My husband and I watched Mitt Romney on Meet the Press today. My husband is not impressed by any of the candidates for President and today´s interview did not change his mind. At the end of the interview he said, "I will not vote for anyone who tries to pander to all sides of these issues." I agreed with him. I was particularly puzzled by Romney´s so called "hardline" on Immigration. After hearing then reading this portion of the interview, I am still puzzled.
"On immigration, Mr. Russert raised a 2005 Boston Globe interview in which Mr. Romney called proposals by Senator John McCain and others on illegal immigration that would have offered a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants “reasonable,” which seemed to contradict his hardline stance today.
But Mr. Romney said he had been careful to say in the interview that he had not endorsed any of the proposals that were out there and not had formulated his own policy, adding that he still believes the 12 million illegal immigrants already here should be allowed to apply for permanent residency or citizenship, provided they are not given a “special pathway.”
Mr. Romney also defended himself from accusations of hypocrisy on his tough rhetoric on the issue in light of the recent embarassing revelations that a yard service company he used at his Massachusetts home was found for a second time by the Boston Globe to be employing illegal immigrants.
He said that his son Tagg, now a senior adviser to the campaign, met with the owner of the company after the Boston Globe revealed a year ago that the company was using illegal Guatemalan immigrants and got assurances that they would henceforth make sure they were using only legal workers.
But in his initial statement after the company was found for a second time to be using illegal immigrants, Mr. Romney had seemed to imply that he had met with the company personally after the first incident.
“After this same issue arose last year, I gave the company a second chance with very specific conditions,” he said in a statement. “They were instructed to make sure people working for the company were of legal status. We personally met with the company in order to inform them about the importance of this matter. The owner of the company guaranteed us, in very certain terms, that the company would be in total compliance with the law going forward.”
What do you think?
Posts
101 comments:
Liquidmicro for Pres. in 2008!!
The Pres. can not pass any laws, Congress does that, the Pres just signs off on it. None of the candidates have said anything other than pander, thats what they do, thats all they do.
Someone on another site wrote down word for word (including hem haws) that Romney said on Meet the Press:
Romney: There's a set per--in my view they should be--they should have a set period during which period they, they sign up for application for permanent residency or, or for citizenship. But there's a set period where upon they should return home. And if they've been approved for citizenship or for a permanent residency, well, thy would be a different matter. But for the great majority, they'll be going home.
MR. RUSSERT: The children they had born here are U.S. citizens, so do the children stay here and the parents go home?
GOV. ROMNEY: Well, that's a choice, of course, the parents would, would make. But my view is that those 12 million who've come here illegally should be given the opportunity to sign up to stay here, but they should not be given any advantage in becoming a permanent resident or citizen by virtue of simply coming here illegally.
----------
I think Romney should clarify what he means above.
What does he mean when he says they "sign up" to be here -- do they then have to go home and get to the back of the real line, and what happens if and when they're approved for permanent residency?
Do they still have to return home and get to the back of the real line?
And by "real" line do they return to Mexico or wherever and get to the end, behind those who have been waiting (which presumably could take years).
This is all so wishy washy. It could mean anything either way, making me think he is just pandering to both sides and saying nothing.
Dee-
I saw this posted on another blog and wanted to share it with you since you have done a lot of thinking about this.
It seems to be a "fair" way to determine the level of immigration - a way to take the decision making power away from the elites and the powerful and put it in the hands of all citizens
____________
Here is a suggestion for a "Democratic" approach to allocating immigration slots:
Let citizens determine immigration policy by answering questions at the time of each ten-year census.
Each citizen (I suppose only citizens should be asked, citizenship is not a question I believe, in the current census; but the answer could be kept private.) is asked three questions:
(1) From what country would you prefer to have immigrants?
(2) By what percent would you prefer that the US population change in the next 50 years? (-5%, +1%, +6%, +17%, +28%, +39%, +50%, +60%, +72%)*
(3) Would you prefer that immigrants from your preferred country be selected by admission reason of:
o skills
o family unification of current citizens
o family unification of the just-admitted immigrant
o fear of persecution
o other (specify).
The answers to these three questions would be transformed mathematically as below into immigration policy which would reflect these preferences.
The number of immigrants for a particular country would be proportional to the number of citizens who selected the particular country.
The number of immigrants for each country who are admitted on the basis of a particular admission reason would be proportional to the percent of all citizens who selected that particular admission reason.
For example if 10% of US citizens preferred Mexico; and if 50% of US citizens preferred skills, 25% preferred family unification of current citizens, and 25% preferred family unification of just-admitted immigrants; then 5% of immigrants would be admitted from Mexico because of skills, 2.5% would be admitted from Mexico because of family unification with current citizens, and 2.5% would be admitted because of family unification of the just-admitted immigrant.
The percentage of each different skill to be admitted would be determined by the current administration.
The desired total percent would be the median of all answers to question (2); so half of current US citizens would want more, and half would want less.
The Census Bureau would use the resulting distribution of each type (country, admission reason) of immigrant, together with the predicted fertility of each type, to determine the total number of immigrants who could be admitted while meeting the desired total percent change in US population over the subsequent 50 years, assuming that the survey results would remain the same over the 50 years.
Should insufficient numbers who have a particular reason to fill a country's quota be available to immigrate, candidates may be picked on the most popular other reason for that country, and so on though other reasons for that country. Should there still be insufficient numbers of immigrants available for that country by the end of ten years; the remaining quota would be added to the overall quota determined by the next census for the next ten years.
For example if 1% of citizens favored immigration from Switzerland and if this translated to a quota of 100,000 over ten years, then if only 10,000 immigrated from Switzerland over the course of the ten years, then the total quota determined by the census ten years later for all countries would be increased by 90,000.
Various interest groups could engage in activism in advance of the census to encourage citizens to give answers which would favor countries and oppressed peoples of the activist's choice. For example, the religious or humanistic might prefer a country where people are suffering greatly and as a reason they might advocate that citizens answer in favor of that country and for the reason of persecution.
The quota of a country with many persecuted individuals could, by law, be increased, but at the expense of that country's quota in future years.
---------------------------------------------------
*These percentages are determined by the list of expressions: (LL, LL+D/2, LL+D, LL+2D, LL+3D, LL+4D, UL, UL+D, UL+2D) where LL is the percent change projected by the Department of the Census assuming zero immigration and the current fertility of citizens, UL is the Census projection assuming current levels of immigration and current fertility of citizens and immigrants, and D=(UL-LL)/5.
The assumption here is that it is fruitless to offer an option of growth which is below that projected for zero immigration and current fertility.
For example, for the example question above, if LL= -5% and UL=50% then the options would be (-5, 1, 6, 17, 28, 39, 50, 61, 72). If LL were 0, then the options would be (0, 5, 10, 20, 40, 50, 60, 70). If LL were +5% then the options would be (5, 9, 14, 23, 32, 41, 50, 59, 68).
Anon,
I saw this post over on Borjas blog. I visit there sometimes. He lets both sides discuss civilly, like I do. Robert Hume who posted this suggestion frequently posts on Borjas as well. Robert usually posts right of center, on the ANTI side. He and I sometimes chat. He is very intelligent, very civil and has thoughtful responses. I like him.
His suggestion of having an Immigration Questionnaire included in the Census in order to set Immigration Policy is interesting. Today, so called "Think Tanks" and partisan groups often participate in the creation of new bills. They tend to be slanted based on who presents the bill. The bill this summer (that failed) was a bi partisan effort.
Anon, I like the idea. It depoliticizes the problem to some extent by getting the pandering politicians out of the picture.
I would English-speaking as another criterion. The idea of quotas based on the existing population was a very good one, too bad some lame-brained politicians let it fall by the wayside. Not only wouldn't we have an immigration problem today but we would be able to spend more time on determining and satisfying our labor needs without penalizing those on the lowest rung of the economic ladder.
Ulty,
Are you saying you want to have another question re: English Speaking as another Question on the survey? Please don´t LEAP to criterion.
I love the hubris of that plan, it assumes that there are millions out there just waiting to come over, not just those from poor countries, and that every country is willling to send as many of it's citizens as we Americans want, not just those headed by stooges.
We're so great that we're in a position to special order our cheap labor.
Hey Mirror,
Welcome Back. Visit us more often! We miss you!
BTW, was it you that suggested I order ExMex - From Migrants to Immigrants by Jore Castaneda? If so, thank you! It is so informative. I am learning so much. It is connecting some dots for me, particularly around the matricular card and how those here receive them. I am going to dedicate a whole blog to this. I am on vacation the next couple of weeks so I can dedicate full time to my blog. I want to finish this book, reference the articles I´ve read about the Mexican Consulates that set up schools, other areas to provide these cards and the whole process. Castenada also talks about the daily flights in and out of MX. All very, very interesting. I will write more about it when I finish reading the book!
If it was you that recommended this book, THANK YOU!!
Oh, btw, Mirror, since you mention cheap labor. I saw this link on another site today.
For those worried about the middle class and the loss of American Jobs, it looks like you attacked the wrong immigrants (legal and illegal).
See this site.
Dee Says:
For those worried about the middle class and the loss of American Jobs, it looks like you attacked the wrong immigrants (legal and illegal).
If I remember correctly, this goes right along with your wished, doesn't it. You always agreed with Bob on the MATT board in regards to needing more employees, no matter skill level; Bob always said there needed to be more H-1B's and so did Mr. Gates, who you adamantly adored.
Does this then mean you are changing your position about IT??
Besides, this is just one of many reasons that immigration, both legal and Illegal, should be reduced.
Maybe this new read of yours is opening your eyes to some of the blindness you have been prone to.
Liquid,
Your coal is still coal.
What this means is, the more I study, the more I learn. As I learn more, perhaps my eyes are opening to the entire set of facts.
Knowing the entire set of facts may lead me to believe the problem is different than I thought and maybe the recommendations for solutions are different than what I initially believe when I had less information.
As I´ve said, I know believe there are three groups:
1. PRO
2. ANTI
3. Administration & Business
all with 3 different agendas.
all with different information from which they form their opinions.
I am still studying.
For example, this new book I am reading is also adding to what I thought I knew. As I continue to study and learn more, who knows what recommendations I have to offer next.
There are more then 3 of which you list, but I will let you learn of them yourself. Maybe you will then realize the many facets of politics and how they are against the will of the American Citizen. The pandering bear doesn't hail from China, it lives here in politics.
Give me the entire list that you know of.
I will study them and see if I agree.
Come on Liquid. Give a girl a break!
Naw, you are more than capable of learning as you go, the difference we may have is still the difference of opinion in the understanding of and what its all about.
You know the saying, "Let them march and protest in Mexico to make it better there." Study up on the reasons why that is said by the ANTI's, Castenada implies/mentions/talks about it in many of his essays.
Here are a couple of exerts from him.
"For Mexico, emigration has also served several purposes, some of them undeniably perverse … it has provided an 'exit' for those who could have a 'voice,' … thus helping to perpetuate the authoritarian nature of the Mexican political system."
"Mexicans in California also use many of the services financed by taxes - such as public schools, and public transportation and housing (when it exists) - more than most other segments of society."
"Second, … broad-scale undocumented immigration in California functions as a progressive income tax. … Because migrant workers' incomes are lower than those of virtually the entire rest of society, Mexicans in California pay less tax in relation to their income than others."
"The people who vote and bear the tax burden [in California] are also those who least use or consume the goods and services funded by taxes: public education, public health care, public transportation, government-funded job training and so on. Inevitably, these taxpayers want to pay less in taxes for things of little direct use to them, while those who do use them, pay little tax and don't vote in sufficient numbers to force the others to pay more tax."
Liquid,
I read your VDare references.
Hmmmm.
Not sure I agree with what Sailer or Castaneda are saying.
I am glad you gave me the link though. Since I am reading Castanedas new book, this does let me know he is a conceited blowhard and I have to read the book with a grain of salt.
I know there are bad guys in other countries with their own agenda Liquid. When I give my groups, I am looking at US groups. I guess I will keep reading to see if I see additional.
You know the one thing I am finding interesting in what I am reading is the marticular card and how they are distributed in the US. I am trying to figure out how this fits into the picture.
You are right. I probably need to study and figure this stuff out for myself. I will post new info on my blog as I learn more.
If you type :
Jorge Castaneda exerts
into a browser, it will come up with a lot of his essays, speeches and various other info on him. Some is from his other books, and finding info on those without having them directly in front to quote from, makes it a little harder as well.
At least you aren't as bullish any more about info as you once were, glad to see your mind is a little more open to listening and not so much in the OPEN BORDER PROPAGANDA with this one, as you were and have been in the past.
Dee,
I am for compassionate deportation.
Let me humbly suggest that there are three major groups involved in this debate
(1)pro
(2)anti
(3)businessmen who employ the unskilled and semi skilled
(4) businessmen who employ the high skilled
Dee, I think it is important to distinguish between the businessmen that employ the low and semi skilled and the businessmet who employ the high skilled
Obviously, the businessmen who employ the low skilled want massive immigration of people with low skilled. I don't think they really care if the immigration is legal or not, they just want tons of low skilled people in the US. These businessmen don't really care about whether microsoft can bring in high skilled people to do IT
Similarly, Bill gates and the businesses that want to bring in high skilled people don't really care about immigration of the low skilled. It doesn't impact their pocketbooks
I think this distinction is important to make.
I would humbly put on the table that in my opinion the US would be a better place with a more even distribution of income.
That means i want a desperate shortage of low and semi skilled workers. I would like to see the wages of the workers with low skills and moderate levels of skills go up 50%
At the same time, I would like to see wages of the exceptionally high paid people in our society go down.
I want a more even distibution of wealth.
Now, if the government gets involved and somehow tries to tax the very high earners and use the tax dollars to help the low earners, there are all sorts of problems. Many of the very high earners i believe will spend time on tax avoidance, or move to another country. So I don't want the government involved
To me, it is very logical encourage massive massive immigration of people who can come to the USA and immediately make lots of money. These people will contribute tax dollars and will also create competition for the people currently in the USA
To me it is very logical to allow no immigration of people that will come to the US and compete with the unskilled / semi skilled people here
If you want to see how my preferred immigration policy works, take a close look at Canada. In Canada, particularly Western Canada, there is a desperate shortage of low skilled, semi skilled people and as a result their wages are going up rapidly
I am not a socialist - i don't want the government involved in too many things, and i think the route to a small government is to have a more equal population.
Let me be blunt. There are many kids who don't have the academic ability to graduate from high school. These are good, hardworking kids of all races, and they just can't make it in school. I humbly predict that with my immigration policy, there will be such a desperate shortage of unskilled & semi skilled workers that a kid who drops out of high school will be able to get a job and make enough money to support a family.
Now let's look at how business will react to this. Well, bill gates and the people that mainly hire the high skilled won't really care too much. they are not going to fight this. It is the businessmen who make money employing the unskilled that will fight like hell - this will drive up their costs and shrink their businesses. Think about it - if you own five restaurants, and you have to double the wages of the people working in the restaurants due to labor shortages, you will raise prices. Fewer people will eat out. Your profits will go down.
Dee,
We have it within our power to create a more equal, more even society. a society where every American citizen, no matter how little academic ability he has, has the opportunity to earn a living wage. Perhaps a society a little more like Denmark's (without the huge government spending)
The path to that society must include little or no unskilled immigration.
The people who will fight hardest to prevent this are not La Raza, they are not the pro's - they are the businessmen that employ low wage workers today.
anon, don't you get it yet? This isn't about any of the things that you are trying to convince dee of. She has an agenda. It is about filling this country up with Hispanics. All the things you have suggested will not accomplish her ultimate goal and in fact will put a crimp in it. Wake up buddy, you aren't seeing the real picture.
Anon,
I agree with your breakout.
(1)pro
(2)anti
(3)businessmen who employ the unskilled and semi skilled
(4) businessmen who employ the high skilled
and would add
(5) politicians and media pandering to big business (they may employ low or high skilled)
I understand what you are saying about 3 and 4 differences.
Let me share something with you. I am in Business and do interact with those that hire 4. A few years ago, there were more H1B Guest Workers in this field. Now, it is strictly off shore outsourcing. With the latest technology and the advancement of global economies, there is no need for this work to be performed on site. I see a high rate of this work being outsourced to contractors who hire offshore. Therefore, I think we will see far less of 4) in the future.
I am curious what will happen next.
If the ANTIs are successful in their move to deport 12M, will the 3) business owners then create large farming communities in other countries. Mexico and other Latin countries have rich farmland. Over the last year and a half, ICE tells us we have significant decreases in illegal immigrants crossing the southern border. Small businesses are hiring fewer day laborers.
The end result will be most of these jobs being performed by Guest Workers and illegal immigrants will be performed in their home countries. The Sales Revenues and the taxes will be applied in their home countries.
I would expect the biggest negative impact will go to the small business owners and farmers.
I anticipate future labor shortages as the Boomers Age, but maybe more will retire south of the border, bringing added revenue to those locations. Perhaps a partnership with Mexico will be helpful.
With whatever happens in the future, one thing is clear. The Racial Profiling being performed by the likes of Sheriff Arpaio and others have to stop.
We all agree to Secure Border and Employer Sanctions and somehow the 12M here issue will be resolved, the PRO way or the ANTI way.
Agricultural workers only make up 2% of our workforce. Their spending power and taxes are nearlly insignificant in the grand spectrum of things. Since they are at the bottom of the pay scale whether they be here legally or illegally and probably don't have health insurance or pay enough taxes to cover the education costs of their kids, I don't see how we can lose by farming industry being allocated to other countries. It is a win for them and a win for us. Decreases our population size too. Another solution is to automate more.
You will see many baby boomers working well past retirement age because they can't really afford to retire. I don't see many non-Hispanic Americans retiring to Mexico in the future. Their children and grandkids are here and the culture and language is different than ours. The U.S. has been their home since birth. Some may do it but most won't.
As for the non-agricultural, blue collar jobs, by implementing the e-verify identification plan for employers, many illegals will leave on their own and employers will be forced to hire Americans for a fair wage. That money will be spent here, taxes collected and we won't have millions of dollars leaving our country in the way of remittances to a foreign country.
Anyone here in this country legally has nothing to fear from Sheriff Joe or any other law enforcement personnel as they would have valid I.D. If you choose to call it racial profiling, the concept of innocent till proven guilty still applies anyway.
My wife went yesterday and took her Citizenship test here in Sacramento, She PASSED. There were maybe 15 people scheduled for the morning interviews. Most were Hispanic, 2 were Russian, 2 were from India, and my wife from Portugal. When she finished, she was one of the last to be taken in, at least 4 of the 15 had failed, the test was verbal, asked a few questions in regards to history and government, she had to respond in English, read a few sentences in English and write a few sentences in English. At the end I asked the agent how applications were going, and his response was that there has been millions of new applicants since the failing of CIR. He also stated that 1/3 don't pass the test and that another 1/3 don't get processed because of improper documentation/lying on apps. They do run a full background check on you, they question you about it to verify your telling the truth, this also denies some of those that apply and make it to the citizenship interview. All in all, this has been a very easy process. If instructions are read and followed it is not very hard, wait the required 3 or 5 years (married or not), pay the fee, interview, and thats it. Her Oath is scheduled for January.
Its all word play, "racial profiling", "Heinous", "racist", "vast", 'Undocumented Worker", all used to soften the debate from the PRO side and point fingers to the other. Its all a game of words!!
Congratulations to your wife, liquid! If she is anything like you, she will make a loyal and patriotic citizen.
I am for compassionate deportation
I believe that La Raza's goals are different from Dee's
I believe La Raza wants a huge continuing influx of spanish speaking people. And i believe La Raza wants them to keep speaking spanish for generations to come.
However, I believe that Dee is in a different camp. I personally believe that if most of the undocumented were given citizenship in the USA, Dee would agree to an end to continued immigration. I also believe that Dee would like to see the children of the undocumented learn english.
So in my humble opinion Dee is in a very different category than La Raza. Doesn't mean i agree with Dee on all points, but it does mean that I don't think Dee wants what La Raza wants.
Now where do me and Dee disagree? Well, Dee wants a path to citizenship for the undocumented to be put in place FIRST, before forced deportation of the newly arriving undocumented starts. I personally can not go for this, since i suspect that once the current undocumented are put on a path to citizenship, that the deportations of newly arriving undocumented won't happen. I also feel certain that an end to the 14th amendment is a requirement in any resolution of this matter, and I don't think Dee feels strongly that the 14th amendment has to be repealed
So there are big disagreements between me and Dee
Now let's talk about my disagreements with the antis. I believe that there is racial profiling going on and I don't like it. I would like to see a settlement that moderates on all sides can agree with. And i would like as part of that settlement a group of spanish speaking law enforcement people, supervised by legitimate representatives of the latino community, to be in charge of tracking down newly arrived undocmented folks and putting them in to prison for hard time. I think that the average anti is not sensitive to the need to have spanish speaking people rounding up and putting in to prison and / or deporting the newly arrived undocumented. I think that most antis lack racial sensitivity. I want this done in a compassionate way.
When you have black cops on patrol in a black neighborhood, there just seems to be less of a problem than when you have white cops on patrol in the same neighborhood. This is just common sense.
Let me tell you, I am in favor of a spanish speaking American citizens handling the enforcement of the immigration laws in spanish speaking neighborhoods. Let's have a settlement, a compromise that all sides live with, and let's have it enforced in a compassionate but firm way by spanish speaking loyal American citizens.
This is *not* far fetched. Let me remind you that when the US was at war with Germany, there were some German spies in the US that thought they were safe among the German speaking US citizens. But the German speaking US citizens turned them in because they were loyal to the US.
If there is a compromise that is accepted by all sides, I personally trust loyal spanish speaking US citizens to enforce things.
I know that the hard core antis and I know that la raza will say i am crazy - but lets start getting ideas for a compromise on the table.
I am for compassionate deportation
Let me be clear in what i mean by that.
(1) a settlement of what to do with all the undocumented now living in the US
(2) as part of that settlement, a clear message sent to all those not in the US at this time - don't come to the US or you will be punished
(3) First time an undocumented person sneaks in to the US, a short prison sentence and then deportation
(4) Second time a very long sentence and then deportation
(5) Europeans that sneak in to the US treated the same as spanish speakers. Canadians that sneak in to the US treated the same as spanish speakers. No racial discrimination, Everyone that sneaks in to the US treated the same
(6) Spanish speaking US citizens play a big part in punishing and deporting spanish speaking people that sneak in
I am not a moron, I know that La Raza will not like the above plan and i know that the hard core antis wont like it either.
So what - i don't need to get elected - i can say what makes sense to me
Dee, I did recommend that book--although at the time it wasn't available, thanks for letting me know it was released ahead of schedule--and despite liquid's Castañeda quotes I would do it again, simply because you can never have too much information even if you don't agree with it. Liquid's mistake is that he gets those quotes from the looney bin that is vdare and wouldn't spend the time reading a book or even confirming or analyzing those quotes past what vdare did. For instance:
"For Mexico, emigration has also served several purposes, some of them undeniably perverse … it has provided an 'exit' for those who could have a 'voice,' … thus helping to perpetuate the authoritarian nature of the Mexican political system."
First of all, if he said these things he didn't say them on the article they cite. With this bit of information I shouldn't even have to defend this quote, but I will for a minute, just for fun.
*Since that article was written in 1995 these next couple of defenses are from that past point of view.*
Second, Castañeda knows that there are enough poor in México to overthrow the government peacefully with their vote, however, the elites have basically disenfranchised them. I'm not saying that they aren't allowed to vote, but when voting time comes they can be "influenced" to vote against their wishes, and some people in México have, unfortunately, given up hope.
Third, as Dee said, things change, new information presents itself, for instance; in 1995 the dominant ruling party in México, PRI, were still in power, since then they've lost twice.
As time has proven, immigration did not stop another political party from "overthrowing" the PRI.
"Mexicans in California also use many of the services financed by taxes - such as public schools, and public transportation and housing (when it exists) - more than most other segments of society."
Their source for this and following quotes doesn't exist. But even if it did, so what? This is the case with poor people in the U.S. in general, a fact that Castañeda acknowledges on his book "The Mexican Shock".
"Second, … broad-scale undocumented immigration in California functions as a progressive income tax. … Because migrant workers' incomes are lower than those of virtually the entire rest of society, Mexicans in California pay less tax in relation to their income than others."
This is the case with ALL poor people in the U.S....
"The people who vote and bear the tax burden [in California] are also those who least use or consume the goods and services funded by taxes: public education, public health care, public transportation, government-funded job training and so on. Inevitably, these taxpayers want to pay less in taxes for things of little direct use to them, while those who do use them, pay little tax and don't vote in sufficient numbers to force the others to pay more tax."
And yet again, this is the case with poor people in the U.S....
Speaking in general, why do people expect poor people to pay as much taxes as everyone else? That isn't the case, never was the case, nor will it ever be the case.
"I am glad you gave me the link though. Since I am reading Castanedas new book, this does let me know he is a conceited blowhard and I have to read the book with a grain of salt."
You should also take those quotes with a grain of salt, even if they're really his--which I wouldn't be surprised seeing as he is going to tell you his truth whether it's favorable or unfavorable to Méxicanos--they were taken all out of context and they were "sharply edited".
From what I've read of Castañeda he sympathizes and respects México's indigenous peoples--defended "Subcomandante" Marcos in Chiapas for example--, accepts that México is in a sad state of affairs, understands that emigration and immigration is both good and bad for both countries, and he worked hard to convince U.S. politicians to vote for the rejected immigration deal.
As for this new book, I thought it was going to be released in January, but I've ordered a copy and will try and read it next week.
Don't attack the messenger Mirror. I didn't down talk Castaneda, only referenced what he has said/implied in the past, as Dee says, "She may have to read him with a grain of salt", which is exactly what she should do, you as well.
The other point is to point out that her initial numerical 3 are actually more, and not just limited to our side of the border. One of her numbers should also include the Mexican Gov't and its Elites/businessmen.
The wife and myself say, Thank you, Pat.
So anon, no bells go off in your head when dee objects to "Official English"? No bells go off in your head when she says she doesn't want a fence? No bells go off in your head when she wants legalization for all 12 million illegals here? No bells go off in your head that she objects to employers being made to verify their employees legal right to work here? No bells go off in your head when she screams racial profiling and objects to the raids? Surely you can't be that dense, anon. Dee's agenda and La Raza's are exactly the same and that is to legalize all 12 million illegals already here and the objection to the fence is so that more will be able to continue to come here and she doesn't want English as our official language because it isn't the Hispanic language. You've been duped, anon. You are blind to Dee's bottom line agenda.
anon, another thing. Why do you keep calling illegal aliens "the undocumented"? Makes me suspect of you and your intentions in here.
Liquid, I agree, but I would add that we should take everything we read with a grain of salt, especially in controversial and complicated subjects like illegal immigration.
Just want to add this, even though I do a little bit of reading about Mexican politics I still don't feel I'm at all qualified to talk about them, even the easy stuff I talked about here.
I have relatives who can't stand Castañeda because he's an arrogant S.O.B. or because he supports a party they don't, or for whatever other reason, but so what? His point of view is one that is unique in that he is Mexican and he was "behind the scenes" during the immigration debates, rubbing elbows with those that decided what the bill would include and exclude.
Either way, I would recommend the book to anyone--even to you Liquid--, based on the thought that you can never have too much information, whether you agree with it or not--which I haven't decided yet myself.
Liquid,
Thank you for putting this into context for me.
I am so glad I have so many intelligent commenters with different viewpoints on my blog.
You do all help me. I am going to finish ExMex this week. I like his comfortable writing style and he does seem very open.
I will be writing a blog about his book next week.
I'm looking forward to that review Dee.
anon, one more thing. No bells go off in your head that dee objects to legislation changing the interpretation of the 14th Amendment, whereby one parent of a child born in this country has to be a citizen to gain birthright citizenship, even though I told her it wouldn't be retroactive? Come anon, the handwriting is on the wall. Dee wants a Hispanic majority population here in the U.S. It wouldn't have been accomplished as already projected either if not for massive illegal immigration in the past 20 years mostly from Mexico. She wants that flow to keep coming so that the projection becomes reality. Don't let her fool you, anon. There are a few of who have been posting in her blog for quite awhile and we know better.
He is Mexican in the since of being born in Mexico, his Identity is that of a mother who is German-Jewish and a father who is Spanish-European.
North American Cooperation
on the Border
Here is Castnaeda's speech to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations from July 2005. Its 2:25:00 in length, guess which Pres. Nominee was there and said nothing about it, yet stands almost word for word with what Castaneda asks for.
What exactly is your point in regards to Castañeda? So what if paternal great-grandparents were Spanish? Lots of Mexicans can claim that. His mother was Jewish, but I believe she was born in Poland, IIRC, that is one of the reasons why his presidential bid never got off the ground--both parents of the president must be Mexican.
In that speech he calls for; 1. Bringing the existing illegal immigrants out of the shadows; 2. A program that allows around 400,000 immigrants to work in the U.S. yearly; 3. The removal of Mexico and Canada from the immigrantion country quota system; 4. A joint border security initiative; and 5. A developmental program to raise the standards of living and employment opportunities for those Mexican citizens who live in the poorest part of the country.
Can't say much because i am typing one handed but the first thing i said to my was, "Romney was the most articulate and impressive of all of the politician that have appeared on meet the press. He had many difficult questions thrown at him regarding his flip-flops and he handled them as well as anyone could have under circumstances."
Flip-flops are the stock in trade of most politicians--remember that famous line ,...I voted for it before I voted against it" -- John Kerry.
Mirror,
I am a little sad by my insights of late, Mirror.
The more and more I study, I find the less and less I know. I start to understand that people like Lupita may have been right when she said that I was a gringo. Joel and me and all Mexican Americans are gringos.
I know that in order to understand the Immigration issues we are facing today, I know we know only need to understand our own History, but we must also understand the Global History, particularly here in the Western Hemisphere.
I know I have not studied Mexican history. I don´t know Mexican politics. I don´t know anything more than what the American schools have taught me. I have not read any works by Castenada prior to this month.
I know more recent legal Immigrants like you and your family are well versed in the politics and views of Mexico. I am not.
Prior to all of the angry Immigration discussions after the May, 2006 marches, I did not study Immigration policies or politics at all.
My relatives have lived in the US for 200 years. I never felt I had a need to know or understand any of these things. Then, last year, the marches happened and the era of anger and violence by ANTIs vs PROs began.
Why am I sad? All of my life I have been labeled a Mexican. Not American. Not Mexican American. Just Mexican. The schools and governmental forms may have said mark 5 for Hispanic or Mexican American, but the people in America always labeled me, my friends, my relatives and anyone like me as Mexican. I am not. I am an American. I am, as Lupita loves to say, a gringa.
I always knew I was American and I thought those that called me otherwise were misguided. However, as with Blacks, Native Americans, Asians and others, it has always been abundantly obvious to me that in America, I am a minority and I should somehow support other minoritites such as me.
So when all of the debates and discussions began, as I saw a degree of Racial Profiling occur, I felt the natural inclination to side with the PROs.
My father and mother always taught me to treat others as I want to be treated and to care about my fellow man.
As I learn more about the corruption of our own government and Mexican government and other governments in this global economy, my heart breaks.
What troubles me more is how those in power manipulate and control these discussions to the extent they silently promote the hate, anger and rhetoric of the ANTI extremists. It is clear to me the overzealous nature of this debate is condoned and supported by those in power. I question their relationship with ANTI leaders like Simcox, Gilchrist and Schwilk as well as media pundits like O´Reilly and Dobbs. There is a connection.
The Administration and Business do not seek resolution to the anger and violence. No. Instead they promote it. Why? So no bill will be passed and status quo continues. Status quo is in their best interest.
So I sit here. Sad. Troubled. Wondering what I can do, as a private citizen, to promote resolution to these issues.
I started this blog to learn. I want to learn as much as I can. Read as much as I can. I was always taught, "Seek first to understand, then to be understood."
I am reading Castaneda´s book. I want to study more on the Global Economy impacts. I want to learn more about the matricular cards and the relationship with the Mexican government and consulates.
I know that the history of immigration is an integral part of this discussion.
I do know a few things.
1. I am an American, regardless of what some say.
2. I know Racial Profiling and Detention Centers are wrong.
3. I know the Global Economy and the relation our government has with other governments is, at best, misunderstood.
4. I know our own country´s history of Immigration and constant latin migrant labor support has enabled us (in the USA) to achieve our current level of wealth and have been critical in enabling us to build our nation.
5. I know that with the current level of terrorism and violence in our world, there is a need for enhanced Border Security.
6. I know that there is corruption in government, ours, Mexico, Latin Countries, China and other countries.
I do think there is hope for our future. After all, I do believe in people.
Again, attacking the messenger, Mirror. I put the information out there for each to read and come to there own conclusion. Yes, his speech is almost word for word CIR and what Sen. McCain has preached in the beginning, he since has learned that the American People greatly disagreed with it. The American People want what was promised in the '86 Amnesty.
The fence was just cut from the budget, again another slap in the face to the American People's will.
However, the American People want what is rightfully theirs first, what was promised in '86. Enforce the existing laws, enforcement through attrition. It has been shown to work, OK and AZ are proof.
McCain finally got it when his bid plummeted. Enforcement first and foremost, after a few years of enforcement, maybe then talks about changing immigration law will work.
My wife is from Polish ancestry. She is often referred to as "the Pollack". She was born here and so were her parents. It is not uncommon to be referred to by one's ancestry even though born here. It doesn't mean a damn thing unless you want to play victim or you are treated negatively because of your ancestry. It doesn't mean that others are not aware that you are an American or that they don't consider you to be one.
Many Hispanics of Mexican ancestry actually refer to THEMSELVES as Mexican rather than American. I hear this all the time by them. So why the objection?
In dee's case it is quite understandable why people who meet her think she is Mexican. She sticks up for them rather than Americans.
Pat,
your view!
I am in favor of compassionate deportation.
I expect my comments to offend la raza. I expect my comments to offend the hard core white antis
I don't expect a compromise - any compromise to satisfy the hard liners on either side.
In my mind, a compromise will include
(1) end to the 14th amendment
(2) A very well funded program to put in to prison and then compassionately deport anyone that sneaks in to the USA on a going forward basis
(3) US citizenship for SOME of the 12 million (or is it 20 million)
If no compromise is reached, what i predect is that more states will pass laws similar to the ones in Arizona. The undocumented will leave those states and move to cities like Los Angeles that welcome them
We will get many experiments going on. Los Angeles will demonstrate what happens to a city with very large numbers of undocumented and Arizona will demonstrate what happens to a state with very few undocumented.
I predict that in Arizona, things will mostly go well. Wages will go up, schools will get less crowded and better, crime will go down, hospitals will be less crowded and give better care. Most people in Arizona will be grateful for the law. Those that own businesses that hire low skill workers will hate it and will suffer. US citizens of latino ancestry will suffer from racial profiling. But all in all, America will look at Arizona and like what it sees.
Los Angeles will attract even more undocumented, schools will get worse and worse, hospitals will get worse and worse. Wages for the unskilled will continue to plummet there. Los Angeles will be total burning violent disaster.
As the rest of the USA watches what happens in Arizona and compares it to Los Angeles, more and more states will follow the path that Arizona has taken.
I want to be clear here - i don't think that los angeles will go to hell because of a huge influx of people from mexico - I think an influx of unskilled people from any country in the world would cause a collapse in Los Angeles - my view is not against folks from mexico it is a view against the inflow of any unskilled from any country.
The point of what i have written above is that I have tremendous sympathy for Dee's position, and sympathy for the 12 million (or 20 million) people now in the usa who are undocumented. But in my humble opinion, time is NOT on Dee's side. as the average American sees how much life improves in Arizona, and sees how much worse it gets in Los Angeles, more and more states will vote the way Arizona did.
So i think the power and persuasiveness of Dee's view is losing ground each year.
Just my humble opinion, speaking as someone who knows how to offend both sides by speaking the truth as i see it
No comment, dee? Just a silly cartoon that has nothing to do with my remarks?
I, at least in this case, am able to make a comment but unable to copy the item from another post that I wish to comment on to put it in context.
A separate smaller window comes up but with no copy or paste facility.
It's just different from my blog and it makes it more difficult to reference another post.
Isn't anyone else having this problem.
Oh, I get you Ulty.
I just set up my blog to have a pop up window for comments. I will put it back the old way.
Ok. Its back the old way again. You should be ok now.
Yes Ultima, I was having the same problem. I could no longer copy and paste.
Here's an interesting article from the liberal side.
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0712/S01010.htm
As we all know, in 1985, Congress passed the Immigration Reform and Customs Act (IRCA), which granted amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens. Whatever the merit of that Act, it failed to provide a mechanism for determining the real labor needs as the U.S. economy grew while also protecting citizen workers from depressed wages and job losses. The Act sensibly established the principle that immigration laws would be enforced and illegal aliens prosecuted. Not so sensibly, however,was the understanding that the government, to meet the need for a steady supply of cheap labor, would more often than not turn a blind eye to the employment of illegal workers. Just as in the more recent so-called CIR bills of 2006 and 2007, Congress inserted significant loopholes to allow businesses to avoid prosecution. The sanctions it mandated in the 1985 Act merely prohibited employers from "...KNOWINGLY hiring, recruiting, or referring for a fee aliens not authorized to work in the U.S." For once, ignorance was a legal defense. Criminal statutes--and hiring an illegal alien is a crime--do not normally absolve perpetrators who claim that they did not know what they were doing!
Similarly, section 116 of Title I, IRCA prevented the INS from carrying out raids on any "outdoor agricultural operation" without a warrant--a provision that effectively shielded farms that employed vast numbers of illegal aliens.
Loopholes similar to these in the IRCA were ample reasons to oppose the the 2006 and 2007 CIR bills. It is probably impossible but we must remain alert to any similar measures in the future that contain loopholes written by cheap labor and immigration lobbyists.
"My wife is from Polish ancestry. She is often referred to as "the Pollack"."
Yes, a friend of mine by the name of Ulbinsky married Marie,a woman of Mexican descent. She always referred to him as the passionate Pollack. However, there are some who in a different context would take exception to that term.
"Are you saying you want to have another question re: English Speaking as another Question on the survey? Please don´t LEAP to criterion."
You are right. I mean "question" with the results being used as the criteria for admission. I recognize that many farm workers would not qualify if this question was included , however, we can be certain that not all respondents would find English fluency as important as other respondents. This could fall into the "other" category. If skills would be considered, why not fluency in English? This would not be an absolute make or break question. The results would be combined the results from the other questions.
The overall quota should be not less than what would be required for the achievement of a stable population, given the present fertility rate of American women.
"that every country is willling to send as many of it's citizens as we Americans want"
We could, of course, leave the unsubscribed quotas unfilled rather than re-distribute them among the other applicant countries. Even that would cause a major shift in the demographics over time but might allow sufficient time for assimilation and thus reduce the dissension in the ranks.
There should be a provision for temporary agricultural workers outside this quota system but with a modified 14th amendment interpretation or pregnancy test to keep them temporary. In other words, these folks would be extra but could also apply under the regular quota as well.
"We're so great that we're in a position to special order our cheap labor."
Yes, it's called recruiting.
"And i would like as part of that settlement a group of spanish speaking law enforcement people, supervised by legitimate representatives of the latino community, to be in charge of tracking down newly arrived undocmented folks and putting them in to prison for hard time."
It is going a little bit too far to insist that only Latinos can do this job properly. There are many Latinos already in the ranks of the INS, ICE and BP, including those at the top. I would be more worried about ethnic favoritism. Some Spanish-speaking, Chinese-speaking and others would be needed but we should not go so far as to suggest that enforcement must be racially oriented.
I believe in compassion. These folks should be handled courteously without any threats of violence of mistreatment of any kind. But that's where my compassion ends. If they resist arrest, they should be handled in whatever way the situation warrants -- similar to how a citizen under arrest would be handled.
Compassion does not buy into the old family separation argument. Minor children must always accompany their parents.
I believe compassionate deportation of some of the 12-20 million is an essential element of deterrence. It will be extremely difficult to identify just the new illegals given their propensity to acquire whatever false documents are necessary to prove they have been here for 20 years--a whole cottage industry now, but a growth industry under anon proposal. Deportation of some of the 12-20 million does not mean none would qualify to stay nor does it mean overnight deportation for all. There is some compassionate middle ground that would recognize that some are socially integrated and culturally and linguistically assimilated. There is some middle ground that recognizes that children have been in American schools and graduating and going on to college or productive work lives.
"I should somehow support other minoritites such as me. "
Does that include those not in the majority minorities in CA, i.e. whites?
""Seek first to understand, then to be understood.""
See my post re: IRCA.
"My father and mother always taught me to treat others as I want to be treated and to care about my fellow man. "
I doubt that anyone posting here wants to treat others any differently than they want to be treated but we have to put that in the context of the law and our national interest and sovereignty. The law exists to punish those who refuse to abide by your statement above. A white supervisor recently was indicted here in Denver for something similar to what happened to the Jena 6. However, he was not beaten to a pulp by a gang of 6 in spite of his crime.
We can expect immigrants to abide by the law and do it compassionately.
"I am an American, regardless of what some say.
2. I know Racial Profiling and Detention Centers are wrong."
1. Of course you are my dear.
2. I'm not so sure about this one. If detention centers are bad, they are a necessary evil just as any prisons are. What would you do with 50 Chinese illegal discovered in a container ship? If you don't detain them, you have in effect approved of their illegality. As many have said before me it makes little sense to spend a lot of time searching and questioning a gray-haired grandmother instead of a person who appears to be from the Middle East. This is profiling. Sure some will be unfairly questioned or detained but that is the price of safety in this era of car bombs and hi-jackings.
"So no bill will be passed and status quo continues. Status quo is in their best interest."
You got that right. But as I indicated in post on IRCA, even if a bill is passed unless we are all alert and badger our representatives, whatever bill is passed will be basically the status quo, a repeat of the IRCA and its loopholes and no enforcement of all the promises made in the bill.
Dee, there's nothing we can do about it except accept it and try to live our lives as best as possible in the world we live in. Change, if it ever happens, will happen slowly...
We can start with eliminating the stupid classification system the U.S. uses to separate us all. Replace it, if we must have one, with a socioeconomic system.
You have no reason to feel sad, maybe annoyed, because as far as I know, your life is the epitome of the "American Dream". Despite that fact, people would rather judge it as a hyphenated dream as if your great-great grandparents are relevant in anyway to your life today. It's ridiculous, but again, what can you do?
Lupita is right and everyone else is wrong which creates a situation where Americans with Spanish surnames can never really feel 100% Americans or are never accepted as 100% Americans despite them being nothing more and nothing less than Americans. People who have never been in this situation can easily dismiss it as something insignificant and unworthy of meaningful discussion, but it is real, and it leads thousands to give up hope.
Take Patriot, for example, who believes that you will never be American because you support Mexicans, well, I and most Americans don't support the wars in the Middle-East, does that mean it's all right for people to think we're all Arabs? Do people mistake all the politicians who pushed the last immigration as Mexicans too?
"Yes, it's called recruiting."
That's already being done with white collar jobs; I have an aunt who's looking for a job here in the U.S., she's checking monster.com not calling my uncle to see if he needs waitress help. Cheap labor, however, who recruits ditch diggers, fruit pickers, dishwashers, and toilet cleaners?
"Does that include those not in the majority minorities in CA, i.e. whites?"
Whites are still the numerical majority in California, even if that wasn't the case a minority group does not have to be minority in terms of population, a minority group can also be one that is disadvantaged in economic or political terms.
Here is a pretty decent evaluation of some of the candidates and there positions in regards to Immigration. Again, I am just the messenger, opine for yourselves.
Lets do one at a time instead.
Stupid deal happening here, DEE!!!! FIX THIS!!!!!!
whats going on with your comment section here, no more HTML linking??
how about now??
Mirrorism writes "whites are still the numerical majority in California"
But only 43.3% of the population in California are non-Hispanic whites.
mirror, you are mixing apples and oranges here. Hispanic citizens supporting illegal aliens from Mexico or any other latin country because they are ethnically like themselves is not only supporting illegality but it is supporting racism too.
Disagreeing with the war is a whole different matter. It is not supporting illegallity and it is not supporting racism.
By the way, you are incorrect. Whites are indeed the minority in Calif. numerically.
What about politicians supporting them? Did you see diane's link? Can all of those democrats who support them be confused as Mexican too?
Besides, nobody goes around proclaiming their views on immigration, so the people who have confused Dee for Mexican all of her life, even before she formed an opinion on immigration, did it because of the way she looks, the census did it because of her surname.
Ok, 43.3%, which leaves "Hispanics" at what? Considering California's large Asian population I would think they're around 40%. Meaning, they're not the majority, and again, having a numerical majority does not mean that they are the true majority.
Pat and PJ's posts came up with my link, why??
Mirror's came up clean, except his square next to his name comes up with my link, whats going on with the comments section??
Trying again. One post at a time....
Stupid comment section. HTML links are all screwed up.
Probably has something to do with the HTML closing of your links, maybe you left one open and they all somehow combined, and they're all going ot that Rudy page.
Click here:
How can I learn some basic HTML?
Your link isn't working for me, mirror. HTML I have had no problems with in the past in here. Just since Dee switched back to this type, just today it began screwing up for me. Maybe Dee missed a check box or something in her user profile setup??
liquid, I was wondering myself what is going on in this blog now. The comments are all screwed up.
Let's hear some reports from Arizona - are the schools and hospitals less crowded today because of the law?
Less traffic on the road?
How many undocumented have left?
Isn't less crowding in a notoriously crowded city a good thing
Mirror,
Thank you!
I am still thinking this through. Hopefully reading and studying will help me get closer to gaining a clearer understanding of these issues.
Liquid and Ulty,
I did change my profile from the current view to a pop up view of comments and back. I think the pop up view requires more memory and that is why Ulty may have been having problems.
As for Mirror adding a link while I was still in pop up mode, I think the switch back and forth may have impacted that link.
I think we are ok now. I will leave it as is.
OK will try again.
Lets see how this works.
Its still screwed up Dee. Did you change the HTML settings at all, or miss checking a box on the set up page??
i read your link ok.
Liquid is trying to post 2 links... I would suggest to stop posting the Rudy plans to destroy the American middle-class link and post the missing one.
I tried the other - Mitt Romney link - it did the same as the Guiliani link, its bleeding through to the following post(s). Any way, www.noslaves.com is the blog, he is putting out posts of each of the remianing candidates and there positions of "Illegal" and "Legal" immigration, with the candidates talking points mixed in. So far, he has Giluiani, Romney, and Obama.
The posts talk of their positions on the current immigration system, mostly H-1B's, and their positions on 'Illegal' Immigration.
Liquids link
double test
test 1
blogsearch
test 2
liquid link
all those tests worked
Thanks, Dee, http://blog.noslaves.com should be the correct link.
I'm trying it here:
My link ends up being the date. At least it doesn't appear to be bleeding into the next post.
Damn, its still doing it. Its the same HTML I have always used in here with no problems until yesterday.
I'll try posting as Anon.
What is the HTML you are using??
mine is - Text to be displayed
I'm just going to start giving the headline, you all can search it.
here is the code i use to post a link
post a link
My blog is on eBlogger.
When I go to the Dashboard Homepage for my Blog, it looks like they made some changes. I don´t know if they disabled certain codes or not. My codes work (that I just provided you) but for some reason, yours are not.
Here is the 1st paragraph of what it says on the Dashboard page:
The latest from Blogger Buzz
OpenID Commenting
December 13, 2007 — permalink
After just two short weeks of testing on Blogger in draft, OpenID commenting is now available for all Blogger blogs. This means that your friends and readers can leave authenticated comments on your blog using their blog URLs from OpenID-enabled services such as WordPress.com, LiveJournal, and AOL Journals, or with their AOL/AIM accounts.
My settings are set so anyone can comment, no moderation. That´s how I have always had my blog set up.
The only change I made was about a week ago, I thought it might be easier for everyone to comment in a pop up window, so I changed my settings. When Ulty said he had problems, I changed it back. I didn´t change anything else. The only other one is on eblogger itself (the one I just posted).
I'll give one more shot, if it doesn't work, then I'll just opine leaving an open URL.
noslaves.com
IT WORKED!!!!!!!!!!
My puter may have been screwing up, virus or worm, possibly.
Finally. Thanks for looking into it Mirror and Dee.
For the links to the posts on http://blog.noslaves.com let me give this a whirl for you.
Mitt Romney
Giuliani
and then if you go to the NoSlaves.com blog generally and click on election 08 there will be the pieces. I focus on H-1B, labor arbitrage of professional workers, middle class, trade, jobs because that isn't talked about much yet it's a major corporate goal to get unlimited guest worker Visas. You can have a "no amnesty" or even "amnesty" politician who is massively for (most often) or not these various guest worker Visas which will truly harm working America.
So far Clinton, Ron Paul, Obama, Giuliani, Romney on their positions have been written.
Bob Oak,
Bob,
I accessed all of your links fine. -thank you!
Bob,
It looks like you have a very interesting site. I will read more and post some comments. Thank you for coming over and I hope you come back often!
Post a Comment