As unbelievable as it may seem, Geraldo Rivera is shilling for John McCain. Geraldo spoke with Brian and the Judge where Geraldo admits he is a "John McCain Republican."During this interview, Geraldo takes on the Right Wing shock jocks like Limbaugh, Dobbs, Malkin, and Coulter.
Geraldo saying the Moronic Mavens of Maliciousness aren't doing themselves any good with their irrational hatred of John McCain. From what he says, they are simply becoming a laughing stock.
Geraldo goes on to say he believes Hillary will be the Dem candidate because he thinks the Latino Community will vote for Clinton by a 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 majority. Geraldo says John McCain is the only Republican that can beat Hillary and the Dems. He says McCain should select Condoleeza Rice as his VP. He says that she will gain him both African American and Female voters.
Many of the Right Wing and ANTI sites are FLAMING with responses to Geraldo. Needless to say, Malkin is beside herself with anger. She has already written several posts on her blog in response and retaliation. The ANTI sites are just as angry.
My view is Geraldo is a blowhard and speaks for himself. I used to be a fan of his when he had his own show and was a Liberal. Since he has been on Fox and turned into a McCain Republican, I don´t often agree with him anymore. Geraldo made one more very controversial statement, "Any hispanic that votes for an anti illegal immigration candidate is an uncle Tom." I totally disagree with this statement. I have some nephews in the military who support ANTI candidates. I don´t agree with who they are supporting but I would not call my nephews by the term "Uncle Tom" either.
My question to my readers is:
I don´t understand why McCain is leading. I read so many blogs and most ANTIs and Republicans hate McCain. Read Rush, Malkin or Coulter. They hate McCain. Read any of the anti sites like alipac or fair or numbersusa. They hate McCain. How on earth is McCain leading? I don´t get it. The only guess I can make is:
1. There actually is a "right wing conspiracy" (RWC) and they believe McCain is the only one that can beat the Dems.
2. If this is true, I would guess someone like Jeb Bush (or as Geraldo suggests, Condoleeza) will be named as VP and McCain will be taken ill soon after the election.
Can someone explain to me how McCain is leading IF there is no Right Wing Conspiracy? And please do not provide the explanation that Huckabee is the Romney "spoiler" because the ANTIs hate him even more than McCain.
Posts
75 comments:
Dee the eternal drama queen, lol. Why all this slicing and dicing of ethnicities? "Geraldo believes Hillary will be the Dem candidate because he thinks the "Latino" community will vote for her." "McCain should make Rice his VP because then the "Blacks" will vote for him". I see you like to keep ethnic politics alive, dee. Let's just keep dividing this country further, right? What are "Whites", chopped liver? Afterall we are the majority in this country.
Geraldo all by himself is enough to inflame any sane American. Oh, here goes the drama about anger again on the anti side. You love this soap opera crap, don't you dee?
You are right however that there is a right wing conspiracy pushing McCain because they do see him as the only candidate that can beat the Dems. They are of course, wrong.
Dee, what is this talk about a right wing conspiracy? We're just ordinary folks who are paying taxes out the wazoo. Let's put the shoe on the other foot. What if you as a Latino citizen, were facing 12,000,000 white European immigrants and you had to pay for their health care, their children's education, some of them were criminals, they were competing for your job..
Now, I ask you, how would you feel ..really?
i forgot to qualify, dee, let's say those white europeans where ILLEGAL immigrants. BE HONEST
Dianne, I wasn´t referencing you personally or the ANTIs or the Anglos.
The vast right wing conspiracy is said to be a secret group that runs this country. Some say they are the Free Masons. Others say they are secret clubs originated in England and brought here into Harvard and Yale. Some say they are the NeoCons and PNAC. With people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and William Crystal.
Here is what Wikipedia says it is:
Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
I don´t make this stuff up. Many people believe in this stuff.
What is interesting about this particular post is the fact that Geraldo is promoting McCain. Read the links in the original article. Many ANTIs are Hopping Mad and Malkin is Livid!
Also Dianne, Click on the YouTube video on the top right of my blog. This is a youtube of Geraldo on the show promoting McCain. It is not too long but this is what is making them so mad!
Jeb Bush is backing Romney.
Why McCain won Florida, "He received substantial support from independents, seculars, pro-choice voters, and those Republicans dissatisfied with the Bush administration. Voters' economic concerns also helped propel him to a win."
Why McCain Won In Florida
I read Wiki. It says Hillary Clinton coined the term Vast Right Wing Conspiracy. I've never heard it referred to an actual organization or some group like Free Masons and I certainly don't think it is. It's just a moniker
As for Geraldo, he's kind of entertaining..always passionate and the reason he likes McCain is #1 his position on amnesty for illegal immigrants. Perhaps (I don't know of course) he believes the Republican party is right in its view on abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage and other morally conservative issues. In fact, it surprises me that so many Latinos don't take those things into consideration since they are largely Catholic Christians who as a church sure doesn't agree with abortion, etc.
By the way, did you know Obama not only supports abortion, he supports PARTIAL BIRTH abortion, but it gets even worse than that. When he was an Illinois senator he supported LIVE BIRTH abortion. In other words, the baby would not be treated if by some miracle it happened to live. I find that almost incredible. What kind of person could possibly be so inhumane?
Dianne,
Most Latinos are NOT pro Abortion. I know I am not. I´ve shared my perspective on this before.
Geraldo may be a showman, but most GOP or ANTI websites and in the media and their audiences cannot stand him. Check out Malkin´s website and associated comments. Yikes!
That is one of the reasons why I thought it was so unusual for Geraldo to be stumping or McCain.
Let's be clear here
when people move from a poor country to the usa, become citizens and vote, the #1 item on their political agenda is getting their extended family in to the USA
I do not criticize this in any way - it is only natural to care about your family
For this reason, in my humble opinion, the #1 political issue for most first generation people from latin america living in the usa is getting their relatives legally in to the USA
McCain is a dream come true for three reasons
(1) Some of the 20 million undocumented here are relatives of US citizens. So when US citizens of latino descent ask for amnesty for the 20 million, they are partially asking for citizenship for their relatives
(2) McCain is sympathetic to legal family reunification immigration - so for those of latino ancestry in the usa whose relatives are not yet in the usa, McCain will push for expanded legal immigration opportunities for them
(3) Even if in McCain's heart he is not as pro immigration as some of his Democratic rivals, McCain is better able politically to get amnesty and pro immigration policies through congress. Think about it - McCain is a republican and thus will be better able to persuade republicans to go along with these policies than a democrat would
Therefore, for someone whose ONLY political objective is getting relatives from Latin America in to the USA as citizens, McCain is the best person to vote for
Again, I do not want to sound like i am critical of the US citizens of latin american ancestry. I believe strongly that people from Eastern Europe, China, India and other countries who are new to America and recently became citizens are aggressively lobbying to get their relatives in to the US as citizens as well.
There is a conflict of interest between those US citizens that care mostly about bringing to the USA their extended family and the interest of those US citizens that don't want 100 or 200 million new people coming to the USA
If McCain is the republican nominee it makes perfect sense for our fellow citizens of latin american ancestry to vote for him.
dee, nothing commented on Malkin's site by the anti's is any angrier than the comments I have read on most pro sites.
anon, and that is exactly why I don't want McCain to win. I would rather see Obama or Hillary win than him. McCain is not a conservative Republican, he may as well be a Democrat for all intents and purposes.
I just thought of something regarding Geraldo's support of McCain and other than amnesty for illegal immigrants, Geraldo has spent a whole lot of time in Iraq, is very supportive of the troops and I bet McCain's support for Iraq and the surge has a big influence on Geraldo as well.
Dee, with all due respect, you seem to answer some questions, but not the dicey ones like mine in comment #2.
anon, and that is exactly why I don't want McCain to win. I would rather see Obama or Hillary win than him. McCain is not a conservative Republican, he may as well be a Democrat for all intents and purposes.
Dianne,
Your question, how would I feel if 12M white Northern European immigrants came here, to my country? Well, my mother is ½ Native American. I know my Dad, his father and his, were all born here in the US. I don´t know if any of my ancestors felt as if they had a choice about new immigrants coming in. People have migrated since the beginning of time.
As far as health care, etc, I know studies vary, but most agree there is value vs cost for all immigrants. (legal and illegal)
I still have my same view. 1. Secure Borders. 2. Employer Sanctions. 3. Bring the 12M out of the shadows and into some legalized status.
Patriot,
I hear you loud and clear.
I am interested in hearing the opinion of BOTH the pros and the antis on my statement that
(1) it is totally understandable that our fellow us citizens who moved here from poor countries want to immediately bring their extended families from those countries in to the US and make those extended families US citizens asap
(2) if they get their way and make their extended families citizens, and then those extended family members get to make their extended family citizens, and so on, the us will be flooded
(3)if you are a person that like the USA the way it is, you need to take a stand now, or see it changed forever
The Washington Post/ABC News poll this weekend asked likely Republican voters which candidate, "regardless of who you may support," do you "trust most to handle immigration issues."
The answer will shock you:
47% McCain
22% Romney
10% Huckabee
5% Paul
This political illiteracy among Republican voters threatens disastrous consequences.
Some open-borders apologists, such as syndicated columnist Ruben Navarrette, say 47% of Republicans like McCain on immigration because they support McCain's idea that the best way to solve illegal immigration is to make nearly all the illegal aliens into legal residents and U.S. citizens.
That is pure wishful thinking on the part of open-borders advocates. Reputable polls for two years have shown that an overwhelming majority of Republicans (and a majority of Independents and Democrats) has opposed every one of McCain's attempts to legalize illegal aliens with an amnesty.
I believe that at least half of those 47% Republicans who express confidence in McCain's immigration plans simply don't know the truth.
And the truth is exceptionally easy to find out.
For two months, McCain answers every immigration question by saying he will "secure the border" and that "I know how to do it."
But records of his past actions show that he has repeatedly voted against funding the border fence, agains t funding more Border Patrol, against expanding interior immigration agents. About the only time McCain has backed more security on the border is when it is tied to giving an amnesty.
McCain has held border security hostage for years. He has been willing to work for border security only if Americans pay the "ransom" of giving him an amnesty.
But I am willing to accept that McCain is finally serious about securing the border, except that he really hasn't provided a serious, detailed plan for how he will do it.
McCain laid out his Immigration Plan in radio ads in South Carolina:
1. "Secure the borders."
2. Deport around 2 million illegal aliens who h ave committed felonies.
3. Treat the other 10-18 million illegal aliens with "compassion" by letting them keep their U.S. residency and their American jobs and eventually become citizens.
McCain never expresses compassion for the 23 million working-age Americans without any college who do not currently have a job -- or the millions more Americans whose real wages have stagnated or declined in recent years because their occupations were flooded by foreign labor.
Although the nation already has nearly 40 million foreign workers and dependents, McCain has repeatedly said that we need to import even more. During the last two years, he has pushed various bills that would double and triple immigration.
Every Republican voting tomorrow must keep McCain's record on immigration in mind. Spread the word.
It is indeed a sad situation when a legitimate American hero is so shortsighted as to be unable to see what his policies will do to the country he fought and suffered for. I'm not sure McCain is in his right mind. Republicans ill-informed regarding his immigration positions will be complicit in the dismal outlook for America.
Let's see. I guess that means Oprah is shilling for Obama and Bill "I'm forever blowing bubbles" Clinton is shilling for his hausfrau.
ulty,
I agree a hundred percent with your last post
I believe America is on track to get hundreds of millions of illiterate citizens. Their pathologies will haunt this nation for a long time.
McCain is a hero for what he endured in Hanoi. I will always be grateful to him for that.
The honest truth is that most americans just don't care about the immigration issue enough to let it swing their vote one way or the other. They vote for the total package and when they see McCain they like the whole package
We are heading for some very tough times.
Time to throw in the towel on the USA and move to Canada?
Here's McCain's record for all those Republicans who will vote tomorrow: 2007: Voted on Senate floor in favor of motion to invoke cloture on S. 1639, a bill to reward illegal aliens with amnesty Sen. McCain voted in favor of a second motion to invoke cloture on S. 1639 (whose main sponsor was Sen. Edward Kennedy), a bill to reward up to 6 million illegal aliens with amnesty. The motion to invoke cloture would have limited further debate on the bill and moved it to a final vote. A vote for cloture was effectively a vote in favor of passing the amnesty-guestworker bill. The motion to invoke cloture failed by a vote of 46 to 53. 2007: Voted on Senate floor in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens Sen. McCain voted in favor of a motion to invoke cloture on S. 1639 (whose main sponsor was Sen. Edward Kennedy), a bill to reward illegal aliens with amnesty. The motion to invoke cloture was a move to initiate debate on the proposal and limit further discussion of amendments to a previously-agreed upon set of proposals -- thus a vote against cloture was effectively a vote in favor of killing the amnesty-guestworker bill. The motion to invoke cloture passed by a vote of 64 to 35. 2007: Voted on Senate floor against reducing amnesties for illegal aliens Sen. McCain voted in favor of a motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment (SA 1150) to S. 1348, a bill to reward illegal aliens with amnesty. The motion to invoke cloture would have ended debate on the proposal and limited further discussion of amendments to a previously-agreed upon set of proposals -- thus a vote in favor of cloture was effectively a vote in favor of the amnesty-guestworker bill. The motion to invoke cloture failed by a vote of 45 to 50. 2007: Voted on Senate floor in favor of amendment to create a disincentive to apply for amnesty Sen. McCain voted in favor of the Cornyn Amendment (SA 1250) to S. 1348 to discourage applicants from applying for amnesty by eliminating the provisions protecting the confidentiality of the information contained in amnesty applications and, instead, requires the sharing of application-related information upon the request of a law enforcement agency, intelligence, or national security agency, or DHS component when requested in connection with a duly-authorized investigation of a civil violation. The Cornyn Amendment passed by a vote of 57 to 39. 2007: Voted on Senate floor against amendment to bar certain criminals from amnesty Sen. McCain voted against the Cornyn Amendment (SA 1184) to S. 1385 (whose main sponsor was Sen. Harry Reid) to bar criminal aliens from receiving amnesty. Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff has estimated that 15% of illegal aliens are criminals. The Cornyn Amendment failed by a vote of 46 to 51. 2007: Voted against amendment to strip amnesty provisions from S. 1348 in 2007 Sen. McCain voted against the Vitter Amendment to strip the amnesty provisions from S. 1348 (whose main sponsor was Sen. Harry Reid). The Vitter Amendment failed by a vote of 29 to 66. 2007: Cosponsoring S. 774 to reward illegal aliens with amnesty S. 774 (whose main sponsor is Sen. Dick Durbin) would reward illegal aliens under the age of 21 who have been physically present in the country for five years and are in 7th grade or above with amnesty. An estimated 500,000 to 600,000 illegal aliens would qualify for this amnesty. 2007: Cosponsoring S. 340 to grant amnesty to illegal aliens (AgJOBS) Sen. McCain is a cosponsor of S. 340 (whose main sponsor is Sen. Dianne Feinstein) to encourage more illegal immigration by rewarding certain illegal aliens who work in agriculture with amnesty. 2006: Voted on Senate floor in favor of S. 2611 to reward illegal aliens with amnesty Sen. McCain voted in favor of final passage of S. 2611 (whose main sponsor was Sen. Arlen Specter) which includes an amnesty (both immediate and deferred) for 10.2 million illegal aliens (6.7 million illegal alien workers and 3.5 million illegal alien spouses and/children). S. 2611 passed by a vote of 62 to 36. 2006: Voted in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens Sen. McCain voted in favor of a motion to invoke cloture on S. 2611 (whose main sponsor was Sen. Arlen Specter) which includes an amnesty (both immediate and deferred) for 10.2 million illegal aliens (6.7 million illegal alien workers and 3.5 million illegal alien spouses and/children). The motion to invoke cloture passed by a vote of 73 to 25. 2006: Voted against amendment to reward 2 million illegal aliens with amnesty Sen. McCain voted against the Feinstein Amendment to S. 2611 (whose main sponsor was Sen. Arlen Specter) to create an "orange card" that would allow an estimated two million illegal aliens to pay a fine, and after 6-8 years, adjust to Lawful Permanent Resident status. The Feinstein Amendment failed by a vote of 37 to 61. 2006: Voted against amendment to kill amnesty provisions Sen. McCain voted against the Vitter amendment (SA 3963) to S. 2611 (whose main sponsor was Sen. Arlen Specter) to remove provisions authorizing the “earned legalization” and “agricultural worker” amnesty schemes that would grant amnesty to an estimated 16 million illegal aliens and their families (according to a May, 2006 study by the Heritage Foundation’s Robert Rector). The Vitter amendment failed by a vote of 33 to 66. 2006: Voted against procedural move to reward illegal aliens with amnesty Sen. McCain voted against cloture on SA 3424, a "compromise amnesty" proposal by Sens. Hagel (R-NE) and Martinez (R-FL). The purpose of voting against allowing a final vote on this proposal varied from Senator to Senator, with many of them favoring the proposal but not willing to bring it up without a lot of votes on amendments. At the least, those voting against cloture were insisting on a chance for opponents of the bill to make their case with amendments. The Hagel-Martinez proposal would reward illegal aliens with amnesty. S. 2611 includes an amnesty (both immediate and deferred) for 10.2 million illegal aliens (6.7 million illegal alien workers and 3.5 million illegal alien spouses and/children). The cloture motion failed by a vote of 38 to 60. 5 N/A N/A Link 2005-2006: Cosponsored S. 2075 to reward illegal aliens with amnesty S. 2075 (whose main sponsor was Sen. Dick Durbin) would reward illegal aliens under the age of 21 who have been physically present in the country for five years and are in 7th grade or above with amnesty. An estimated 500,000 to 600,000 illegal aliens would qualify for this amnesty. The bill died in the Judiciary Committee. 2005-2006: Cosponsored S. 1033 to reward illegal aliens with amnesty Sen. McCain was a cosponsor of S. 1033 to reward virtually all illegal aliens (except those with criminal records or terrorist connections) with amnesty. This could potentially reward 9 million illegal aliens with amnesty. This bill died in the Judiciary Committee. 2005: Voted in favor of amnesty for agricultural workers Sen. McCain voted to invoke cloture, a procedural move requiring 60 votes to limit debate and ensure a vote on the AgJOBS amnesty amendment for up to 3 million illegal aliens, introduced by Sen. Larry Craig (R-ID), to the Iraq supplemental spending bill. The Senate voted 53 to 45 not to invoke cloture, effectively keeping the amnesty off of the final bill. 2005-2006: Cosponsored S. 359 to grant amnesty to illegal aliens Sen. McCain was a cosponsor of S. 359 to encourage more illegal immigration by rewarding certain illegal aliens who work in agriculture with amnesty.
I don't doubt that McCain will win the delegates necessary for the nomination. The best we can hope for is that Romney will get enough delegates to put him in a bargaining position on immigration. McCain is dead wrong on this issue and a vote for Romney will help curb McCain's appetite for amnesty.
I think Geraldo is a wolf in sheep's clothing, touting MCCain with tongue in cheek, hoping by his endorsement and shilling that he will actually help the Dem win the general election. No one, no one value's Geraldo's opinions.
Wikipedia's opening statement about a right wing conspiracy is attributed to Hillary. I guess that puts it in the proper context. Whatever actions were taken against Clinton late in his last term surely were justified by his antics in the oval orifice. Trying to make a vast conspiracy out of the reaction to Clintone's behavior seemed utterly ridiculous.
"Most Latinos are NOT pro Abortion. I know I am not. I´ve shared my perspective on this before."
Good reason to vote Republican.
"Why McCain won Florida..."
I would add the dirty trick he played on Romney on election eve accusing him of being in favor of a specific date for withdrawal from Iraq, leaving little time to refute this statement. McCain lost any interest I had in his candidacy at that point.
It appears to me that Hillary is waffling on Iraq now. She's saying she will ask the JCS to come up with a plan. That plan could be anything given the qualifications Hillary has suggested. That leaves the door ajar for her to re-assess the Bush strategy and make it her own. Obama is much more forthright on this issue but I think Romney could do more for the economy than either of them.
"McCain is a republican and thus will be better able to persuade republicans to go along with these policies than a democrat would"
True in some respects but there was another Republican who tried this and it didn't work. The key to this puzzle is control of congress. If it shifts dramatically to the Dems, the floodgates will open.
The family immigration problem should be handled by doing away with chain immigrations and requiring anyone who has a family to apply as a family unit so that all of them can be counted against the regular immigration quota. This doesn't mean they all have to come at once. Rather they just have to apply as a group or unit.
Chain immigration represents a huge loophole in the law. It need to be abolished.
I'm voting for Romney next Saturday.
Dee, thanks for "sorta" answering my question although I was speaking in the present tense, not the past. We are not the same country we were 100 years ago when immigration levels were what they are now. We had more open land and jobs than people back then. Now we have fewer jobs and way less open land and more people. It does make a difference.
above anon is me
Ulty, Oprah for Obama and Mr. Clinton for Ms. Clinton is expected and all their constituents view this as a positive. However, Geraldo for McCain? I doubt few if any Republican supporters view Geraldo´s support as a positive. In fact, based on what many sites are saying, it is the opposite. You are right. My side certainly is not supporting Geraldo in his efforts for McCain either!
Ultima, To me, Right Wing Conspiracy = GOP Leaders secretly laying out their agenda and controlling GOP elected leaders = PNAC types like William Crystal, Cheney, Rummy, Wolfy and others.
Ulty,
I am so on the fence between Hillary or Obama.
I like many Dems just want to make sure the Dem Candidate will WIN in December.
We have to change from the current Administration´s ideas and principles. No GOP candidate I have seen will do anything different than GW. All the GOP has are Puppets running for office.
Anon,
We are not China or Europe. I´m in Texas. We have plenty of “wide open spaces.” Additionally,if we are going to survive in this great country, we need workers to do the manual labor jobs, especially the AgJobs. Maybe someday robots will be invented to do the work, but its not happening today. There is also the service sector, construction and manufacturing. The layed off auto workers are not going over to the AgJobs. They have their pensions and are seeking high paying, high tech jobs.
Anon´s quote: “Now we have fewer jobs and way less open land and more people. It does make a difference.”
Ulty,
When I listened to Geraldo (on the youtube link), he sounded like he was genuine in his support for McCain. Plus, he also loves attention and controversy and he is getting plenty of both.
Well,
the real honest issues are on the table.
Most leaders of the democratic party are in favor of massive immigration of unskilled illiterate people because these people vote for the democratic party.
Most of the big money donors to the republican party are in favor of massive immigration of unskilled illiterate people because these people really do create wealth for the donors to the republican party. The leaders of the republican party tend to do what the big donors want them to do.
I think if you survey the 300 million us citizens, the overwhelming majority are against massive immigration of unskilled illiterate people. Many of the 300 are against this invasion for noble, educated reasons. Many others are against it because they are racist. However, there just aren't enough of the 300 million that really put it at the top of their list of priorities.
At the end of the day, people don't vote based on their immigration views.
At this point i hate to admit it but i am pessimistic about the US - in the end i think that we will get 100 or 200 illiterate unskilled people. I see huge ghettos and squatter camps, kidnappings, riots, just a total disaster. The honest truth is that the antis have failed to muster public opinion on their side on a national level.
The only hope for the antis is to campaign for ballot measures like the one in Arizona
Wish i could be more optimistic, but to be honest the antis have made their case to the american people and the american people of both parties are choosing pro immigration candidates
dee, as Ultima and myself have told you many times, it isn't about open land space. It goes much deeper than that. It is about our natural resouces and social infractructures to support many more than the 300 million we have here already. Why do you choose to ignore that?
You continue to spout labor shortages across the board too. The only job that most Americns won't do are the Ag jobs. For them we can either automate more or force the farmers to use the visa that has been available to them for those kinds of foreign workers of which they haven't been doing.
Many jobs and businesses have been created that have just kept illegal aliens working, not Americans. We don't need a population driven economy.
Much of Texas is desert. You can't use Texas as an example of ariable land space. Most of our states and cities that are not in the snow belt or desert are very crowded. Your arguments are just plain lame with no thought as to how another 300 million people in this will effect us in the future.
patriot
you are so right
please go on making your case - hopefully making your case in forums other than this one - where you can perhaps persuade some new people.
I agree with you a million percent, but i have to say Dee is winning the battle. The presidential candidates will both agree with her so she has won even before the election happens
There will likely be 200 million new legal unskilled people rushing in to the usa - many parts of the usa will resemble calcutta.
the 200 million will vote for another 200 million and another and another.
wish i could be more optimistic but i have to call it as i see it -
patriot,
the only consolation you will have is if you live long enough, Dee will likely call you up and say you were right all along and that she regrets what she did back in 08!
I am a pessimist, but i still belive Dee has a good heart and i still believe that Dee will blame herself when her own neighborhood and the neighborhoods that her family members live in resemble a cross between calcutta and blade runner!
So patriot if you live long enough you will get the satisfaction of an apology from Dee
just my humble opinion
anon, how can you say that someone is of good heart when they don't put the best interests and laws of this country and it's citizens ahead of an ethnocentric agenda? Dee isn't uneducated either and she claims she does research on this issue. I see no excuse for her views or any good-hearted intentions except for her own kind.
Just for you dee because you say that employers never go to prison for hiring illegal aliens.
Restaurant manager goes to prison for hiring illegal immigrants
Associated Press - February 1, 2008 6:54 PM ET
SPRINGFIELD, Ill. (AP) - A former manager of a Springfield-area Chinese restaurant has been sentenced to 33 months in prison for housing and employing more than two dozen illegal immigrants.
Xiang Hui Ye had faced up to 10 years in prison.
Co-defendant Xian Xi Ye was sentenced Monday to 18 months on similar charges and is expected to be released to the custody of immigration officials to begin deportation proceedings.
The men were indicted two years ago for a litany of charges including money laundering, housing illegal immigrants in apartments and then employing them at their restaurant, Buffet City. The establishment has since reopened under new management.
http://www.wthitv.com/Global/story.asp?S=7811136&nav=menu593_2
dee
It sounds like McCain could easily be the candidate for you. What don't you like about him? You should be voting for a person not just along party lines but whose interests sound like your own.
Anon,
Actually, last November I wrote a blog titled:
McCain – The only Republican with a Chance of Obtaining the Hispanic Vote
http://immigrationmexicanamerican.blogspot.com/2007/11/mccain-only-republican-with-chance-of.html
dee
your nephews in the military-which anti candidates do they support?
Probably Ron Paul... Most in the military support him because he's the only candidate left - Kucinich was the other one - that wants to bring them home ASAP.
Actually my nephew who is career military tells me he is voting Republican due to their support o the Military. He will not give me the specific candidate he is supporting.
dee
So your nephews aren't really for a anti-illegal immigration candidate, just someone who supports the military. You made it sound like you actually had family that who were for a anti candidate. Made me have hope for some of your family. sigh.......
let me muddy the water a little.
To me the issue is not pro immigration vs anti immigration
to me the issue is not pro illegal vs anti illegal
to me the issue is pro unskilled immigration vs anti unskilled immigration
if you look at all the statistics, when unskilled immigrants come in to the usa, statistically their kids drop out of school, daughters get pregnant as teenagers, basically unskilled people that come in generally have children that are poorer and cause more pathologies than native born citizens. just the facts. doesnt matter if they are legal or illegal - the kids just on average turn out to be a drain on society
now when you accept highly skilled immigrants it is the opposite - their kids get advanced degrees, almost never drop out, pay lots of taxes etc - highly skilled immigrants have kids that add to society financially
so legal vs illegal means nothing to me - someone that is agaisnt illegal immigration but in favor of actions that bring in a hundred million unskilled us citizens doesn't impress me at all.
I admire canada. Canada has a multi racial society with incredible diversity. but by and large it is based on skilled immigration not unskilled
I am not stupid, i know that my view is not that popular but i put it out there since obviously i think the us will turn in to calcutta if we import unskilled people and will turn out ok if we import skilled people
by the way, 100 years ago this was not the case there was plenty of upward mobility for unskilled people in to the middle class. those days are over and nothing is going to bring them back. Best we can do is create a shortage of unskilled people so that the unskilled young citizens see the wages for unskilled jobs go up
As an aside, i wonder if dee would be satisfied if we could somehow invite to the usa 20 million highly skilled highly educated highly intellilgent people from mexico - and send politely escort the 20 million undocumented out of the usa -
It looks like McCain and Huckabee are in cahoots to beat Romney with the help of Ron Paul.
Here is what one blog said:
"I just spoke with a source inside the West Virginia Paul campaign and got some insight into the decision to push their votes to Huckabee. "There are two dynamics in West Virginia," the source said, "the national dynamic and the local dynamic. The local dynamic is frustration with a GOP establishment that doesn't believe in freedom and liberty but mouths support for those ideals in order to win elections." This, he explained, was the common cause between compassionate conservative Huckabee supporters and libertarian Paul supporters.
Both Paul supporters and Huckabee supporters were angry at a convention process that seemed to be rigged for Romney. So after the first balloting, when they were knocked out of the running, Paul delegates met in a room to hear arguments for supporting one of the remaining candidates. Huckabee's supporters offered a deal: If Huckabee won the convention, three members of his delegate slate would resign. Responsibility for replacing those delegates goes not to the state party or national party but to the winner of the convention. Thus, Huckabee's campaign would replace the three delegates with three Ron Paul delegates.
"This was a gentlemen's agreement," my source said. "We're going to trust but verify."
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124817.html
I was just going to tell Dee that we - the state of Texas - matter again, but anon, sheesh...
Skilled immigrants are already allowed into the U.S. - a growing number come from Mexico and other Latin American countries.
Replacing the current low-skilled uneducated foreigners with skilled educated foreigners is a terrible idea, because then they really would be taking jobs Americans want and, maybe even, lower wages in high-skilled fields - like foriegn IT workers are apparently doing.
Or do you expect the high-skilled immigrants to take the same jobs the low-skilled immigrants have?
There is a fragile coalition of people that are against unskilled immigration
this coalition consists of some people that are strongly in favor of skilled immigration but against unskilled
it also consists of people that are in favor of unskilled legal immigration but against unskilled illegal immigration
it also consits of people that are generally in favor of anglo immigration (for example whites from south africa) and against all non white immigration
it also consists of some that are against all immigration under all circumstances (i guess they hope to prevent the us population from growing so as to help the environment)
this is a *very* fragile coalition.
The only thing all members can agree on is no to illegal immigration.
If you are against illegal immigration it is politically smart to avoid talking about all those other issues laid out above that might divide your movement
However, if you are strongly in favor of illegal immigration, it would benefit you to highight the dissent in your opponent's camp and hopefully break the coalition
That is the problem for a reader of these blogs - when someone talks about disagreement within the ranks of the antis, they could be an anti trying to politely persuade their fellow antis, or it could be a pro who is trying to create dissent
comments?
Anon,
I totally agree with you. Allow me to summarize your categories:
ANTI Coalitions:
1. favor unskilled LEGAL immigration vs unskilled ILLEGAL immigration
2. favor skilled immigration (European) vs unskilled (Latin American)-- in their view
3. against all new immigration under all circumstances (limit population growth)
4. favor anglo immigration vs non white immigration
If we were to do a study of all ANTIs, most would say they are in favor of all of the above.
anon, the brutally honest anti, refreshing.
Well,
i am just trying to be honest.
What i personally want is
(1)plenty of diversity - tons and tons of highly skilled immigrants, with the absolute smartest people from mexico moving to the usa and becoming citizens, the absolute smartest people from central ameria moving to the USA to become citizens, the absolute smartest people from africa coming to the usa and becoming citizens, the absolute smartest people from asia coming to usa and becoming citizens.
(2) I want the USA to have the smartest and most creative people in the world, and to be such an attractive place that the smartest and most creative people want to keep coming
(3) I want zero unskilled immigration. Nada. I don't care what race you are - if you are unskilled or uneducated I don't want you to come. This goes for unskilled uneducated anglos as well as for everyone else
(4) In my humble opinion, immigration of the smartest and most creative people leads to increased demand all sorts of low skill services like maids, gardeners, nannies - this creates a massive labor shortage ( a good thing) . Native born unskilled uneducated people can easily find work at middle class wages. Every single person born in america who is not retarded or disabled can find a job that pays a middle class wage and can afford a middle class house middle class education for their kids and good health care.
(5) With almost everyone living in the USA having a middle class lifestyle or better, crime and other social problems melt away. most prisons are dismantled. Most social workers and police and welfare case workers lose their jobs and move in to the private sector. Government shrinks and shrinks because everyone earns enough money to not depend on the government for anything. Taxes are lowered dramatically for everyone. And taxes keep getting lowered since wealth and income keep rising. Ultimately, the income tax is abolished.
(6) Half the farmers adopt to using robots to pick their crops. Crops that can't be picked by robots stop being grown in the US. Some fruits wind up costing more but incomes are so high that no one notice or cares
(7) Success breeds success - the US gets to be a better and better place to live with lower and lower taxes and more of the smartest people of the world move to the us - It just keeps getting better and better
(8) Many Americans feel sympathy for the poor folks left stranded in their own disfunctional countries. Instead of inviting these poor folks in to live in America, kind hearted Americans depart the USA and go live in poor countries making micro loans and doing other things to ease the plight of the world's poor without allowing any of them to come to the USA
I expect scorn from both the antis and the pros for my point of view. However, I have spent many years researching it and formulating it, so i am comfortable being considered unrealistic by all sides.
Actually, I believe that every single one of the undocumented today living in the USA should exit. Their exit from the US helps create a better society for everyone that is living in the USA legally. So i guess i can make common cause with the antis until the exit of all undocumented happens.
I am not part of the anti movement. In fact, I have never found a blog or a political organization that has the same point of view that i have. Nowhere on the web have i seen someone with my exact agenda.
That is where i stand
dee, you are wrong on your points #3 and #4 about the views of the majority of the antis.
Pat,
These are not my points. I just summarized Anons points. He says these are the ANTI views.
I agree with him but he wrote them.
"Dee's ANTI Coalitions:
1. favor unskilled LEGAL immigration vs unskilled ILLEGAL immigration
2. favor skilled immigration (European) vs unskilled (Latin American)-- in their view
3. against all new immigration under all circumstances (limit population growth)
4. favor anglo immigration vs non white immigration"
Few would quarrel with your no. 1; the way to do this is to find a way to provide a legal procedure for needed unskilled temporary workers to fill jobs in this U.S. where the need can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the NAACP and local labor unions. Legal is always better than illegal and the disregard for the rule of law.
I wouldn't quarrel with no. 2 either provided you eliminate the source of such skilled labor. Skilled labor that will enable America to maintain its prominence and prosperity vs the threats of China and other countries would be a good thing.
No. 3 is just being realistic. I am not against all legal immigration but our current rate of growth is unsustainable and therefore we should have a national objective of a stable population to be achieved withing 20 years by whatever means are necessary: tax policy, immigration policy and other public policies designed to encourage folks to recognize the virtues of having a country with a few open spaces and national parks and monuments and enough arable land and water to feed our people. It seems to me that this is must more preferable to cosigning our country to the levels of poverty,joblessness, and overpopulation of places like Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sub-Saharan Africa, India and China. Who wants that kind of trouble? Does Dee?
4. There are some obvious advantages of a more or less homogeneous population but we are well beyond that point so we can only hope that all those who favor a United Nations type diverse society are not dead wrong when it comes to whether a nation composed of so many different cultures, races, religions, cults, languages, and civilizations or uncivilizations can endure. The issue is in doubt and those who tout the benefits and value of diversity are fooling themselves because they are part of it.
How can one go about proving the virtues of a multicultural society when in so many places in the world cultural and religious bloody clashes continue, witness the recent events in Kenya.
I think America has been enriched by modest infusions of complementary cultures but sadly compromised by over infusions of some of questionable worth in terms of real top notch contributions measured by the Nobel and Pulitzer prizes won, new major companies or industries established, etc. What yardstick would you use to measure the value of diversity vs greater homogeneity?
"Or do you expect the high-skilled immigrants to take the same jobs the low-skilled immigrants have?"
Mirror, Anon may have misspoke in leaving this open ended. My position has always been in favor of metering all kinds of immigrants based on demonstrated need. If a legal immigration applicant has a skill not available in sufficient numbers in the U.S., I would give him or her some extra points. If they can speak, write and read English, I would give some more points. I would not admit anyone who would have the propensity to undercut domestic skills or unskilled labor. As I said elsewhere, let the NAACP and local labor unions decide on the unskilled categories and let employers prove the need for skilled workers. Whatever the need is, accommodate it within an annual quota of no more than 200,000, excluding tourists, students, and migrant farm workers.
No, dee that is not what anon said. He said there was a "fragile coalition" (meaning minority of anti's) that held certain views on immigration.
The very last statement that YOU made after your points 1-4 was "If we were to do a study of ALL anti's, most would say they are in favor of ALL of the above.
Well,
I am in favor of EVERY SINGLE one of the undocumented folks in the USA going home. EVERY SINGLE ONE.
There is a battle going on over this. Dee is on one side, and Dee has plenty of allies with her.
The only allies i have on my side are the antis. At this point i have to take what i can get in terms of allies.
I am also in favor of an aggressive program of bringing to the USA the absolute smartest most educated and most creative people of all races from around the world. Frankly, i don't think most antis are with me on that.
Pat, check out Ulty´s response. Perhaps I was thinking about his perspective when I said "most ANTIs."
patriot is correct.
The anti coalition includes a small number of people that are in favor of massive white immigration to the usa and against any immigration at all of people who are not white. This number is SMALL. However, if you read vdare (which represents many poinst of view on the anti spectrum) you do see this point of view represented. In fact, the founder of Vdare (a white immigrant to the usa) has expressed sypathy for this point of view.
It is not fair to say that anything more than a small percentae of the antis have this view.
I think almost all antis are united in wanting to end massive unskilled immigration, legal or illegal.
I think the major battle on the anti side is between those like me that want massive immigration of the best and the brightest of the world and those that want very little immigration of the best and brightest.
The lack of unity on the anti side is no different from the lack of unity on the pro side
I mean, the pro side consists of mexican nationalists seeking reconquista as well as wealthy republicans seeking cheap labor. Strange bedfellows are present on all sides here
Let me be blunt
I believe that if the undocumented folks now in the usa are legalized they will eventually vote for candidates that want to bring in hundreds of millions of desperately poor illiterates. The US will be flooded and truly go to heck.
I will ally with *anyone* in order to get all the undocumented gently and politely escorted out of the USA. I won't let minor differences get in the way of this.
I want a just society here in the USA, and in my humble opinion you only get a just society when you have a severe severe shortage of unskilled workers. And you only get a severe shortage of unskilled workers by gently escorting every single last one of the undocumented out of the usa.
Thank you for stating your position anon.
Danny, I see little difference between McCain and the Democrats. In fact I believe he used to be a Democrat and I think he still shares many of their views.
I look at it this way. Let the Democrats take the fall in the next 4 years. They will be blamed for not following thru on many issues and making bad decisions. Then we can get back to the business of electing a conservative president.
One thing I do agree with the Democrats on is pulling out of this stupid war. McCain said we could be there another 100 years. We are gaining nothing and the cost is bankrupting this country.
Danny,
Welcome to my blog. I hope you come back often. I visited your site and am going to comment on your teacher article.
I agree with you that many Republicans will be shooting themselves in the foot for not supporting McCain. It is clearly his Immigration stance they hate. The Shock Jocks only care about $$ so their cutting and running from the GOP should not be surprising.
I am glad McCain is running because this will make it easier for the Dems to win. We need change in this country and you are also right, the Dems will make significant change (corrections) to the mistakes the GOP has made over the last 8 years!
dee, it isn't just about immigration why we conservative Republicans don't like McCain. Many of us are fed up with this war too. Many of us don't like him personally either.
I don't see any real positive changes being brought on by the Democrats in the coming years other than ending the war. I don't like their liberal policies either. You and yours are getting all exicited that you are going to get your amnesty for illegals through a Democrat president. Lol, dream on, ain't gonna happen.
"I am glad McCain is running because this will make it easier for the Dems to win. We need change in this country and you are also right, the Dems will make significant change"
It is patently obvious that change will occur regardless of who is elected. Every president is different and has different interests and policies. Of course, to some extent, the office also makes the man. Once a new president has to come to grips with all of the decisions he has to make, he begins to see things in a little different light than the one that shone on the party platform and campaign rhetoric.
Let's hope that continues to be true so that decisions are moderated by the facts of our situation in the world and at home.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised to see a Dem president decide to stay in Iraq a little while longer. Right now they are pandering to the anti-war crowd.
Similarly, maybe they will see that America's population is growing too fast if as predicted it will reach 438 million by 2050 and perhaps 600 million by the end of this century. How can this be good for our country?
82% of that growth will be attributable to immigrants who arrive between 2005 & 2050 and their U.S. born descendants. 23% of working-age adults will be foreign-born & 31% of them will be Hispanics. Tell me that doesn't sound like Mexico Norte with a little admixture of other Latinos.
Can we look forward to kidnapping every 60 minutes as is the case in Latin America, 70% of whom do not survive.
I have never had an intelligent response to the proposition that if you divide finite natural resources by an ever increasing population there will be less for everyone inevitably leading to a declining standard of living and quality of life. How many want that? If you don't agree, tell me why. If you do agree that the proposition is correct, then what do you think should be done about this?
If you are in favor of curbing greenhouse gases, explain how that will be possible at the same time our population and the world's population are growing at an unprecedented rate.
No more silence on these issues. The answers bear directly on all the other discussions of immigration, illegal aliens, the 14th amendment. chain immigrations, birthright citizenship, etc.
Liquid,
Jeb Bush is NOW backing McCain.
Will Jeb be the VP?
If so, how long before McCain becomes bedridden and puts the new Bush in charge?
Post a Comment