« Arizona Governor mocks the Obama administration | Main | Et Tu, Hillary? »

The Real Racists

As the debate gets ignored by the Left, it's time that Conservatives made it clear who is really holding racist beliefs. It's as simple as noticing what each side is demanding:

Conservatives simply want the law enforced regarding immigration and border crossing. There are long-standing and clear statutes on the books about what you do if you want to enter the United States, what you have to do to live here legally, and what you have to do to become a citizen here. The Conservative position is, and has always been, that anyone who is willing to obey the laws and become part of the greater America, contributing their talents to help themselves and their family and the USA all at the same time, is welcome to join this nation and succeed. Only those who wish to steal, to harm, to tear down or attack the United States by rejecting and defying its laws are to be barred. The Conservatives' hope for immigrants, whether Latin, Black, Asian, White, or any race or culture, is that they will prosper and grow, that their culture will enjoy free expression and their individual identity will be preserved while becoming part of the American identity. Immigrants should be able to reach whatever goal they desire, so long as they do so under the same laws and with the same opportunity as any other member of the community. Lawyers, doctors, accountants, scientists, political leaders, religious leaders, writers, whatever road they choose to walk, immigrants should have the same opportunity and requirements.

Liberals, on the other hand, seek to repress immigrants. When Liberals speak of immigrants as a demographic, they speak of immigrants taking jobs 'that Americans won't do' (which happens to be a lie). They speak of migrant workers and unskilled labor. They speak of menial positions and the complete absence of authority or rank. To Liberals, immigrants in the main are work fodder, not to be considered as individuals or competent to pass the requirements that ordinary people can handle. The Liberals may argue that they are protesting the conditions which apply to illegal immigrants, but the objective observer will note that Liberals never offer a way out of poverty to illegals. Liberals expect illegals to work at hard, low-paying jobs, they want illegals to be denied entry to truly professional work in the main. The proof of this is the fact that no Liberal politician in Congress or the White House has moved to change the laws on immigration in a generation, and even now the sum effect of what Liberals want, is to leave things just as they are.

It is the Liberal, not the Conservative, who wants to keep his illegal, low-paid, nanny. It is the Liberal, not the Conservative, who wants to keep his home costs down by using illegals on the construction site in place of qualified, responsible workmen. The Conservative wants illegals to return to the system, to go through an admittedly imperfect and difficult process to obtain legal papers, but after doing so that immigrant is free to rise in American society. Becoming a legal resident allows an immigrant access to their full legal rights to fair pay and benefits, to start a business openly and grow through the success of their efforts, to obtain degrees and licenses to prove their knowledge and skill, and so to gain financial and personal freedom and prosperity.

Liberals are the racists in this issue. Let's never back down from that fact.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39143.

Comments (54)

Back when I was blogging, I... (Below threshold)
fustian:

Back when I was blogging, I wrote a related piece that I can't help sharing:

So why are so many alarmed by the current situation anyway? I mean, what's really so bad about having cheap lawn care?

There are lots of reasons really.

The first reason is that it isn't fair to the Mexican people. Mexico is in such bad shape because it's corrupt. It has plenty of arable land, it has plenty of natural resources including oil. It has hard-working people and it has beautiful scenery. If they could just straighten out their government even a little bit, all the ingredients are there for a really terrific place.

But sending American money to Mexico just prolongs the problems of Mexico. They may even make them worse.

And the Mexicans that live in the US illegally become a sort of permanent underclass. Current immigration policy (or lack of a policy more like) is not fair to them.

I have to say I am also alarmed that so many of the illegal immigrants that come here do not come here to join up with us. Seems to me that pretty much the minimum we should expect from an immigrant is that they are here because they want to be a full-fledged American. Why do we want to allow people to stay in this country that do not support it?

Certainly if I should find an enemy in my house, I would insist that they leave. Why is our country not allowed the same option?

There are arguments that we will not be able to afford housing or food without allowing employers to use cheap illegal labor. As a coworker pointed out to me, these are pretty much the same arguments advanced by slave owners before the Civil War, and that's a side I don't think I want to be on.

And even if you're cold hearted enough to not be troubled by this new kind of slavery just so long as your lawn is mowed cheaply; even as a matter of pure economics, I bet illegal labor is no savings.

We still pay.

We pay the government to provide services to illegals that do not pay taxes. We pay increased medical costs to support the illegals that show up at our emergency rooms every day and never pay. And we pay increased taxes to support those people on welfare that are unable to earn a living wage because entry level jobs are taken up by illegal workers who allow themselves to be exploited as almost slave labor.

Illegal immigration is a tax we pay so that fat cat employers can get richer.

We need to stop this madness.

And the first thing that has to be done is to make it unattractive to those that consider coming here illegally.

There need to be disincentives.

One simple disincentive is the knowledge that if your illegal status is uncovered, you are immediately fined and deported.

And you know what? I'll be wiling to bet that we don't have to catch every single illegal to get the word out that the game has changed.

We need to put teeth into laws that punish employers for hiring illegals.

And we do not educate people that are not citizens and do not pay taxes. What kind of nonsense is that?

If potential illegals knew that they were unlikely to get work here, that their children couldn't go to school and that they themselves were subject to fines and imprisonment for being in this country illegally, my guess is that fewer people would try to come here.

Even if you aren't worried about what many believe to be a virtual invasion of our country by anti-American Aztlan types, there are other reasons to get control of our borders. Surely, since 9/11 one has to wonder about the sanity of a country that ignores its border security. This is negligence bordering on criminal. In fact, it's so wrong-headed that you have to wonder if the fix isn't in? I can't help but wonder just how much drug money is invested in keeping our borders insecure.

Because I just can't think of any reason for our own government to be so committed to the idea of border insecurity. Can you?

It just doesn't add up.

"If they could just straigh... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"If they could just straighten out their government even a little bit, all the ingredients are there for a really terrific place."

It's a RACIST! country. Run by and FOR the "Catalans".

The sad part of this whole ... (Below threshold)
Stan:

The sad part of this whole mess is not the people, it is the culture that they have lived with all of their lives and the lives of their ancestors. Why do I say this, one may wonder? Simple. It goes back all the way back to when Spain took the area known as Mexico by force back in the 16th Century.

The Spanish were a very haughty and aristocratic people, with all of the land belonging to the titled Lords and the Kings, who were absolute monarchs. By this, they ruled by decree and the peons did not have any say in the way they were treated. The Spanish especially used the army to put down any kind of revolt.

They brought this mentality to the new world and decreed that all government offices were to be held by Spanish men that were appointed by the King and no Creole (a person that was not born in Spain) was to hold office, but they could own land. Oh btw most of the people that held these offices were often very corrupt and used the office to line their own pockets.

Mexico of today has not changed much in the last 400 years. The rich still control the land and the resources and the peon still gets the shaft. Anyone that tries to change the system is branded an outlaw (Pancho Villa and others) and are hunted down. The only time Mexico was a semi-free nation where the people had a say, was when Benito Juarez was in power and the only that happened is because Mexico kicked the French out.

The whole country of Mexico was ours for the taking after the Mexican-American war, but Congress did not want anything to do with Mexico. We are now paying the consequence of that blindness.

DJ: I would argue with you... (Below threshold)
James H:

DJ: I would argue with you to the extent of "always." If we look back at the history of immigration sentiment in this country, there are elements (on one side of the political spectrum or another) arguing that members of one national group or another should be excluded in order to protect an existing group's jobs here in the US.

What radical Liberals want ... (Below threshold)
BlueNight:

What radical Liberals want is for a wave of fifteen million foreign nationals to be suddenly granted the right to vote in America - and to be the ones that made it happen, all in the name of compassion. They're trying to tweak the metagame of American free democracy not by changing the minds and hearts of the existing population, but by changing the population.

Why would radical Liberals want undereducated city-dwellers (migrant farm workers are a smokescreen) who don't speak English well? Because the illegals are people who fled their own countries instead of changing them; they've already proven themselves resigned to imperfect governments and living beneath the notice of the law. And without good communication skills or education, they're likely to be stuck in a tribalist or patrician mindset, and unlikely to be convinced that Conservatives have their best interests at heart and unions don't.

This new voting bloc would guarantee them electoral votes and congressional seats for generations, and a culture shift toward tribalism which (modernist) Conservatism cannot survive.

The 'immigration problem' i... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

The 'immigration problem' is not systemic to the US. Other countries face the same problems, with both legal and "illegal" workers. They are there for economic reasons only. They are not there TO MIGRATE and ASSIMILATE. (And there are several countries that quite frankly don't want them to assimilate). Those people are there to earn money and send it home.

As BlueNight points out, th... (Below threshold)
914:

As BlueNight points out, the tyranical radical libs are trying to lock up an illegal voting block. Its the way they do things, ILLEGALLY! I guess all the dead votes are no longer enough for them.

"I guess all the dead votes... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"I guess all the dead votes are no longer enough for them."

With the fragmentation of ACORN, they're having a hard time digging all those folks up in order to vote.

I will disagree with the th... (Below threshold)
jim m:

I will disagree with the thought that because libs want to keep illegals in low wage jobs that they are racist.

Libs want to keep everyone in low wage jobs. Just look to "shovel ready jobs" Barry who said, "At some point you've made enough money". Libs see themselves as being in charge and the rest of us digging ditches for them. They want everyone in crappy low wage jobs so they can "Keep the boot one their necks".

It's not race. It's totalitarian hate of the people they desire to rule over.

I disagree with you a bit S... (Below threshold)
Deke:

I disagree with you a bit Stan. I think it's a bit more basic and comes dwn to a comparison between 2 individuals, one Antonio Lopez de Santa Ana and George Washington.

Both were popular generals, eleceted democratically by the people after leading expulsions of European monarchies. They both had the absolute support and control of the only standing armies of their countries and could have forced anything upon the emerging democracies.

The choices the 2 men made has effected their respective countries to this day. Washington stepped dwn peacefully, gave control of the army to a civilian, elected governement and supported Democracy to his dieing day. Santa Ana declared himself dictator, then emperor, gaining the support of the wealthy on the backs of the lower classes. What would our country be like if Washington had accepted the offer of becoming king? How about if he brought his army to Philadelphia and declared himself dictator and the end of a muskett?

Both countries had their chance for democracy and greatness, America was blessed that our leaders were selfless men, bent upon a new direction, one in which the "opportunity" for greatness was only impeded by the individuals desire for it.

Mexico is so far gone, I have no clue what the solution might be, but blaming the Spanish and their system is def not one of them.

"blaming the Spanish and th... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"blaming the Spanish and their system is def not one of them"

Ah, but Deke, the "Spanish" are still there. The Catalans run the government. Go into any 'status' bar in Mexico City. If everyone remains silent, the people would fit right in with any tony bar in NYC. When people say "Mexican" to put a RACIST! face on it, they're picturing the 'mistizmos' (mixed race of ethnic and European ancestry). The Peons are given some control...but not enough to let it go to their heads.

Correct GF, been to Mexico ... (Below threshold)
Deke:

Correct GF, been to Mexico City many, many times, but the same could be said here too, the old "Blue-Blood" Presbyterian/Anglicans that have been around since the Revolution, still have alot of control over large segments of the U.S. economy. If Washington had made "deals" with them for financial support of his dictatorship we might of ended up a 2 class, 3rd world Banana Republic too..who knows?

The difference is that our founders, led by Washington, insured a society where hard work and risk would pay off rather than just your family anscestory being the determining factor.

When Santa Ana had that opportunity, like almost EVERY person in history, he took the selfish way out and Mexico and now with the Facists in charge the U.S., is suffering from those choices

"the old "Blue-Blood" Presb... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"the old "Blue-Blood" Presbyterian/Anglicans that have been around since the Revolution"

Hee hee. Ya mean the guys from Yale and Harvard?
:)

Last couple years I've been maintaining that's grounds for disqualification from public office.

Again Mr Drummond offers us... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Again Mr Drummond offers us an article asserting as fact that which is merely his opinion.

In the Bizarro Parallel Universe in which Mr Drummond apparently lives, where liberals are selfish racists and conservatives are interested in someone else's welfare, I suppose it makes sense.

But I'm gonna have to disagree with Mr Drummond's "fact" that "no liberal politician in Congress or the White House has moved to change the laws on immigration in a generation, and even now the sum effect of what liberals want is to leave things just as they are." (I omitted the gratuitous capitalization of "liberal" and the unnecessary comma, Mr Drummond. You're welcome.)

I believe the name of the last attempt to change immigration law was "McCain-KENNEDY". Am I wrong? Was Ted Kennedy not a liberal? And who fought that bill like fanatic Samurai warriors? Was it liberals? Or was it conservatives?

Now, McCain-KENNEDY wasn't a great bill, I'll grant you, but I'm prety sure a liberal had something to do with an attempt to change existing law.

"McCain-KENNEDY wasn't a gr... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"McCain-KENNEDY wasn't a great bill, I'll grant you...."

That's awful BIG of you, Bruce. Some 60+% of American citizens also thought it sucked, IIRC.

Wasn't it because it was short on REFORM and more about AMNESTY? From the same folks who said in 1985 'There will be no more amnesty, we will secure our borders!'

So, how do you suppose Mr D... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

So, how do you suppose Mr Drummond defines "generation," Mr Fan?

1986 might be more than a generation ago, I suppose, but 2007? And he is factually wrong on his assertion either way, HOWEVER one feels about McCain-Kennedy, isn't he?

So, how do you suppose Mr D... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

So, how do you suppose Mr Drummond defines "generation," Mr Fan?

Why not ask him?

"And he is factually wrong on his assertion either way, HOWEVER one feels about McCain-Kennedy, isn't he?"

???

THe only attempts to change... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

THe only attempts to change existing immigration law a liberal will make is to try to eliminate it or legalize illegality. And that Immigration(Read: Amnesty) bill is probably squarely the reason we eventually got president Obama, as that turned off so many republicans - And independants - to McCain.

And again, Ryan, that is op... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

And again, Ryan, that is opinion asserted as fact.

Mr Drummond stated that "no liberal in Congress or the White House has moved to change the laws on immigration in a generation." Whatever your opinion of McCain-Kennedy, that statement is factually untrue.

Was it a lie?....I wouldn't characterise it as such. No, I think it was just another case of Mr Drummond electronically shooting his mouth off without verifying his facts.

Also, Ryan, what are you, DJ's little brother?

Hey Bruce, what are you, Le... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Hey Bruce, what are you, Lee's little brother?

ANd please, show me ONE dem... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

ANd please, show me ONE democratic effort to actually make the immigration laws tougher - really tougher - and that doesn't include amnesty?

Read: ILLEGAL immigration ... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Read: ILLEGAL immigration laws. As in "Enforcement of consequences for illegally crossing the US border and residing and working here illegally"

And if Mr Drummond had clai... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

And if Mr Drummond had claimed what you're claiming, Ryan, you might have a point. "Might" being the key word there.

But that's NOT Mr Drummond's claim. His claim was that no attempt was made by any liberal to change existing immigration laws for the last generation. That is simply not so.

He further claims that it is liberals who wish to maintain the status quo, when it was CONSERVATIVES who fought the last attempt to change existing law tooth and nail, thus preserving...anyone?...anyone?...the status quo!

Ryan, go ask your big brother to fight his own fights. You're not doing a very good job fighting them for him.

So, the Liberals have respo... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

So, the Liberals have responded at last, and how very weak is that response! The reader may note that the Liberals have not even tried to address the main contention of the article, that Liberals do not want to change, much less improve, the lot of immigrants coming to America - they are quite happy to have a discontent underclass, since that plays into the Liberal strategy of class warfare and their own racist dogma. Instead, they have attacked my contention that no Liberal leader in a generation has changed the law regarding immigration. They do not realize that their own response proves my major points.

'Change' very obviously means different things to Liberals and to Conservatives. Liberals are quick to point to any meaningless bill, resolution or proclamation which they can claim serves their point, no matter how devoid of substance ,but Conservatives look to actual effect. The facts are these:

* More illegals than ever are entering the United States;
* Illegals are not encouraged by Liberals to obey the law now more than in the past;
* As a demographic, Illegals are no better educated nor financially secure than were illegals a generation ago;
* Liberals are no more supportive of enforcing existing immigration law than in the past;
* The sum effect of Liberal emphasis in the past generation has been to ignore or defy teh law, never to enforce it.

The reader should make note that no Liberal has been able to claim otherwise on these points, nor has any even tried here. The plain fact is that Liberals' strategy and tactics for decades has been and remains to ignore and obstruct enforcement of all border security and immigration laws, and therefore they cannot claim to have changed any of those laws, anymore than a car-jacker can claim to have changed the laws on street crime.

All you have done, gentlemen of the Left, is to prove my major point. Once again.

You are right, of course, M... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

You are right, of course, Mr Drummond, that I have not attempted to change your opinions as to liberals vis a vis immigration. I simply pointed out that your article is simply assertion - your opinion - and not necessarily fact.

As you have not attempted to back up your claim that "L"iberals wish to maintain the status quo with any verifiable facts, I see no reason to try to change your mind. You believe what you believe; apparently, evidence is not necessary.

As for how conservatives address immigration issues vs how liberals address them, I must pose a question: When conservative Republicans held a majority in both houses of Congress, and the Presidency, did they make any attempt to change existing immigration law? Even immediately after 9/11, what measures were introduced in Congress to secure the border and reform immigration law by conservatives? I mean, aside from the "fence?" How did that address the issues of educating immigrants or making them more financially secure, or helping them to assimilate?

Your article, sir, including especially its title, is just more of the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument so prevalent on conservative sites.

And seriously, Mr I-Was-An-English-Major, there is no need to captalize "liberal" or "conservative." In this country, they're not proper names.

"When conservative Republic... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"When conservative Republicans held a majority in both houses of Congress, and the Presidency, did they make any attempt to change existing immigration law? "

I think you may recall how many of us were pissed off at George Bush for his "They're doing jobs American citizens won't do." The argument then wasn't about CHANGING the law. The argument was about not ENFORCING the law. You know, like they PROMISED.

"I mean, aside from the "fence?" How did that address the issues of educating immigrants or making them more financially secure, or helping them to assimilate?"

Bruce, that's BULLSHIT! That has nothing to do with addressing ILLEGAL immigration. ONLY ENCOURAGING IT.

How many conservative locals have proclaimed themselves "Sanctuary Cities"?

Your problems, Bruce, conti... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Your problems, Bruce, continue to include reading comprehension. The distinction you miss - accidentally or because it proves the dishonesty of the Left - is that Conservatives believe the law will work if enforced, while Liberals defy enforcement of the law. So for Conservatives the solution is enforcement, while - if they were honest - Liberals would seek to change the law they find offensive. So when a Conservative votes to keep the law but to enforce it (President Bush more than doubled the budget for Border Patrol and ICE enforcement), he is being honest and consistent, but when a Liberal defies the law but refuses to change it, he is clearly choosing a dishonest course.

As to Capitalization, I merely observe the fact that Liberals are distinct from liberal positions (as a political class rather than a philosophy) and Conservatives are distinct from conservative positions (again, as a political class rather than just the philosophical position). That you fail to grasp this distinction explains your stupidity vis a vis the TEA Party foundations and political strategy.

But do keep posting. You do more to prove my point than thousands of words from me could accomplish on their own.

I'm sure your average Wizba... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

I'm sure your average Wizbanger feels that the law would work if only enforced, Mr Drummond, but your average Wizbanger is not the only one calling himself a conservative- or, if you prefer to continue in your error, "Conservative."

The problem, in my opinion, is that conservatives want to concentrate their enforcement efforts on interdiction and deportation. My position, as I have made clear on other threads, is that no one, conservative or liberal, seems to want to enforce laws regarding EMPLOYERS. It is the big employers of illegal immigrants, usually members of the US Chamber of Commerce (a conservative organization if there ever was one), who wish to maintain the status quo.

Now, why is that? So that they can continue to exploit a source of cheap, docile labor, that's why. And rubes can continue to sputter about border enforcement from now until the cows come home, but if there is no crackdown on employers, the flood will continue.

This "cracking down on illegals" thing is simply one more example of how conservatives are duped by big special interests. There is no more likelihood of meaningful border enforcement by conservatives than there is a balanced budget amendment or an end to legal abortions. It's simply an issue they trot out every so often to toss red meat to the mob. It's not gonna happen, no matter what laws are passed. Better to try and solve the underlying causes rather than deal with the symptoms.

"As to Capitalization..." S... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

"As to Capitalization..." Snicker. What's your rationale for capitalizing "Capitalization?"

And try to avoid the namecalling. It cheapens your arguments.

Ahem. You're still ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Ahem. You're still ducking the theme of the article, Bruce. Your poor comprehension of grammar aside, you have failed to even begin the defense of the Liberals' hypocrisy regarding the law. If the law is acceptable, you are wrong to oppose enforcement, but if the law is wrong, you are wrong to sit on your hands as you have done.

It's not 'name-calling', Bruce, it's simply proper identification.

"My position, as I have mad... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"My position, as I have made clear on other threads, is that no one, conservative or liberal, seems to want to enforce laws regarding EMPLOYERS."

Oh? Comments I've read from others would appear to indicate otherwise.

But suddenly it's ..........

"This "cracking down on illegals" thing is simply one more example of how conservatives are duped by big special interests."

Now it's just CONSERVATIVES who are 'duped'.
What happened to those 'liberals' who wanted the laws enforced?

BULLSHIT!

But see, Mr Drummond, liber... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

But see, Mr Drummond, liberals HAVE NOT "sat on their hands," as you assert. They supported McCain-Kennedy. It was conservatives who opposed this change in the law, thus preserving the status quo.

And I didn't say I opposed enforcement. (Who has problems with comprehension, again?) I said that meaningful enforcement would result from concentrating on employers, rather than the poor wretches who sneak across the border to do our worst jobs for our lowest wages. And that meaningful enforcement, as I define it, ain't gonna happen as long as conservative organizations such as the USCofC resist.

You keep saying that I am ducking your theme. Repeating something over and over does not make it true. Part of your theme, such as it was, is that liberals have not "moved to...change existing immigration laws in a generation." Either you forgot McCain-Kennedy, you define "generation" as less than 3 years, or you MEANT that no liberals have moved to toughen immigration laws, as your little brother attempted to argue in your defense.

But I fully expected you to assert that, because you didn't say what you apparently meant, that I had reading comprehension problems. Then to claim that I had made your point for you, and that I was a big stupidhead because I corrected your English. To which I can only say, "Whatever, dude."

"It was conservatives who o... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"It was conservatives who opposed this change in the law, thus preserving the status quo."

For some reason, the 'conservatives' I know want:
1) a secure border
2) punishment of those employing illegal workers
3) deportation of those found here ILLEGALLY and VIOLATING US laws - like immigration laws and identity theft.

You're like the person who knowingly buys stolen property. When caught, you want the thief punished. You want to go free. After all, you didn't STEAL the item you now possess. You just purchased it, knowing it was stolen.

The 'status quo' as you call it, is ignoring the problem, hoping it will go away.

Bruce, as a novelty, how ab... (Below threshold)
RYan:

Bruce, as a novelty, how about we concentrate on BOTH sets of lawbreakers, the ones illegally crossing the border AND the ones illegally employing them? It's not an either or proposition.
\

"It's not an either or prop... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"It's not an either or proposition."

It is for Bruce. You see ILLEGALS. Bruce sees future DEMOCRATIC votes.

Nuance.

Poor deluded Bruce. ... (Below threshold)
DJ Drummond:

Poor deluded Bruce.

1. What did Kennedy's bill change? Nothing of substance, ergo it was not change in fact.

2. What's the brou-ha on your side about Arizona's bill? Oh yes, it enforces the provisions in the Federal Law.

You remain the one in defiance of the facts.

Sucks for you.

Fixed your post for you.</p... (Below threshold)

Fixed your post for you.

Conservatives simply want the law enforced regarding immigration and border crossing, and not on employers....The Conservative position is, only those who are NOT employers should feel the effects of the law....Companies should be able to reach whatever goal they desire, even if that goal is to undermine the pay of actual US citizens.

Corporations, on the other hand, seek to distract conservatives with symbolic issues while continuing to screw the US workers by hiring and repressing immigrants....To corporations, immigrants in the main are work fodder, not to be considered as individuals or deserving of fair pay and working conditionsthat US citizens can handle. The Corporations may argue that illegal immigration is not their fault, but the objective observer will note that companies never offer a way out of hiring illegals. Corporations expect illegals to work at hard, low-paying jobs, they want illegals to be denied entry to truly professional work in the main. The proof of this is the fact that no corporation has moved to change the laws on immigration in a generation, and even now the sum effect of what corporations want, is to leave things just as they are.

It is the CEO, not the liberal, who wants to keep his illegal, low-paid, nanny. It is the CEO, not the liberal, who wants to keep his business costs down by using illegals on the construction site in place of qualified, responsible workmen. The liberal wants illegals to be part of a system that actually works for US citizens too, to go through an admittedly imperfect and difficult process to obtain legal papers, but after doing so that immigrant is free to rise in American society. Becoming a legal resident allows an immigrant access to their full legal rights to fair pay and benefits, to start a business openly and grow through the success of their efforts, to obtain degrees and licenses to prove their knowledge and skill, and so to gain financial and personal freedom and prosperity. Corporations would rather cut costs with an illegal workforce, and blame it on a fence rather than own up to their part in the equation.

Corporations and heartless CEO's are the oppressors in this issue. Let's never back down from that fact.

You're welcome.

And yes, Ryan, you're right... (Below threshold)

And yes, Ryan, you're right. It's not an either-or proposition.

The fact that no politicians of *either* party are telling the common-sense truth that employers are also guilty *and should also face real consequences*, should tell you how much big business runs BOTH parties...to the detriment of the America and the world.

This bill's utterly one-sided enforcement is yet another of many reasons why this bill is a joke.

"The liberal wants illegals... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"The liberal wants illegals to be part of a system that actually works for US citizens too, to go through an admittedly imperfect and difficult process to obtain legal papers, but after doing so that immigrant is free to rise in American society."

How many manage to go through this 'difficult process' each year? Over a hundred thousand?

So these ILLEGALS want to obtain LEGAL papers after committing an ILLEGAL act (and usually more than one to obtain a job).

Isn't that like letting a bank robber make a LEGAL deposit seconds after holding up the bank; then claiming "Hey! It's HIS money!"

Re # 36:What did K... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Re # 36:

What did Kennedy's bill change? Nothing. It was defeated by conservatives, thus preserving the status quo.

And you are still wrong to say, and I quote, "no liberal, in Congress or the White House, has moved to change existing immigration laws in a generation." Now, Kennedy's bill may have failed to pass, but it was still a "move" by a liberal to change existing immigration law, was it not?

And if it was such a meaningless bill, why did conservatives, you among them, get the hydraphobee when it was proposed?

That's what I find amusing about commenting on your pieces, Mr Drummond. You're just like Mallow: you refuse to back off an obviously wrong assertion by saying something like, "What I meant by that," or "What I should have said was...". Instead, you always double down, move the goalposts, and then claim that I lack comprehension skills, that I failed to address your "theme," and that you are victorious.

But I have to take my hat off to Jim X in comment # 37. That was excellent, sir.

"Now, Kennedy's bill may ha... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Now, Kennedy's bill may have failed to pass, but it was still a "move" by a liberal to change existing immigration law, was it not?"

IIRC, and I'm sure you'll point out where I'm not, McCain-Kennedy was about AMNESTY. NOTHING about changing the way someone applies for and becomes a US citizen. It was all about 'bringing people out of the shadows' and denied it was AMNESTY because they would have to pay a FINE and get to the end of the line. AMNESTY also carries the connotation that something WRONG was done initially.

How does that 'change existing law'? Unless you call circumventing EXISTING law, "changing it".

Since you're pining for att... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Since you're pining for attention, Mr Fan, I'll address your comment.

McCain-Kennedy may very well have been about "amnesty," as the conservative buzzword du jour had it, but it did indeed change "the way someone applies for and become a US citizen." The WAY it changed it was what conservatives were having hissy-fits about.

If you'll re-read the thread, Mr Fan, you'll notice that nowhere did I say I personally was in favor of McCain-Kennedy. I was simply pointing out who WAS in favor of "changing existing immigration law" and who was NOT.

"the way someone applies fo... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"the way someone applies for and become a US citizen."

Okay. HOW? I don't mean for those here ILLEGALLY. HOW did it propose to change the way one legally applies for US Citizenship? As opposed to current law?

IT DID NOT! It was all about those here ILLEGALLY.

I said nothing about your support for or against.

Again, Mr Fan, it was not m... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Again, Mr Fan, it was not my intent to debate the merits, or lack thereof, of McCain-Kennedy.

Mr Drummond stated that no liberal had attempted to change existing immigration for a generation. At first, there were no weasel words attached, like "of substance," or, "I meant ILLEGAL immigration."

He made a statement, I called bullshit, and he waffles. And you obfuscate and fail to read what is said in your haste to prove a liberal wrong.

Again, Mr Drummond said no liberal had attempted to change immigration law. That is factually false. He may not LIKE what liberals have attempted to do, but that's not what he said.

And he declares, without any evidence, that liberals endorse the status quo, when it was conservatives who have preserved it by their defeat of McCain-Kennedy. So, that's two flaws in his argument.

Since those two statements form the crux of his piece, his piece is simply another example, as I have said, of the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument that conservatives try to pull every now and then.

"Again, Mr Drummond said no... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Again, Mr Drummond said no liberal had attempted to change immigration law. That is factually false.'

That is YOUR interpretation, wanting; as you call it 'in your haste to prove a CONSERVATIVE wrong.'

You have not disputed that the proposed law had to do with ILLEAGAL'S and THEIR STATUS. It had nothing to do with changing the current process of acquiring US citizenship.

My interpretation of DJ's statement is in line with that last paragraph. "Mr Drummond said no liberal had attempted to change immigration law."

"Factually false"? OR Interpretation?

Sorry - it was dinner time.... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Sorry - it was dinner time. To continue:

"And he declares, without any evidence, that liberals endorse the status quo, when it was conservatives who have preserved it by their defeat of McCain-Kennedy. So, that's two flaws in his argument."

I suppose we could now argue over the meaning of "endorsement".

The liberals are obsessed with granting (pardon the word) amnesty to those currently residing ILLEGALLY in the US. They continue to do so; ignoring the MAJORITY public sentiment (notice no differentiation between liberal or conservative) of first securing the borders. Liberals are well aware their DESIRE for TOTAL AMNESTY is going nowhere, yet they persist. The American public no longer trusts politicians "promise" to secure the borders. (Fool me once, shame on me; fool me twice, shame on you; try and fool me a third time!)

Is this not then 'endorsing the status quo'?
After all, from a political point of view, they get to bash conservatives as anti-hispanic, and continue to pander to the hispanic vote. Looks like a win-win to me. So far, the 'status-quo' is working out very well for liberals.

Let's see, what party had a MAJORITY in both houses and had the White House and could have passed any law they wanted? Bueller? Bueller?

I don't think you will find... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

I don't think you will find too many here who would shed a tear if companies knowingly employing Illegal aliens got punished for it, so, thank you for the red herring, it was. . interesting.

Good God, it's hard to beli... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

Good God, it's hard to believe anyone could be so obtuse as you two, GF and Lil Ryan.

In the first place, GF, Mr Drummond said that no liberal had moved to change existing immigration law in a generation. He didn't qualify that statement in any way. Didn't say "toughen," didn't say, "change the way people apply for citizenship," didn't say, "except to grant amnesty." That sentence was FACTUALLY FALSE. Simple. It's not a matter of interpretation. He made a blanket statement, and it was FALSE.

Mr Drummond further claims that liberals (or, laughably, "Liberals"), wish to preserve the status quo. You, Mr Fan, have at least given some support to that idea, although it's all opinion-based. Mr Drummond offered us nothing but unsubstantiated assertion. And his assertion ignores the fact that the defeat of McCain-Kennedy PRESERVED the status quo. And who defeated McCain-Kennedy? Conservatives!

I get it, Mr Fan. You don't like amnesty, and you support the Arizona law. Fine. I'm not arguing with you. The focus of my comments was much narrower. It was calling Mr Drummond on his factual errors, which he refuses to acknowledge, because to do so would be to admit that his piece is an example of "I'm-not-a-racist-you-are" writing.

And Ryan, Little Buddy, I'm with you. Let's enforce the law on BOTH sets of lawbreakers. But let's see some meaningful enforcement on the employer side, and then see if this whole "papers, please" thing is even necessary. But if you think it's gonna happen, I suggest you might be naive.

The party you asked about, ... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

The party you asked about, Mr Fan? The one that had both houses and the presidency? That was the Republicans, from 2001-2007. seems like, after 9/11, they might have tightened up border security, huh? Think any Democrats would have opposed closing the border if it had been sold as aggressively as the Iraq War?

One last thing, Mr Fan.... (Below threshold)
Bruce Henry:

One last thing, Mr Fan.

McCain-Kennedy was 3 years ago, but if I remember correctly, it gave illegals already here a "path to citizenship" - what you call "amnesty." I confess it sounds a lot like amnesty to me, too. But, it DOES, INDEED, "change the way people apply for citizenship."

Unless you don't consider illegal immigrants "people." Is that your position, Mr Fan?

Bruce, your memory is highl... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Bruce, your memory is highly selective regarding who had control of both houses most recently. Here's a hint: Nancy was Speaker, Joey was President of the Senate. And, IIRC, Barry was/is in the White House.

The people who appear to be 'most concerned' about the status of illegals. In other words, the LIBERALS.

Unless you don't consider illegal immigrants "people." Is that your position, Mr Fan?

I'm surprised at you Bruce. Are you also going to ask "When did you stop beating your wife?".

Oops...sorry Bruce....shoul... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Oops...sorry Bruce....should have said Harry Reid was Senate MAJORITY leader. I try avoiding even thinking about Harry.

Well, as long as there are ... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Well, as long as there are democrats in charge there is zero chance anythign which woudl actually REDUCE the level of illegal immigrants will happen. . as the goal of democrats isn't securing our borders in any way. . .

Bruce:Yes, I think... (Below threshold)
Ryan:

Bruce:

Yes, I think that liberals would have opposed it. They have ALWAYS opposed it, Bruce. . .

ANd also 'having control' was a bit of a misnomer. They didn't 'have control' like liberals 'have control' now.

And for someone who rants about other people's facts being wrong, you claiming that in 2006 the republicans had control of both houses is a riot.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy