else. The finances and economics involved are not going to be important if we can’t stop people from coming to our country illegally whether they are Hispanics, Muslims or Canadians (doesn’t really matter to me).
IMO we’ll never be able to secure the border from terrorists. The danger of terrorism isn’t significantly affected by how secure our borders are, terrorists can get here legally, they can be born here, terrorism has nothing to do with the immigration issue. So what threat are we securing our borders from? Is the issue to you that illegal immigration is, well, illegal? I have a couple of comments on that, but they’ll fit better when I comment on your below.
But here’s the deal, how is it fair to countless of immigrants who come here legally, go through all the process and are waiting in line to become citizens to be jumped over by millions of other individuals when they did it the wrong way.
Your question presupposes that the line we have legally imposed is itself just. The law establishes immigration quotas, which means that a Mexican from Tijuana has to wait in line to legally move to Southern California. I, on the other hand, was free to move from the land of my birth, Kentucky, to So Cal without so much as warning the state that I was coming. I was born 2000 miles from California and I had no ancestral ties to the state. How do I have more right to move to the greatest state in the union than does a Mexican who lives right next door, who has many more and deeper ties to the region, who could reasonably argue that the US stole the state from his homeland in the first place? How is California not at least as much his home as it is mine? How can I justify locking the door on him and making him ask my permission before he can come inside?
I don’t know the answer to any of those questions, which is part of why I think the issue is complicated. In the absence of clear cut answers, it seems to me that our policy ought to be based on humanitarian criteria. The fact is: in Latin America there are lots of people who suffer from the political/economic systems they live in, and they rightfully want to provide a decent life for their families. Some of them decide to take the great risk, even risk of death, to come to a place where they have a chance to take care of their families. IMO our policy ought not to be one where we stomp on their fingers to keep them from climbing from the pit to freedom. And IMO that’s what the current policy does. And even worse, it commits the abomination of deporting the parents of children who know no other home but the USA, some children who are US citizens. That kind of cruel application of law makes the phrase “law abiding” an epithet.
First point, no one has to criminalize anyone. If they came here illegally that already takes care of that. It is not to say a person is a morally bad person, but they broke the law in coming here regardless of motives. We tend to look differently on a person who steals bread in order to survive, but we do not change the law to say that stealing is okay.
I have IMO a very important quibble with your above. Illegally immigrating isn’t a crime, it is merely a violation of the law. Not all law violations are crimes. When you drive beyond the posted speed limit you violate the law, but you are not a criminal. The Sensenbrenner bill from last session of Congress tried to criminalize illegal immigration but it didn’t become law thanks to the courage of thousands of people taking to the streets. Now speeding is against the law, but if your excessive speed was because of an emergency the police wouldn’t write you a ticket, they’d probably help you respond to the emergency. Is escaping from poverty an emergency? Isn’t that at least a debatable position?
your friend
Keith
But IMO racism plays a big role in the anti-illegal immigration view
I entirely disagree. I don't think that opponents of immigration are racists in any significant proportion at all. I think their motives are:
1. Concern for national security
Look, our main concern these days is that some crazy Muslim is going to sneak a nuke or bioweapon into the US and kill people. We've let drug dealers in for years, and have pursued them without any border wall.
But the problem with the pro-security group is that they seem to want some sort of 100% security solution in place before we do ANYTHING else to fix the immigrant problem. However, I think the four-pronged approach that addresses the four main issues (security, immigration process, short-term workers and monitoring employers, and existing aliens) simultaneously is the most realistic, and avoids the arguments about prioritization.
Of course, this legislation does not deal with the other problem, the Mexican economy and the corruption of the Mexican economic system.
2. Overzealous concern for the letter of the law ("I don't care why they came here, they broke the law, and are therfore criminals.")
This is where I think the conservative argument really falls down, and lacks compassion. Sure, they came here illegally. Sure, there are people trying to get in legally who are still waiting in line. But when the system takes more than a DOZEN years legally, how can you blame illegals who want to feed their families? The argument that all illegals should be treated like criminals because they broke the law is correct by the letter of the law, but misses the spirit of the law entirely. Most of them broke that one law (and perhaps were obeying a higher law, to feed their families) and since being here, have not broken any laws, but have instead worked honestly and hard.
3. Concern for justice and fairness ("what about all of the people who are waiting in line to come here legally?")
See the argument for #2. The system does not reward those who obey the rules. It sucks.
4. Economic Concerns
Despite the fact that illegals may use more in social services than they contribute, this is not because they come here to take advantage of our system. Many of them have paid taxes for years (my own illegal friends have paid taxes for more than 10 years each), and at this point, have no chance of seeing any social security from them.
the Senate has limited debate of a 1.000 page bill to 30 hours. How is that right?
No, that is not right, that's typical crap tactics. But that doesn't lessen the value of the bill. I'm sorry that people are playing politics with this, but it's no surprise.
Sure he has taken a really soft stand consistently even before the last election.
So Silver, in all of your long winded response, I was unable to figure out your answer to WHY you think GWB is going against his party. Do you have an answer? Mine is that he is thinking for himself on this one.
So Silver, in all of your long winded response, I was unable to figure out your answer to WHY you think GWB is going against his party. Do you have an answer? Mine is that he is thinking for himself on this one.
Clearly Seeker you have a limited attention span or are otherwise disinclined to find the answer in my reply.
Either way it does not make a difference…you are looking for the Fast Food Happy Meal response which is far less precise and far less accurate but satisfies your desire for less words and rhetoric.
That is the problem with policy debates with you online and real life. Limited attention span or blind mans glasses on your face. Sigh.
So, since that is what you want — Fast Food — I will give you fast food since you obviosuly can't take the time to read.
GWB is not thinking for himself, but rather is looking where the wind is blowing and taking the political opportunity to push a bill through now with Democratic support when there is little or no support from his party now or in the past. He is not doing a moral play…
Oh, wait…that's not fast food. Let's try that again in baby bites….
GWB is doing it now cause he has the votes with the Democrats in power. Period.
Any more explanation than that with more detail would require a white table cloth meal, which I know you detest.
– s
GWB is doing it now cause he has the votes with the Democrats in power
You still didn’t answer the question. WHY is he doing it, not why is he doing it NOW – I mean, why is he for this legislation at all if his party is against it?
And if HE is not doing his own thinking on the subject, who is influencing him to pass this legislation?
I do not detest complex answers when they apply, but when they are used to avoid the question while giving the appearance of an intelligent, if not patronizing answer, I most certainly do get disgusted.
Keith – your issues seem to not be in relation to immigration per se, but with nation states. That is an entirely different issue, one I’m sure we can debate, but to start debates about who “really” owns California and why it is different for you to move from Kentucky to California than for someone to move from Mexico to California is really not about illegal immigration. Although rhetoric like that will further entrench people to be opposed to this bill and others like it.
The crazies on the right who are against this are out claiming this is an attempt to create a North American Union and dissolve our national sovereignty, when you talk as you do it makes me think many of those supporting the bill are in favor of that.
Also, it has nothing to do with racism. Again, I don’t really care where the people come from and what their background is. When you see those comments in your newspaper it has nothing to do with racism, but rather frustration at seeing people (whoever they may be) come to our country illegally and then demand we obey their commands while many wave flags of other countries. That does not go over very well.
Seeker – I will address you points in the same order you presented them.
1. I agree that this has to be dealt with on many separate levels and I think most opponents of this bill would agree. I also think that most opponents are realists and not pie-in-the-sky perfectionists as Keith suggested. We do not expect a fence or other security measures to keep 100% of the dangerous individuals out, but we do believe in will help and if it keeps one more out than before that’s a good thing.
2. I honestly don’t think many people hold to this position. Most of us understand the numerous concerns built in with this issue. We understand the reality of the situation is such that we can’t just “deport them all” for a host of reasons – morally and logistically.
I also understand the immigration process is overly burdensome. That should be looked at, but the way to do that is not to simply excuse those circumventing the current system.
Again those that have simply supported and feed their families while breaking no other laws should be treated vastly different from individuals who have not. Those that are seeking to assimilate to our nation, while retaining their heritage (as millions of immigrants from the past have done) should be giving much more mercy and grace than those who have no desire to learn our language, understand our culture or obey our other laws.
3. Despite the fact that the current system “sucks” that is not an excuse for violating it. There may be numerous laws in America that are not correct and should be changed. Since Keith brought up speeding I will use that. Just because I believe a speed zone should be 70 because everyone drives at least that in that area, does not mean that the police cannot charge me with breaking the speed limit. The system may be broken, but the way to fix it is not to further break a broken system.
4. Despite the fact that illegals may use more in social services than they contribute, this is not because they come here to take advantage of our system. I agree that most do not come here simply to take advantage of the system, but it the costs must be taken into consideration. If we cannot possibly support the coming generation with Social Security, how could we withstand an additional several million that suddenly will become eligible for SS?
The financial issues are not of the utmost concern to me, but they must be taken into consideration. In a much smaller, simpler way it’s like a donor supporting people who go to college. The more people who demand that the donor supports them the smaller and smaller the amount of help the donor can give, eventually the donor no longer has the resources to give.
Unless something is done with immigration and government spending, I’m afraid that those who are in dire need of help (be it through jobs or assistance) will not be able to get it because we are spread too thin and taxed too much.
I agree. And also, I am somewhat glad to see that this bill includes a provision that those who have NOT paid taxes on their wages owe back taxes. This may be hard to figure out, and it will probably put a heavy burden on these low wage families, but it at least rewards those who have tried to do things legally (although, in order to pay taxes, you either need a valid tax id or you have to purchase one on the black market).
Those that are seeking to assimilate to our nation, while retaining their heritage (as millions of immigrants from the past have done) should be giving much more mercy and grace than those who have no desire to learn our language, understand our culture or obey our other laws.
Most mexicans do this, but like all immigrants, usually the first genration does not learn english. But they are all looking to assimilate. However, we do have a problem with Muslims not integrating, and wanting to obey Shariah law instead of American law. Whole nother story.
Despite the fact that the current system “sucks” that is not an excuse for violating it.
Look, if you can’t feed your family, and you know it’s going to be 12 years before you can enter legally, what do you do? This is not some easy excuse for disobeying the law. My own brothers in law have been sponsored for citizenship for 8 years by their sister, who is a citizen, and the immigration department promises to get to it from between 14 and 20 years! My own mother in law can not come in and see her grandchildren until they are mostly grown up (we expect to get her here in three more years). It is awful.
The current system more than sucks. It’s broken. It is partly to blame for the illegal immigration.
But it looks like we mostly agree.
Hi Aaron:
You wrote:
[Y]our issues seem to not be in relation to immigration per se, but with nation states. That is an entirely different issue, one I’m sure we can debate, but to start debates about who “really” owns California and why it is different for you to move from Kentucky to California than for someone to move from Mexico to California is really not about illegal immigration. Although rhetoric like that will further entrench people to be opposed to this bill and others like it.
I honestly wasn’t trying to use rhetoric at all, although I am sure I let my passions dictate some of my phrasing:-) But my questions about who really owns California were in response to your specific questions about the fairness of violating immigration law. It seems to me that if we are discussing the fairness of a person coming to the US from another country, the questions I raised are essential.
Also, it has nothing to do with racism. Again, I don’t really care where the people come from and what their background is. When you see those comments in your newspaper it has nothing to do with racism, but rather frustration at seeing people (whoever they may be) come to our country illegally and then demand we obey their commands while many wave flags of other countries. That does not go over very well.
I’m sorry but I must disagree. When a person assumes he knows the immigration status of the protesters I see no plausible explanation for that except that he assumes that people who look like that are “illegal”. That’s not just frustration, it’s racism. I am not assuming your objection to the Immigration Bill is based on any racism at all, but it is clear that for far too many people, racism is in the neighborhood. BTW all of us suffer from the sin of bigotry so I can’t claim any superiority here–although I too frequently do assume just that. We can get into the details of my sins some other time:-)
About waving the flag of other countries at protests. I understand why a person might do that–they believe they are being attacked because of their national origin so they are defiantly displaying pride in their heritage rather than cowering and hiding–but that’s self-indulgent and counter productive as a protest. But at the protests I attended I saw nearly exclusively American Flags.
your friend
keith
Keith – we can’t deal with territorial issues that have long since been settled. The US owns California and all the other southwest states. I would tell Mexicans worried about that the same thing I tell Southerners complaining about similar issues for the Southern states – get over it. That has been decided long before any of us were born. No one should be able to use the past (several hundred years in the past) to break current law.
You did not answer my questions though about your attitudes toward nation states. I did not mean to bring them up in order to discuss them, but rather to better grasp where you are coming from in this issue. Because if you desire to remove national borders then no amount of appealing to any type of national sovereignty will do any good. I must adjust my language and reasoning depending on my audience.
Keith it is not racist to say that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic. Heck, seeker who supports this bill uses the term “Mexicans” when in reality it deals with more than those from Mexico but also Latin and South American. If I see someone who looks Hispanic then I don’t automatically assume they must be illegal. Just as I don’t assume someone who looks Muslim must be a terrorists.
However actions those individuals take cause people to make judgments. If the Muslims stand up on a plane and begin to scream to Allah and speak of jihad, it would not be racist of someone sitting beside them to alert the authorities. Just as it is not racist to believe that many Hispanic individuals protesting for open borders and waving flags of another nation might be illegal, especially if there is a large community of illegal immigrants in the area. Perhaps in both instances the assumption is wrong, but that does not mean the individual is a racist.
Just as not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims; not all Hispanics are illegal immigrants, but most illegal immigrants are Hispanic. That is not racist to point out that fact. It’s just examining the reality. We do ourselves a disservice in our country by refusing to do that in many cases.
I also am not trying to whitewash the sins of many who oppose this bill. Some may indeed be racist. Living in the South, I know about it all too well. But it is not correct to simply dismiss the opposition to this bill as rooted in racism. While some on the extremes may be that, the vast majority of people oppose this bill based on logical reasons.
There are crazies on both sides of this debate. I would rather not debate the logical people who support this bill based on the crazies of their side, just as I’d rather not have to answer to the idiocy of racists who also happen to oppose this bill, but for completely different reasons.
seeker, didn’t mean to ignore your comments just that as you said we agree more than Keith and I do.
I agree that the ominous current system for citizenship is partly to blame, as is the horrible state Mexico has put itself in. I do not doubt all those things, but we have to deal with the current situation.
Some are like your family and those need to be handled in completely different fashion. But not everyone is like that. Not all illegal (or legal) immigrants want to assimilate. What do we do if half the 20 million or so don’t want that? We have 10 million people who want to benefit from our country but do not want to be a part of it. That presents a problem.
I’ve lived in an apartment complex filled with most illegal immigrants in an area of town that had more Spanish signs than English. Many were decent hard working families. Others were…not. I personally know some great people who are illegal immigrants. But again, I know some who are criminals and thugs. Some wanted to come to America and succeed as an American of Hispanic decent. Others wanted to come to America because the pay’s better. Those want all the benefits of a citizen with none of the sacrifices that others faced and could care less about the future of this country as long as they keep getting their paycheck.
We have to set up some time of system that addresses both the good and the bad, not just one side. While many on the right want to ignore the good, others like President Bush seemingly want to ignore the bad.
The system should also make sure that the border is closed. it is impossible to continue to assimilate a mass influx of one people group – ask France. Regardless of how peaceful the people may be, if millions of people of one group come in around the same time, they tend to set up ghettos of their own culture, language, etc. It’s the common human reaction – when in a new area associate with those like you. However it is detrimental to their improvement and assimilation in America and to us as a nation – we do not want to end up balkanized.
We can’t just pass a piece of legislation because it’s the best of a bad crop, when the unintended consequences could led to utter chaos in southwestern states (even southern states – SC has a huge population of illegal immigrants). Everything may work out fine, but lots of people have serious, logical, reason-based issues with the bill as it stands currently. We should debate this huge bill as a nation and in the Congress. Let the light of critical debate work on all the hidden add-ons and cryptic language. We would all be better off for it.
but when they are used to avoid the question while giving the appearance of an intelligent, if not patronizing answer, I most certainly do get disgusted.
Seeker, look who's calling the kettle black? You do this more times than I care to mention. If I did a google, I could find 100's of examples of this on your end.
Oh, I did answer the question. Obviously you are just not able to see it or you just can't grasp how my answer relates to the question you have asked.
I give up. There is just no point in trying to have detailed political or social policy discussion with you in this arena. For now on I will just dispense the Happy Meal answer that you have shown to just prefer.
– s
Hi Aaron:
Before I forget: thanks for discussing things with me.
You wrote: Keith – we can't deal with territorial issues that have long since been settled. The US owns California and all the other southwest states. I would tell Mexicans worried about that the same thing I tell Southerners complaining about similar issues for the Southern states – get over it. That has been decided long before any of us were born. No one should be able to use the past (several hundred years in the past) to break current law.
But Aaron, I am not suggesting fixing the unfixible territorial issues. I am suggesting the considering those issues is essential to the question of the fairness of immigration quotas. I didn't actually defend law breaking. My questions were about whether or not the current immigration law is unjust. Questions about whether or not a law is fair cannot be answered by pointing out that the law is the law. You brought up the fairness issue. If your argument is about the importance of enforcing whatever laws are on the books, my questions about terriroriality aren't as relevant.
You did not answer my questions though about your attitudes toward nation states. I did not mean to bring them up in order to discuss them, but rather to better grasp where you are coming from in this issue. Because if you desire to remove national borders then no amount of appealing to any type of national sovereignty will do any good. I must adjust my language and reasoning depending on my audience.
I'm sorry; I didn't see that you asked me anything about my view on sovereignity–I suppose your comment about the North American Union was meant as that question. My opinion? I don't believe there is any inherent national sovereignity. I believe that God is sovereign and when it comes to human institutions I have a vague sense that some kind of vague combination of individual and collective democratic sovereignity is the ideal. No nations, just us working together to help each other realize our dreams (platitudes, platitudes:-). But as practical matter I don't think we should abolish nations just yet. And nations should enforce their laws. But there are times when moral discretion ought to determine what actions we can take to enforce those laws (for example we ought not deport the parents of children who are citizens or who have lived nearly their whole lives in the US; that would be to remove an innocent child from his home).
Keith it is not racist to say that the vast majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic. Heck, seeker who supports this bill uses the term "Mexicans" when in reality it deals with more than those from Mexico but also Latin and South American. If I see someone who looks Hispanic then I don't automatically assume they must be illegal. Just as I don't assume someone who looks Muslim must be a terrorists.
Then you aren't one of those who I was talking about. There is a difference between noting that most of those who immigrated here illegally are Latino and assuming that a large group of Latinos in a protest are mostly here illegally. It's that latter that reflects racism; the former just means you have a working knowledge of the demographic facts.
your Friend
Keith
What do we do if half the 20 million or so don't want that? We have 10 million people who want to benefit from our country but do not want to be a part of it.
Well, I don't think the numbers are like that, but basically, we make English the language of government and education. And if they want to follow their own laws (like Shariah law that allows you to beat your wife), we tell them that's no good, and if they beat their wives, there are civil penalties. They must obey the laws of the land.
The system should also make sure that the border is closed.
Agreed, but we need to do that in concert with these other efforts.
We can't just pass a piece of legislation because it's the best of a bad crop, when the unintended consequences could led to utter chaos in southwestern states
True, but neither should we wait for some mythical perfect legislation – I guess the question is, is this legislation good enough and moving in the right direction?
Let the light of critical debate work on all the hidden add-ons and cryptic language. We would all be better off for it.
No argument.
And Silver, you may give up in disgust, but quite humorously, you STILL did not plainly answer my question, except to say that the answer is so complex that you can't answer it!
What is motivating Bush to go against his party on this issue? It's a mystery that you did not even remotely address. Let me show you what kind of simple answer I expect.
1. Bush's wife is of Mexican descent and he is trying to make her happy (just made that up).
2. Someone with money or power has his ear and is steering him that way (if so, who?)
3. Bush is trying to appease Democrats on this one so that he can get other things, like his Iraq bill, through congress (too late, he already got it through)
4. It's part of a ploy to win the swing voters in the next election.
5. Bush has his own convictions about this, and realizes that the hardline right is wrong on this issue.
Seeker,
On the contrary, I give up because as a friend I hold you in contempt for your constant inability to truly understand how the political system in this country works.
Basically, if it doesn’t fit into your Happy Meal explanation, it just doesn’t answer your predefined notion of what the true answer to a question is,
I know you to be an intelligent person, but in all other settings including posts on this blog I find you constantly grasping at the quickest and most expedient way of explaining something.
Perhaps I am the one being the elitist, but it is quite clear to me that you are far out of your depth in understanding the nuances of immigration and social policy at the Federal Level.
Maybe that is due to a lack of time, a sense of lazyness, or mere reliance on sources that map to your predefined notion of what things are, who know. Nevertheless, I hold you in contempt (and I generally like you).
-s
you STILL did not plainly answer my question, except to say that the answer is so complex that you can’t answer it!
No Seeker, it is simply the fact that you are clearly multi-tasking and blogging from work in a situation where if you actually took the time to read (not skim) you would find an answer.
I have provided my nuanced and detailed take on Bush’s motivations. You clearly were busy on IM at work on in a meeting when you skimmed my reply…just like you do with others.
As for humor, if you want an answer you can skim, go to McDonalds and read the menu. That would be funny. Politics is not about simple answers.
If everything was easily explained the country would run itself without a Congress. Until then, I suggest you start paying closer attention to the nuances of the policies you care about…including immigration.
So, your skimming and Happy Meal desire for short bulleted answers is just making me laugh on the floor. I know you are smarter than that.
-s
Ok, can anyone parse Silver’s posts to tell me what he thinks GWB’s motives are, since he likes being obtuse, er, mysterious?
The best I can figure is that he thinks that GWB sees the passage of such a bill as an eventuality, and wants to get credit for it even if his party is against it. Something like that. But why he wants credit, since he’s not up for re-election, is beyond me. Just to feel good, maybe? I think it’s because he has reasoned about it himself and is taking a personal stand.
But why he wants credit, since he's not up for re-election, is beyond me. Just to feel good, maybe?
Seeker, here's a McDonald's fast food answer for you, and it is two words:
Any more detail than that would be probably "too obtuse" for you.