Thursday, November 6, 2008

Why Republicans Did Not Carry the Latino Vote! They Treated Latinos Like Their Ugly Dates!

I have been listening to pundits, particularly on Fox News, all asking, “Why didn´t Republicans carry the Latino Vote as they did in 2004?”
The answer is simple. Republicans did not ask us to the party. We were their ugly dates. They thought putting up a few ads in Spanish on Univision, whispering a few lies they thought we wanted to hear, would swing our votes to them. They thought putting a few bucks into the pockets of old school Latino politicians would get them our votes. Maybe that worked in 2000 and 2004, but it did not work in 2008 and it will not work in the future.
Why? Technology. We have caught up with the rest of America. More and more Latinos, young and old, are on the internet. More and more Latinos are hosting blogs and commenting in newspapers. We have found our voice and we have made connections with each other. Two of our largest concerns are Immigration issues and the resulting Racial Profiling.

The Immigration debate has impacted every brown person in America. Rampant racial profiling is occurring across the nation. Our cars are being followed. Our children are being harassed. Every brown worker in public view is being scrutinized with the unasked questions floating in many eyes, “Are you an illegal immigrant?” “Are you Mexican?” The eyes are not kind. They are angry and accusatory.
Racial Profiling is wrong, but what is worse is the poor treatment being received by the 12M undocumented workers in our country. In 2007 and 2008, we have witnessed some of the most inhumane treatment of workers in history as they were sent off to cattle barns and families sent to crony owned private prison Detention Centers.
We are also viewing what the ANTI Immigration Reform supporters are saying and videos they are posting on the internet. Much of it is not a pretty picture. On the anonymous internet, many ANTIs are not only outspoken with hate towards illegal immigrants but they frequently bash anyone who advocates Comprehensive Immigration Reform. While there are some in their ranks that have valid concerns, there are also many members from extremist hate groups like the KKK and White Nationalists. Overall, there is no doubt this group is skilled at using the internet and technology towards their advantage. They know how to mass email and fax Congress. They know how to stir up their media and shock jock advocates like Dobbs, Hannity, Beck and Limbaugh. They know how to “yank Congress´s chain” to heed their call. However, what is clear is, they are not the large numbers some of their members try to represent.

The PRO Immigration Reform supporters are different than many of the ANTI groups. They are not angry exclusionists. They seek resolution to the Immigration issues via Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the end to Racial Profiling. They are comprised of many Latinos and other groups interested in CIR. I often say the PRO CIR supporters are similar to the members of the 60´s Civil Rights Movement, advocating change and improvement of bad laws. This group is growing and wants both Republicans and Democrats to hear and respect their views. Like all Americans, PROs want an improved America and Immigration is but one issue they support. PROs also ask for Change in the Economy, Healthcare, War, and Education.
Why Latinos DID NOT vote for Republicans in 2008:
The Republican Party candidates were overrun with ANTI Immigration Reformers. Angry candidates like Tom Tancredo peppered their language with obviously racist outbursts. His comments, “Miami is a 3rd world country!” and telling El Paso citizens against the Border Fence to move across the border put him over the top as the worst candidate.
Watching the Republican candidates´ debates cast this negative light on the entire Republican party as candidate after candidate followed Tancredo´s lead. The only Republican that had any small hope of obtaining any Latino support was John McCain. In 2006, he did support CIR along with Ted Kennedy and initially was a maverick on this issue, until his view came under Republican scrutiny during the election campaign. Then, McCain flip-flopped to the restrictionist perspective. This hurt him with Latinos. What made it worse was his “ugly date” strategy of winning us over. His backdoor meeting with old time Latino politicos topped with his Spanish only ads on Latino stations like Univision created another failure! Latino Bloggers LAUGHED at these obvious ploys!
McCain was certainly not helped by the fact his own state hosts the vilest of all ANTI Immigration Reform zealots, Sheriff Joe Arpaio. This suppression raider, armed with masked, volunteer storm troopers, has rampaged across Maricopa country throwing his girth around, blathering about his successes. He boasts of his racial profiling suppression sweeps. His worst example was storm-trooping a children´s Confirmation Mass.
Many blogs, including mine, called on McCain to disavow Arpaio. He did not. I invited McCain to speak on my blog. He did not.
Why Latinos DID vote for Democrats in 2008:
Democrats respected Latino voters and listened to Latino concerns openly and publicly. Many Democrats have advocated CIR for some time, especially via the Kennedy-McCain bill. The Latino Caucus hosted the Congressional Review of the ICE raids in Postville. It became clear the Democrats were listening and acting on some issues.
Of the Democratic candidates, all supported some version of CIR. Additionally, Barack Obama and Hillary visited Latino communities and sat down and listened to them. Additionally both Barack Obama and Hillary were invited to write on many Latino blogs. Barack Obama wrote on my blog in February, 2008.
Dolores Huerta and many national Latino celebrities actively participated in the Democratic campaigns. Dolores, one of our long time civil rights heroes spoke at the Democratic convention.

How to Gain and Keep the Latino Vote:
Respect Latinos and Listen to their issues. Proudly Invite Latinos to the Party. Respond to Latino views as equally as to other constituents. Talk to them on their blogs, on the internet.
We are citizens. We love America. We are family focused, hard working, military supporting, Christian people. We do want to see change in Immigration, the Economy, Healthcare, the War, and Education, just like most other Americans.
The Republicans made a big mistake, not only with Latinos, but with all other minorities. Look at John McCain´s audiences. They EXCLUDED. They were not inclusive. This was epitomized by Sarah Palin´s “Real America” comments. The election results PROVED she was wrong. The Republicans made that mistake and if they continue it, it will no longer be the GOP, but the Grand, Long-Gone Party!

We, of all ethnicities, of every color, all of us, all inclusive, this RAINBOW, are the HEART and the Real America!
God Bless America!

241 comments:

1 – 200 of 241   Newer›   Newest»
Dee said...

I recognize this post will stir discussion. As a reminder, my Blog Mission:
To provide a forum where people, both PRO and ANTI, can discuss American Immigration Issues and Political Issues CIVILLY, freely and safely thereby reducing the hate, anger and misunderstandings currently inherent in most of these discussions.

LeeSee said...

Good post, well thought out and well said. You hit all of the high and low points.
The anti-immigrant sentiment quickly morphs into anti-Mexican sentiments, this worries me for my children, especially my son.
The election of the new President gave me hope for the first time in years.
Viva Obama.

Dee said...

Thank you Leesee.
The Racial Profiling aspects impacts all of us. I agree.
It is especially impacting those in Maricopa county, as I´ve heard from my viewers in that area.
I do think there is hope and at least the Democratic party is listening.

Dave said...

Dee said: The Immigration debate has impacted every brown person in America... Our cars are being followed.... The eyes are not kind. They are angry and accusatory.

Well said. This debate has been steadily growing off and on for years. Once I lived in Eastern Washington, I was about 20. I visited a friend at a house he was housesitting for a family he knew. As I left the house, the neighbors only saw me exit, not him, and got into their cars and...followed me home! Then they called my friend to tell him that a mexican guy was 'scoping' the house! My friend corrected them that I was a friend of his. They said that they had my license and home address, just in case! But I never forgot that. People are targeted all the time for how they appear.

sandra said...

First, much of what you have stated is not factual or truthful and full of exaggerations. Second, the other day you were denying that CIR wasn't as top a priority as I said it was with Latinos and the determining factor in which way their votes would be cast. Thirdly, why do you repeat the same things over and over in this blog?

sandra said...

Lessee,

Obama is not Latino or Mexican so I don't know what hopes you think are going to be fulfulled with Obama in regards to your ethnic group. Americans are not anti-immigrant either. They are opposed to illegal immigration. You do know the difference, don't you?

Dee said...

Sandra,
1. Wrong.
2. I repeat, it is an IMPORTANT issue but NOT the only issue.
3. Because the message hasnt sunk in with you yet!

sandra said...
1. First, much of what you have stated is not factual or truthful and full of exaggerations.
2. Second, the other day you were denying that CIR wasn't as top a priority as I said it was with Latinos and the determining factor in which way their votes would be cast.
3. Thirdly, why do you repeat the same things over and over in this blog?

November 6, 2008 4:10 PM

Dee said...

Sandra,
As always YOU are Missing the Point!
Obama is multi cultural and has broken the old white male glass ceiling. There is hope for all of us and our children to achieve the American Dream! (remember the Tiger Woods movie, "I´m Tiger Woods!")

And leesee and I are talking about ANTIs and NOT all Americans and many ANTIS into RACIAL PROFILING (ala Arpaio).

You DO know the difference, right?

sandra said...
Lessee,

Obama is not Latino or Mexican so I don't know what hopes you think are going to be fulfulled with Obama in regards to your ethnic group. Americans are not anti-immigrant either. They are opposed to illegal immigration. You do know the difference, don't you?

Dee said...

Leesee,
That is another thing that bothers me. The ANTIs always try to represent themselves as ALL AMERICANS when the very vote we are discussing loudly proclaims they are but a small, angry few!

Dave said...

sandra said: Lessee, Obama is not Latino or Mexican so I don't know what hopes you think are going to be fulfulled with Obama in regards to your ethnic group

Are you implying that Obama will benefit certain races or ethnicities only, rather than ALL Americans? I think part of his appeal is that he's not just Obama, the black president, but a president that represents someone who is mixed, someone who is not just more of the same, but rather someone who represents those that historically haven't always been 'included at the table'. Do you mean to say, for example, that in order for Asian American issues to be addressed in this country, we need to elect an Asian American President?

And also, to address you being so quick to point out that you, and AMERICANS (as if you can speak for me) are only against illegal immigration, not legal immigrants, i'm going to go ahead and speak for most legal immigrants (because my ancetors are legal immigrants) and say that most of us feel anti-illegal immigrant sentiment is also anti-immigrant sentiment. Many anti-illegal immigration groups want to also curtail and limit legal immigration, or keep it to a minimum. More legal immigrants than not, also understand the plight of the undocumented and unathorized in this country, rather than to side with citizens who are quick to criminalize a group of largely hard working individuals and families. Also, there are many households in this country that are made up of legal and illegal immigrants, mine included.

sandra said...

I would be glad to point out the inaccuracies and exaggerations in this topic you posted but I am sure you know what they are already anyway.

I repeat, I did not say that CIR WAS the only issue important to Latinos but I did say it was a top priority and you just proved it with your own words in this topic that you yourself posted.

Are you talking to ME personally when you say "it hasn't sunk in with me yet"? I don't post that often in here so how would you know what has sunk in and what hasn't? Perhaps you should be addressing your regular members in here with that one. I never let untruths and exaggerations sink into my brain nor should anyone else. Beating a dead horse to death won't work either.

sandra said...

The vote was for a new president, not CIR. I wouldn't be bringing the anti's as you call them into this discussion about the newly elected president because being an anti and opposed to illegal immigration had nothing to do with it. They are two seperate issues.

sandra said...

Lessee,

You are the one that brought up a new hope for your ethnic group with Obama being elected president, not me. Therefore, it appears that you are the one implying that he will favor certain ethnic groups, not me.

I don't know how you rationalize that being opposed to illegal immigration is the same as being anti-immigrant. You are not making any sense with that statement. Sure there are some who would like to see less legal immigration to control our population growth but what is wrong with that? That doesn't make them anti-immigrant.

Some illegal immigrants are only guilty of the violation of our immigration laws, some are guilty of I.D. theft and other crimes (criminal offenses) but that isn't the point. The point is that it is still against the law to not come here with papers and they are subject to deporation. I wouldn't harbor illegal immigrants in my household but then I respect the laws of this country. My family is not above the law either.

Dave said...

Sandra,

You are so clueless, it's scary. And just so you're clear on who's writing this, it's me, Dave, not Leesee, who was responding to what you had said to him.

Leesee said that he worried for his children, esp. son, for anti-immigrant sentiment, and how that morphs into anti-mexican sentiment, and how Obama gave him hope. To which you then replied that: "Obama is not Latino or Mexican, so I don't know what hopes you think are going to be fulfulled with Obama in regards to your ethnic group. "

That sure sounds like YOU are the one who sees Obama favoring only certain ethnic or racial groups because of his own racial/ethnic background, not Leesee.

I'm not Latino, but I understand exactly what Leesee is saying, because I too feel what anti-mexican sentiment feels like, and that Obama understands what that feels like as well. He doesn't need to be Latino or Mexican.

Do you get it now?

Dave said...

Sure there are some who would like to see less legal immigration to control our population growth but what is wrong with that? That doesn't make them anti-immigrant.

People who are for severely restricting immigration in an already restrictive system just think in terms of pop. growth, and other reasons why they don't want more immigrants coming in. Legal immigrants see this as less hope of familiy and relatives making it to America, and so they understand more and more why people resort to other ways to get in here. Legal immigrants also are often subject to racial profiling.

You may say you are only against illegal immigration, but many legal immigrants do not side with you.

Dave said...

sandra said: Some illegal immigrants are only guilty of the violation of our immigration laws, some are guilty of I.D. theft and other crimes (criminal offenses) but that isn't the point. The point is that it is still against the law to not come here with papers and they are subject to deporation. I wouldn't harbor illegal immigrants in my household but then I respect the laws of this country. My family is not above the law either.

I am not above the law, and neither is my household. And we are not criminals. We are law abiding, except for one detail. Current immigration law prohibits me from marrying my partner for citizenship, because immigration law is under federal jurisdiction, which defines marriage as between one man and one woman (the DOMA, enacted in 1996). There are almost 20 other countries that allow sponsorship through marriage for same sex partners. Our country is hung up/threatened by redefining marriage. Obama has promised to support the Uniting American Families Act, or UAFA, which would make it feasible for me to marry my mexican national partner for citizenship. I'm not holding my breath that this will happen soon, though. (In the mean time, go ahead and accuse me of aiding and abetting.) All the while straight people can meet a foreigner and marry them to make their foreign national partner eligible for a green card.

There are many people who have families and households of mixed immigration/citizenship status. Some households include teens and adults who have been brought here as babies and are very much assimilated into US culture and society with no recollection of their native country. There is no process for them to become american citizens. Is it fair to deport them? Some have been valedictorians of their high school. Do you think these households are going to be in line with the ANTI groups or with the PRO-CIR groups?

You are right, it is not right that people have come in here without papers or have overstayed their visas, but we as a country, and the rulers of the system, have let it go and have looked the other way for years, because the truth is, big business, ag business, and government, have benefitted to keep these people undocumented. Social security has benefitted by some using SSNs only to work and then they end up paying into the system without ever collecting on their contribution. They came here simply to work. You somewhat admit that there are gradations of law breaking and being undocumented or unauthorized, yet you still refer to them all as "illegals" and say law breaking is law breaking. But. It is not feasible to deport 12 million people. We as a country have gone through times of acceptance of people here undocumented/unauthorized, and at other times, severely wanting to deport everybody. This isn't a new debate. Some stats indicate that migration peaked at 2000, and has been continuing to going down. Perhaps we will see another period in our history when we are not as preoccupied with deporting everyone, and will stop with the raids, detention centers and deportations.

That would be an improvement, but that wouldn't be good enough. Pro-CIRs don't only want the raids or detentions or deportations to stop, they want a complete overhaul of the flawed system. Since it isn't feasible to deport everyone, only focus on the ones who are criminals and offer hard working contributers a path to pay back for their crime of coming here improperly, and also to give them a path for eventual citizenship. Also secure that border. Also examine what it is that we and other countries are doing that create poverty and thus unauthorized migration into our country.

The currently flawed system that isn't helped by an enforcement only strategy rewards employers by hiring cheap labor. A flawed system where immigrants believe it is legitimate to come here without papers to work, where sometimes american companies are recruiting workers in other countries with the promise of legal work. A flawed system that creates poverty (and thus migration), through our trade policies (NAFTA)with other countries. A flawed system that doesn't allow sufficient numbers of immigrants to come here legally in a timely manner, or to help satisfy the need for workers in agriculture or factories where americans will not work. (Why can't we implement something similar to what Canada has, which is to allow certain migrants who don't meet the requirements for migration to their larger cities, since they are perhaps not skilled or educated, to come in and repopulate areas that have become desolate? Would that have possibly been something Postville Iowa could've used?)

CIR should look at many different things rather than just raids and detentions and deportation. it should not be about racial profiling and blaming the poor people that only come here to work. They are only the pawns, the symptom, not the root of the problem. Sure there are criminals that come here also, but not in the numbers that the MSM, like Lou Dobbs, O Reilly, etc, would like you to believe. Those people should be deported, but it's not fair to look at everybody as a criminal and that is what ANTIS, with their hate speech, scapegoating and rhetoric, are doing.

Liquidmicro said...

"Current immigration law prohibits me from marrying my partner for citizenship"


The problem you would still run into would be immigration law, if your partner is here without a visa, even with sponsorship he would be denied simply for not having a visa. If you truly want to marry him, he would need to go back to where he came, get a visa, any visa, you could sponsor him with the K1-visa, come here legally, at which time you could move to Massachusetts, marry him legally there and then apply for adjustment of status of his visa. Apply for a K3-visa, and if granted he becomes LPR, after 3 years he becomes a citizen.

Here' the link for the visa requirements.
Spouse and Fiance(e) of an American Citizen


*NOTE: NO where in this application does it ask anything about whether it is a man/woman, woman/woman/ or man/man. Use it to your advantage.

Dee said...

Dave,
I was thinking about your experience and it struck me how sad that was. They followed you all the way home. They thought they were being good neighbors.
All because they have this false perception of people due to their skin color.

Dee said...

Dave,
Great Explanation!

Dee said...

Liquid,
That was very nice of you - to provide the information to Dave.

Dave, Liquid is very experienced in the process since he recently married a woman from Portugal.

Liquidmicro said...

"I visited a friend at a house he was housesitting for a family he knew. As I left the house, the neighbors only saw me exit, not him, and got into their cars and...followed me home!"


So, the actual home owners had someone staying at their house, and that person, whom the neighbors may know or not, invited a friend over, whom the neighbors probably have never seen before, and you think the neighbors have a false perception of people due to their skin color?? Especially when the neighbors only saw Dave walk out of the house??

Are you telling me, Dee, that you would have done nothing at all?? You have never seen this person before, and he is coming out of your neighbors house, for which you know they are out of town, what would you have done?? Called the police?? Followed him?? Nothing at all?? What should Dave have expected?? Are people to concerned with their neighbors, looking out for them?? Texas is big for looking out for your neighbors property, you should know that. Every where I have lived, CA, TX, KS, WA, and GA, there is a thing called neighborhood watch.

Dave said...

liquidmicro,
Thanks, but no, it doesn't work like that. I've looked into that already. You are right about him being here. Simply being here already makes him ineligible for sponsorship even if UAFA were to pass. He'd need to go back to Mexico and then I'd sponsor him. But once again, immigration is under federal law, and unless DOMA is repealed, or the UAFA is passed, I can't use a state law, such as in MA or any other state, to sponsor him. Federal law trumps state law in matters of immigration. DOMA which is federal defines who you can marry-has to be one man and one woman. Maybe I can get a sex change, haha. Seriously though, in some cases, it can hurt his chances of applying for any sort of visa if we were to register as a same sex couple in a state that allows marriage or civil unions, because it would show a record of him being here without papers and with intent to stay if it was a temp. visa.
So, we're kind of in limbo, unless there are changes. But like I said, I'm not holding my breath. After all, if even CA can't see fit to let gays marry, why would I have reason to believe DOMA will be repealed right away?
But thanks for trying.

Dave said...

liquidmicro said: Are you telling me, Dee, that you would have done nothing at all?? You have never seen this person before, and he is coming out of your neighbors house, for which you know they are out of town, what would you have done?? Called the police?? Followed him?? Nothing at all?? What should Dave have expected?? Are people to concerned with their neighbors, looking out for them?? Texas is big for looking out for your neighbors property, you should know that. Every where I have lived, CA, TX, KS, WA, and GA, there is a thing called neighborhood watch.

I understand what you are saying, liquidmicro, but the reality is that they knew my friend well, and he was a popular guy who had many friends, I'm sure other friends visited him, so the question was, would they do this for every single person that they saw coming out of their neighbors house, or just the brown ones? If the circumstances were the same, except for skin color/perception of ethnicity or race? Who knows? What bothered me more was that they told my friend, even after he assured them that I was his friend, that if he needed my license plate number and home address, they have all of that written down, just in case!

I have so many other stories about racial profiling, not that I choose to dwell on it, but this sh** happens all the time! I do well not to think every situation is based on race. I give it the benefit of the doubt, if you know what I mean.

Even before I met my partner, I was well aware of people's attitudes towards latinos/hispanics/mexicans, because that is truly what people think I am.

Dee said...

Liquid,
Do you really think they would have gone through the same extreme measures if YOU walked out of his house?
Until you walk in the shoes of a minority, you do not know. Until you experience Racial Profiling you do not know.

Dee said...

Dave,
I am going to give you examples of what happens to me.
If I dress casually at home and I answer my door to a stranger, they ask for the woman of the house. They think I am the maid.
Sometimes I go to the store, or to a movie and if I don´t hear the person the 1st time, they start talking to me in Spanish.
When I was younger, if I was dressed casually while shopping, I was followed by security.
If I go to an nice hotel or rent a car, they scrutinize my ID.
Yet, in these same examples, no one ever questions my husband. Never. He is a big Irishman. He rarely has to show ID even when it is required. He is never followed. He is never questioned. Sometimes, when I dont want to deal with "it", I just send him.
I remember when he and I went to a new trendy Mexican restaurant, I walked ahead to the car while he paid the bill. He heard the woman at the next table say, "See, I told you this was a good restaurant. Even the Mexicans eat here."
Then there is the "police catches your eye and follows you" experience.
I have a million of these examples. I know these experiences and much worse happen every day to minorities.

Now, to hear and see what is happening in Maricopa County, in So.Cal and around the country with all of their Racial Profiling, Suppression Sweeps is just deplorable.

Dave said...

Thanks Dee, but, as I told liquidmicro, the real kicker isn't just that they followed me home, which was bad enough, because I really doubt that they would've done that if I were white, but that, even after my friend assured them that yes, I'm his friend, and that yes, I had just visited him, and not to worry, I'm a coworker of his (we worked at a nursing home together, I even had my uniform on), they still felt the need to be cautious, and told him that if he needed my license plate number, the make and model of my car, and my home address, just in case, they had it all written down!

What conclusions should I have drawn, or not drawn?

I try not to jump to conclusions, and function better by not dwelling on this, but I've had numerous other "incidents" like this. Some of them you just have to laugh at, because they can be trouble if you try and think too much. Some of my incidents are just funny, like being mistaken for a janitor at a school, or a bellboy while walking through a hotel where I am a guest. So, I am extremely empathetic to latinos/mexicanos/hispanos/chicanos documented or otherwise, and other brown people for that matter, living in the USA, and like your stories, Dee, we have stories to tell.

Dave

Dave said...

Now, to hear and see what is happening in Maricopa County, in So.Cal and around the country with all of their Racial Profiling, Suppression Sweeps is just deplorable.

It IS deplorable. And it's happening in other states, including mine. Nowhere near like it is there, though, but there are now three border patrol stations on highway 101 through the Olympic Peninsula, and near the coast. All set up in the name of national security in the event of terrorists possibly sneaking in. So far, though, there have been 90 or so people caught, most of them undocumented/unauthorized latino immigrants. They've bragged a couple of times to the media that they caught three white people, so therefore it's not about race or racial profiling! They've harassed hundreds of people since they started this almost two years ago.

Liquidmicro said...

Dee said...

Liquid,
Do you really think they would have gone through the same extreme measures if YOU walked out of his house?


If I were the homeowner, I would hope that they would.

As for me walking out of the house, who knows. The intent of these people may have been to look out for their neighbors property.

Here's a story I dealt with a few weeks ago. My company was working in a Public Park, had been now for 2 days. I got there the 3rd day early in the morning, 30 or so minutes before my crew got there, I'm sitting in my truck across from a nice house. The man who lives there came out, took his child to school, came back and went into his house. 5 minutes later the Police pull up behind me and the man comes out towards my truck. Now, I am white, I have equipment in the back of my truck, my truck has been at this location a few other times, I have ben there a few other times, have spoken to this man once before, and he still called the police on me. The man was of middle eastern decent and was concerned that I was casing his house to rob it. My crew pulls up, 2 more white guys with tattoos all over, 250lbs, 6 foot tall. The police hassled us for a minute and then realized we were there to work. In the meantime the man who called the police walked away with no apology or anything.

Does this count as being profiled or racially prejudiced??

Dave said...

liquidmicro said: As for me walking out of the house, who knows. The intent of these people may have been to look out for their neighbors property.

The intent of these people in looking out for their neighbors property included thinking that my friend, the house sitter, might possibly have a mexican friend who would steal, or take something, or damage the land or property of their neighbor. It wasn't enough that my friend was trustworthy enough for their neighbors, or that he assured them that I was not a problem. "Just in case, we have some background information on the possible criminal." Would that have happened with you walking out of the house, even after a friend and coworker has vouched for your trustworthiness or lack of criminal intent to the protective neighbors? Who knows?

liquidmicro said: Does this count as being profiled or racially prejudiced??

I would say possibly so, but how often does this happen to you? Are the people who racially profile you always that rude and unapologetic? Were you able to think of anything else besides race that might explain their behaviours? Are you sure you are being singled out for your race? Have you ever had law enforcement profile you (aside from first getting a 'tip off' from a concerned citizen) and was it solely because of your race? How often. Ever hear of 'driving while brown'? Have you ever been pulled over for 'driving while white'? I can't answer that question for you (whether or not you were racially profiled), but for me, I think I know when I'm being racially profiled. The difference is I'm not a member of a priveleged white majority. I'm sure white people get racially profiled, but how often and to what extent, and can it ever be as often or as severe, as a black, latino, or other ethnic minority in this country?

The Arizonian said...

"Why Republicans Did Not Carry the Latino Vote!"

or the black vote....
the young vote.....
or college vote.....
or white vote......
or the military vote.....

America thought it was time to change. I actually have no problem with that. The system worked.

Now, hopefully we can all get along and accomplish some real things.

Dee said...

AZ,
Yes, going back to the topic, the Republicans did lose the votes of many groups.
Since the pundits were asking themselves, wondering the reason Republicans did not carry the Latino vote, I provided the explanation. We voters, all of us, want our candidates to listen to us. We want their respect. We don´t want to be ignored except pandered to on Univision with obvious deviations from their public policies.

Anonymous said...

remember, not one group put obama over the top. we, who are anti amnesty help put him in office along with many factions of this country. should any thing resembling amnesty come about, obama will only serve 4 years.

sandra said...

Dave,

My only hope is that Obams will work for ALL Americans. Some minorities are elated that he won, both Blacks and Latinos, just because of his race and their surmised idea that it will benefit them more than white Americans somehow. I hope that isn't going to be the case and I question why anyone would think that or want that. There was no need to call me "clueless" either.

The only thing that I "get" is that you are claiming racism against Latinos and Blacks as if it is rampant in this country and it isn't. Racism is not on a grand scale in this country anymore and in fact racism is rising against whites by minorities now but you wouldn't want to admit to that, would you?

The question is do YOU get it now?

sandra said...

Dave,

Immigration to this country is a PRIVILEGE and not a RIGHT and that we can decide to limit immigration at any time if it benefits this country! I for the life of me do not understand why some people think that just because we have had relatively liberal immigration in the past that it can continue in perpetuity!! Do they really think that we can continue to accept millions of people forever??

Legal immigrants are going to have to accept that not all of their family and relatives can come in here! It's not enough that we allow the immigrants in, but we are being told that if they can't chain migrate all of the family that they want that these people are going to use that to justify coming in illegally?

You know, many Americans live THOUSANDS OF MILES away from their mothers, fathers, siblings, sons and daughters! But these "immigrants" think they are so special that they can't live without being right next door to their relatives??!! They can't be content to communicate with them online or on the phone and visit them whenever possible like Americans do with their far-away family members!?

I am not going to get into the gay couple situation in regards to immgration because I don't approve of gay marriage anyway.

Dave said...

sorry to get back off topic guys.

sandra said: My only hope is that Obams will work for ALL Americans.

That is my sentiment too.

sandra said: Some minorities are elated that he won, both Blacks and Latinos, just because of his race and their surmised idea that it will benefit them more than white Americans somehow

Obama transcends race. (It sounds cliche, but it's true.) Some Blacks, Latinos, AND WHITES, AND many others, wanted him to win, and voted for him not because of his race, but because he was the better candidate for the country.

Many people vote on who they think will be good for ALL people, not in terms of whether the candidate matches their race. I've no doubt that some do vote solely based on race, including some whites.

sandra said: you are claiming racism against Latinos and Blacks as if it is rampant in this country and it isn't.

why do you put words in my mouth? Never said it was rampant. It still exists, though, and is arguably increasing among specific races/ethnicities. To think otherwise is to be kind of oblivious to the reality of our society.
(this is where an anonymous poster might say I'm pulling out the race card or playing the victim.)
Does racism happen sometimes to whites? I'm sure it does. I'm not denying that.

I'm not playing the victim. I responded to what Dee was saying about racial profiling, and how being 'followed in one's car' struck a memory of something that happened 20 years ago! I've since had many more incidents like that. She also told us of stories of what it's like for her as well to be latina/hispana.

(really sorry to get more off topic here, folks.)

The reality is that since 2001, there have been increases in US hate crimes at Muslims, Arab-Arab and Arab Americans/Middle Easterners, and more recently an increase in hate crimes against Latinos/Hispanics. Perhaps if you were Latina/Hispana, or just looked like one, Sandra, you would understand, but you aren't, so it is you who just doesn't get it.

Christa said...

Dave, I will tell you that I have a very good friend who is from the Middle East. She told me how impressed she was at how level-headed Americans remained after 9/11. She said that had such a horrendous terrorist attack happened in any Middle Eastern country by Americans, there would have been riots in the streets and Americans (or any suspected American) attacked in the street wholesale.

Her words, not mine.

Dave said...

sandra said: Immigration to this country is a PRIVILEGE and not a RIGHT and that we can decide to limit immigration at any time if it benefits this country! I for the life of me do not understand why some people think that just because we have had relatively liberal immigration in the past that it can continue in perpetuity!! Do they really think that we can continue to accept millions of people forever??

It is a privelege and not a right, and you are right, WE can decide at any time to limit immigration. I higlighted "WE" because that includes people like Dee and me, and other PROs. We think the system is broken. There are a huge backlog of people waiting to get in. Would you be happy if you were told that your husband would have to wait ten years before coming into the country because of some glitch in paperwork that happened unbeknownst to you? Is it fair? And is it justified to then come in here without proper paperwork or procedure? Maybe not, but when we've let 12 million live here, and now we suddenly want them gone. It's not feasible to deport all of them, so there has to be some sort of compromise anyway. To do nothing IS a kind of amnesty. To try to deport tham all is fruitless. Why not allow compromises where people can come forward and pay fines, etc? That may even have an added benefit of them contributing more to this country, or at least not to continually be the brunt of increasing hate crimes, as I pointed out earlier.

sandra said: I am not going to get into the gay couple situation in regards to immgration because I don't approve of gay marriage anyway.

No big surprise there.

Dave said...

(still sorry to be off topic, guys.)

christa said: Her words, not mine.

That's encouraging, christa. I'm glad she's having a good experience. That still doesn't negate the hate crimes that are still occuring. Are Americans learning to be more enlightened and accepting of others? I hope so.

Dave said...

Getting back on topic, I agree with your assessment, Dee. I thought it was very telling in our household, where we listen to both english language and spanish media, just how much McCain distorted his stance, his intentions, towards latinos, regarding immigration, complared with the general population.

While both Obama and McCain did not mention illegal immigration as an issue, Obama didn't send out conflicting messages in two different languages. He was fairly consistent in both. I find it surprising that McCain, coming from Arizona, would think that spanish speakers and the bilingual community would not notice the discrepancies of his conflicting ads.

sandra said...

Dave,

Since racism against any ethnicity in this country, including white people is not rampant then why do you even bring it up then? Racism will always exist on this entire plant and nothing will change that. I wish it would but it is part of the bad part of human nature.

sandra said...

Dave,

Here is where you go wrong. You are justifying illegal immigration because of our lax government and the greedy employers. Those two things were NOT the will of the American people. So please don't include everyday Americans in your WE scenario. The only WE I care about are law abiding Americans and not our government who didn't secure our borders as they were obligated to do and employers who seek cheap illegal labor.

Dee said...

The reason Racism was brought up was because one of the major issues Brown citizens are facing in this country is Racial Profiling. This has become prevalent since the Immigration Marches in 2006. Racial Profiling is wrong and must be STOPPED. It is a major issue (not the only issue but a Major issue) for all minorities. That is why it was brought up.

Dee said...

Dave,
I do want to share some of the reasons I voted for Barack Obama.
The primary reason is the current Administration and the state of our nation. It has to change. I believed that McCain, while the best of the Republican candidates, would only have brought us 4 more years of the Bush Administration. That was my first and primary reason.
Second, the Economy. This partners with my first reason.
Third, Changes in bringing Healthcare and Education to the forefront.

Now, my fourth reason, and I believe this will be a little controversial so I am saying this to prepare you for this and the backlash I expect to get from some of my viewers.
My fourth reason was because Barack Obama was a minority and we needed to break the glass ceiling of the Presidency.
I´ve been in business a long time and I know until that ceiling is broken, even though we TALK and say it is open to everyone, it is not. Obama is like Jackie Robinson or like Tiger Woods winning the Masters.
Now we know anyone of us in America can become President.
Equality for ALL.

Dee said...

Sandra,
Dave is not wrong. His opinion is different than yours on this issue, that´s all.
Additionally he was justifying nothing. He was saying history brought us to this point and it is unreasonable to expect that Mass Deportation will happen.
Also, your will is not the will of the American people. Your will is your will and your opinon is your opinion and there are numerous opinions on this issue by many Americans. We ALL have a right to our opinions on this issue. What we don´t have is viable solutions that we ALL agree on.


sandra said...
Dave,

Here is where you go wrong. You are justifying illegal immigration because of our lax government and the greedy employers. Those two things were NOT the will of the American people. So please don't include everyday Americans in your WE scenario. The only WE I care about are law abiding Americans and not our government who didn't secure our borders as they were obligated to do and employers who seek cheap illegal labor.

Dave said...

Thanks, Dee. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Do you get it now, Sandra?

Dee said: Dave is not wrong. His opinion is different than yours on this issue, that´s all.
Additionally he was justifying nothing. He was saying history brought us to this point and it is unreasonable to expect that Mass Deportation will happen.
Also, your will is not the will of the American people. Your will is your will and your opinon is your opinion and there are numerous opinions on this issue by many Americans. We ALL have a right to our opinions on this issue. What we don´t have is viable solutions that we ALL agree on.

Dee said...

Dave,
Lifestyle and sexual orientation issues should NOT be the ballot.
This includes Gay Marriage bans and Abortion. A woman should have the right to choose.
What I think is odd is people pick and choose which religious beliefs are voted on.

From a strict, Catholic view, any form of birth control is as wrong as Abortion. The Death Penalty is equally as wrong. Guns should be outlawed. Why bring in the Catholic church for Abortion but not the Death Penalty or Gun Control.
The reality is, the advocates of these bills just want to control our lives-lifestyles to their opinions.


Dave said...
sandra said: I am not going to get into the gay couple situation in regards to immgration because I don't approve of gay marriage anyway.

No big surprise there.

November 7, 2008 11:58 AM

Christa said...

Sorry Dave, I'm not going to let you get away with insinuating that this is an intolerant nation. You just seem hell bent on honing in on any individual behavior and then applying it to the nation as a whole. What ever happened to the old, "you can't judge an entire country by a few bad apples?"

This is one of the most open and diverse nations on planet earth! With over 300,000,000 people, are there going to be some miscreants? Sure. Some of these people who commit so-called "hate crimes" are just clearly unbalanced people.

But this nation is at least as tolerant and more so than any other nation. Maybe you should try your hand at living in a Middle Eastern country for awhile. Try walking down the street holding your partner's hand. Then get back to us and let us know how it worked out for you.

Ee and many other nations have been under attack by truly intolerant people, but all you seem to be able to do is nitpick on the few instances of intolerance that you can find here in this nation of 300 million people. I noticed that you haven't made mentinon of the hate crimes which Muslims here have committed against our people, and those which were foiled by law enforcement. No need to. I think I made my point.

Liquidmicro said...

"I'm not a member of a privileged white majority."

White Privilege?? What about Minority Privilege, Affirmative Action??

I blame irresponsibility on those thinking such a thing as 'White Privilege', who may incorrectly blame their personal failures on white oppression. People, no matter race, obtain what they desire due to self determination. We all have the same schooling from K-12, it is after that where are choices lead us, the education we want, the jobs we accept. Obama now becoming the President should not be 'a minority and we needed to break the glass ceiling', as other 'Blacks' have ran in the past. There ideals were not in line with those who voted, Obama offered something the others did not. That ceiling was broken decades ago. Please don't tell me you get your information from Tim Wise!!

Dave said...

Christa,

If I thought this was an intolerant nation, I wouldn't be here.

I'm not hellbent on anything. Go ahead and make your points, state your opinions, but try to get an understanding of what minorities in this country feel first before attempting to base it what only one person said to you. Try and empathize and understand what it means to be black or latino, and get an understanding of what I'm saying/not saying before you accuse me.

(Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to pause here and listen to rest of Obama's press conference right now.)

Dave

Christa said...

Apart from whether we decide to offer some kind of legalization to those who have blatantly disregarded our immigration laws, there is another issue which will need to be addressed.

That is what is our carrying capacity in this country. How will adding another 100 million people in the next several decades affect the quality of life of our citizens, the stress on our infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and social services.

It is just common sense that we cannot continue to maintain the current immigration levels without limit. I think it is time to have a national discussion about how much immigration is beneficial for this country and if it might not be time to curtail it somewhat. I believe that was the point which Sandra was trying to make.

There is some kind of mindset amongst some that even bringing up the topic of limiting immigration is somehow a taboo; the term "restrictionist" is used as though it is a dirty word.

In reality it should not be at this point in time. We are no longer a wide open, undeveloped frontier with a small population. I for one do not want to end up as a teeming third world country like China where we will need a "one child policy" to keep from going over the cliff population wise. Most terrible conditions in third world countries are exacerbated by their unsustainable overpopulation. In our case, we have a CHOICE to limit overpopulation through immigration and I believe it is time to talk about it rather than wait until we are in the middle of another crisis.

I am not sure why we cannot secure our borders and put into place a system whereby we can track visa overstayers and prevent employers from hiring those here illegally BEFORE we decide what to do with those already here. We already tried the "comprehensive" approach back in 1986 and it failed dismally. Without securing the borders first, we will only have a repeat of that debacle. Then there will be more demands for another amnesty.

It makes me wonder sometimes whether some pro-illegals are really only concerned with the plight of those already here or whether they have an open borders agenda. If not the latter, why not secure the borders and have a tamper proof I.D. card which would make it virtually impossible for employers to claim that they did not know they were hiring illegals?

Christa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Christa said...

Dave, I think I can relate somewhat to the "minority" experience as I am a minority in the city in which I reside.

Let me explain something to you that you might not be aware of my perception and experience as a white person.

If you were white and walked into North Philadelphia at night, you'd be lucky if "profiling" were the only misfortune which befell you. I have been unfortunate enough to be accidentally caught in the "wrong" neighborhood.

If you are white and wander into the "wrong" neighborhood in Philly, you'll be physically attacked, robbed, beaten, and perhaps killed JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE WHITE!

Now I'm not saying that I don't sympathize with your being profiled. But at least you walked away in one piece.

See, we aren't living in the 1950s anymore. Whites ARE a minority in most major metropolitan areas and even in some whole states. We know what it is like to endure the hostile stares and treatment by non-whites.

Dave said...

liquidmicro: We all have the same schooling from K-12, it is after that where are choices lead us, the education we want, the jobs we accept.

sadly there is still such a thing as white privilege, not saying I would use that as an excuse for my failures. My failures are MY failures. But. I don't agree that there is an even playing field in this country regarding education, and in turn, jobs. To say we have the same schooling from K-12 contradicts the reality that there are schools closing, lack of funding, lack of programs, in schools that serve communities of color. There isn't an even playing field in terms of job wages and benefits like healthcare either.

As for affirmative action, Obama agrees with the thought that affirmative action doesn't help some poor whites and wants to reform affirmative action so that it does, and also in turn to reform affirmative action so that it doesn't help rich blacks and other rich minorities that don't need it. He wants to reform it so that it is more based on socioeconomic status, not race or ethnicity. That is something many minorities agree with. It needs to be updated to reflect the times we live in. We want a system that truly reflects an even playing field.

Liquidmicro said...

"To say we have the same schooling from K-12 contradicts the reality that there are schools closing, lack of funding, lack of programs, in schools that serve communities of color."

Lack of funding is big here in CA, $11B deficit, schools are going to be hit hard. There are many reasons why schools are closing, failing, etc., but not to recognize that the students themselves are also to blame is being oblivious to the entire picture. Look at the drop put rates of Blacks and Hispanics, whats the reason and the cause behind it??

Poor conditions in the inner cities plays a role, low property values due to the slums that some have been turned into means lower property taxes, which leads to low school funding and after school activities.

However, these children are still taught with teachers who are credentialed and capable, it is up to the student to take advantage of it. This can now be led to the parents, are they making sure their children are obtaining the opportunities that they have in front of them, or are the parents so disenfranchised with what their children do that they don't care if they become educated??


Marisa has an article about this that was discussed, take a read.

California's high drop-out rates of Latino and black students are not surprising — it's "expected"

Christa said...

Dave, the problem is that you can't solve the problems of the inner cities by just throwing more money in. And you cannot "level the playing field" by having another huge entitlement society. We tried that from 1965 to 1995 and all it did was creat a class of people completely dependent on the government and took away their self-respect and self-determination.

People must take responsibility for their own behavior; they must become responsible for their children and their communities. I think that Barack Obama has spoken about this and I am glad to hear someone finally say it. But it needs to happen. No amount of social programs and hand outs is going to matter. The "change" must come from the individuals. Now the government can *help* to an extent. But as long as the "victim/grievance" mentality is pervasive, nothing will change.

And look, that goes for whites too. There are underclass whites also who insist on not taking responsibility for their lives, that of their children, and then blaming everyone else for their inability to succeed. It isn't restricted to one race.

There's never going to be complete equality because everyone differs in their abilities, their level of ambition and initiative. Some people have more of a drive to succeed than others; let's face it, some people are just losers and I don't care what their race.

Just handing out money to "underprivileged" communities and schools without expecting certain results, without their having to take responsibility for their own actions and lives, is only a waste of taxpayer money. We've already been down that road before.

Someone who is going to start having kids at age 14 and has 4 of them by age 20 is going to be more likely to live in poverty. Someone who choses to do drugs and skip school and join a gang is also going to cut their chances of getting into college and having a secure and prosperous future. I'm all for helping those who want to help themselves. But some people do not want to be helped and only want to continue to blame others for their failures.

Dave said...

liquidmicro, I never said I had a solution for this complex problem. But your statement was simplistic. There is not yet an even playing field, and your statement implied that there was, or that it was just a question of self determination. I'm all for self determination, but you made it sound like that is all a poor inner city child needs to do, without recognizing that there are so many factors at play.

Dave said...

Christa: Now I'm not saying that I don't sympathize with your being profiled. But at least you walked away in one piece.

This isn't a contest on who feels more oppressed. We don't live in the 50's I never claimed that. There are parts of the country were I'm considered white. I've been thought of as whites by homeless clients I worked with, and was harrassed for being perceived as white and benefitting form white privilege. I understand both white and black oppression and hatred towards both, and everything in between. Again, this isn't a contest.

But. you've logged onto a PRO website called immigration talk with a MEXICAN AMERICAN. What did you expect to find? I'm not mexican, but have a mixed household and often perceived as Mexican, have been for most of my adult life, and now I have a Mexican partner. There is an increase in hate crimes against latinos in this country. That is a fact. Some feel that it is due to the strong anti-illegal immigration rhetoric and the scapegoating and criminalization of a race/ethnicity/nationality. So, are you here to dispute that? Are you here to tell me Whites feel it too? i'm not using this as a crutch, or to play the victim, nor am I saying that we live in an intolerant country.

Dave said...

As I said this is a complex problem with many factors. I never suggested throwing money as a way to "level the playing field."

christa said: Just handing out money to "underprivileged" communities and schools without expecting certain results, without their having to take responsibility for their own actions and lives, is only a waste of taxpayer money. We've already been down that road before.

sandra said...

Miss Dee,

Since Dave was justifying illegal immigration, he WAS wrong. There is no justification for breaking any U.S. laws. Our laws are not subject to OPINION, they are meant to be followed.

Neither racism NOR racial profiling is rampant in this country ethier so it is a moot point.

If you are trying to claim that the majority of Americans are not like me and instead have welcomed millions and millions of illegals into our country then I don't know what world you live in.

Liquidmicro said...

The factors at play do not effect the childs referendum of learning. It may effect to the extent of new age materials such as computers, however thy are not required for education. They weren't around during my education through K-12. Each child holds responsibility for their own learning, the parents too.

you made it sound as if the Government was to blame for not educating a child, when in fact they are given the same opportunity.

The question is how do we get these children, all of them, to want to learn, to want to be educated, to stop the drop out rates?? How do we get the parents involved with wanting there children educated?? Why should it be the Governments job??

Christa said...

Dave, I never claimed to be in a contest; sorry you feel this way. What I was trying to do is to point out that whites are also a minority in many areas and also the victims of racism and hostility by non-whites. We sometimes feel frustrated because any time "racism" is brought up it seems to be in the context of "white" racism and that is no longer the case.

I will submit to you that if there were 10s of millions of French Canadians here illegally causing the same overcrowding of schools, depressing of wages, and their legal/citizen counterparts were enabling them, that there would be a certain amount of resentment towards French Canadians also. What do you expect? I would also submit to you that if 10s of millions of Americans illegally entered Mexico, expected Mexico to educate their children, provide services in English, provide social services in the name of their children at tax payer expense, depressed wages, and the legal/citizen Mexicans of American descent were enabling that, there would be some not-so-friendly feelings towards them also. All in all, I believe that Americans in general have been very tolerant.

Christa said...

"As I said this is a complex problem with many factors. I never suggested throwing money as a way to "level the playing field."

And I didn't say that you did. But many often site the "lack of funding" of public schools as the main reason for the failure of children to succeed. Funding is a factor, but it is not the most important.

I read an article not too long ago about a couple of black business people who had reached a level of success and went back to their old neighborhood and established a charter school.

The parents and the students and teachers each signed a contract which spelled out clearly what the responsibilities of each party was to be. Each party agreed to uphold these responsibilities and follow the rules.

To make a long story short, the school became very successful; the children who attended that school exceeded expectations.

Now these people accomplished what the government and throwing more and more $$$ at already failing schools could not.

You are right that there are various factors at play. But solving these problems will require some thinking out of the box and not more of the same failed solutions such as simply increasing funding to failing schools and maintaining the status quo.

ultima said...

"...whispering a few lies they thought we wanted to hear, would swing our votes to them." This is about the same as the lies all the other candidates whispered during their pandering to the Hispanic communities. Hispanics with their Catholicism and work ethic are a much better fit in the Republican Party. They have decided instead to be a part of that segment of our population who want to feed at the public trough and who look for some special dispensation from the federal government for their “needs” as opposed to the needs of all other Americans. The Republicans simply find it inconceivable to sell out our country to foreign interests and illegal aliens. If Hispanics were loyal Americans who support the rule of law, secure borders, the English language, American culture and ideals, there would be a much better feeling toward them. Racial profiling, unwanted scrutiny and the unasked questions seen in the eyes of citizens are all things they have brought on themselves by their disloyalty, abuse of immigration laws, or lack of any regard for the rights and desires of citizens.

What a great country this would be if we could put this divisiveness behind us. The ball is in the Hispanics' court and only they can repair the ill will they have created by aiding and abetting illegals, pushing for amnesty, refusing to assimilate, placing burdens on schools and hospitals, and committing calumnies against ICE agents for just doing their jobs. They dishonor themselves by characterizing legitimate detention centers as something akin to the horrible Nazi concentration camps. Remarkably, they have never responded to questions about how they would run these facilities effectively within budget to accomplish the objectives. Similarly, they have been silent about how they would achieve border security with out an indepth defense based on improved infrastructure, staffing and rules of engagement at the border and vigorous internal enforcement based on E-verfication of work status followed by quick deportation where indicated. The fact of the matter is that it can't be done without those measures and they know it -- this is their ultimate lie. They lead us to believe that they are for border security but they really aren't. Is it any wonder that there is racial profiling and other approaches to this problem that could quickly be dispensed with if Hispanics were in a mood to act like Americans and cooperate with authorities to help them apprehend the illegals and send them on their way home. You don't like profiling and you don't being looked at askance-- help us to deal with the problem instead of being a part of it. Instead, CIR/amnesty as they define them are the only mantra we hear.

ultima said...

"The anti-immigrant sentiment quickly morphs into anti-Mexican sentiments, this worries me for my children, especially my son."

See my comment above for the solution to your problem unless you and your family are illegal aliens. If you are, then you should begin to get a glimmer of why citizens resent your presence. If you are not, the solution is clear--support your fellow citizens, support secure borders, support E-verification, support repatriation of illegals, learn English, let it be known that you are an American and you support all of the above measures.

ultima said...

"...at least the Democratic party is listening" They will live to regret it as their country is turned into just another Latin American mess destroying the last best hope of mankind--the American republic.

The incredible thing is even they do not realize what they are doing or are so shortsighted that they figure they will be dead before they are affected.

ultima said...

"As I left the house, the neighbors only saw me exit, not him, and got into their cars and...followed me home!"

It's called neighborhood watch. I hope my neighbors would do the same thing if they saw a stranger of any ethnicity leaving my home when I was away. It happens all the time when neighbors ignore such things.

ultima said...

"ANTIs and NOT all Americans and many ANTIS into RACIAL PROFILING (ala Arpaio). "

Although no one likes racial profiling, I have explained many times why it is necessary and appropriate in the present circumstances where the Hispanic community continues to aid and abet the illegals and shelter them in their communities. If they changed their ways so citizens could be reasonbly sure that those who are here are here legally, then there would be no need for profiling. As distasteful as it might be, it is the most efficient way to find those illegals who are in the great preponderance Hispanics. Maybe one day the Willy Sutton analogy will sink in. When asked why he robbed banks, he answered, "Because that's where the money is!"

If Sheriff Joe was asked the question, "Why do you target Mexican communities and why do you profile brown-skinned folks?" He could very truthfully answer, "Because that is where the illegals are to be found as well as many of the criminals we are looking for."

ultima said...

An interesting exercise is to assign percentages to the various reasons for Obama's election such as: the economy, Bush, Iraq, more money for ads, health care, immigration reform, or the opposition(McCain/Palin), oratory.

My percentages are as follows respectively: 30%,20%, 5%, 20%, 5%, 2%,10%,8%

ultima said...

"Obama is multi cultural and has broken the old white male glass ceiling."

Yes, he is,1/2 white, 1/4 arab and 1/4 black. Why anyone is calling him our first black president is beyond me. He's more like an quadroon. Why misrepresent that fact?

ultima said...

"Obama favoring only certain ethnic or racial groups..."

And indeed he is since he speaks openly about amnesty for illegal aliens most of whom are Mexican.

ultima said...

"Americans are not anti-immigrant either. They are opposed to illegal immigration."

Every American who values his quality of life and standard of living should be opposed to illegal aliens and excessive legal immigration both of which will change America for the worse simply because of the numbers. In the final analysis it is a numbers game. Too many of us means less for all.

Dave said...

Christa,

You think that I (and I paraphrase slightly):

-am hellbent on honing in on individual actions and applying it to the nation.

-am insinuating that we live in an intolerant nation.

-am only able to nitpick on the few instances of intolerance that you can find here in this nation of 300 million people.

You then give examples of tolerant white people (per your middle eastern friend), crimes committed against whites, bad neighborhoods in 'philly' to be white in, how other countries are more intolerant than ours, and how frustrated you are when any time "racism" is brought up it seems to be in the context of "white" racism and that is no longer the case.

Well, maybe you should consider the context of what is being said in a blog with statements written by someone who isn't white. All of the things you have said about me are not true, and the fact is, hate crimes are going up against latinos, and those who appear to be latinos. That is a fact. If you wanna read into my statements relating to that fact, or about racial profiling, and assume that I think all whites are intolerant, that is your nonsense.

Dave said...

christa said: All in all, I believe that Americans in general have been very tolerant.

christa, I actually agree with the above statement.

But I still have my experiences and hate crimes and racial profiling agianst latinos/brown people is still on the rise.

ultima said...

"It is not feasible to deport 12 million people."

Actually it is. Do you know that 8 million ethnic Germans were deported from the Eastern Territories after WW II in less than a year and they weren't just across the border? Moreover, our transportation systems are much more efficient and pervasive now. With the will to do so we could easily repatriate 12 million in less than a year. I would add the caveat that no one expects to do so. In general,the Anti-illegals prefer a much more orderly process with internal enforcement leading to self-deportation. Take away the jobs and there will be no reason to stay here. As far as children are concerned, the donor countries could use a few valedictorians imbued with American ideals. They might be able to help their countries to become more progressive and develop their economies. After all their parents had it even tougher when they came here illegally without speaking a word of English.

ultima said...

"in order for Asian American issues to be addressed in this country, we need to elect an Asian American President?"

A more important question is why are there such things as Asian American, Black American or Mexican American issues? Why aren't they just American citizen issues? If that were the case, we would have less to worry about when it comes to who we choose for president. It is the fact that everyone seems to want their special interests dealt with rather than the national interest.

Dave said...

ultima said: It's called neighborhood watch. I hope my neighbors would do the same thing if they saw a stranger of any ethnicity leaving my home when I was away. It happens all the time when neighbors ignore such things

Yes, I actually agree and know what a neighborhood watch is. But, as I was telling Dee and Liquidmicro, the real kicker isn't just that they followed me home, which was bad enough, because I really doubt that they would've done that if I were white, but that they then spoke with my friend, and even after my friend assured them that yes, I'm his friend, and that yes, I had just visited him, and not to worry, I'm a coworker of his (we worked at a nursing home together, I even had my uniform on), they still felt the need to be cautious, and told him that if he needed my license plate number, the make and model of my car, and my home address, just in case, they had it all written down!

That's just a little bit overboard for a neighborhood watch, don't you think?

ultima said...

"How do we get the parents involved with wanting there children educated?? "

Parents are clearly the most important factor. I suspect that if every parent preached education every day to his or her child, and told them it is stupid to think of this as a "white" thing, we would see an immediate improvement.

ultima said...

"That's just a little bit overboard for a neighborhood watch, don't you think?"

Yes, I have to agree with that, however, it could have been just one of those inanities people utter from time to time. It makes no sense in this context.

Dave said...

Ultima,
The debate in this country about what to do with 12 million undocumented/unauthorized people needs to happen, and I think WILL happen soon enough. People like you and I should be able to talk about how CIR will look. But here's one reason why I don't think it's feasible to deport 12 million people (And we are not living in post-ww2 Germany):

Remember the Postville Iowa raid in May? The Des Moines Register reported that the work raid on Agriprocessors in Postville, Iowa cost taxpayers 5.2 million. That's an average of $13,396 for each of the 389 unauthorized workers to be taken into custody!

And that's just what ICE spent. Since many of them were charged criminally for aggravated ID theft(even though most of them didn't even know what a SSN was, but were assigned one from their employers, but I digress...), the prison costs ran up to about $600,000 by midsummer! It is possibly more than that!

So, If it cost $13,396 to arrest each unauthorized worker in the US, and there are estimates of at least 11.5 million who fit that definition, then US taxpayers could be looking at spending over $154 billion for ICE alone to do it's job.

And since there seems to be a trend to charge them with aggravated ID theft, there are more costs associated with criminal trials.

If that sounds feasible to you, then hey, try to convince more people that we should spend that much on ICE raids.

ultima said: Actually it is. Do you know that 8 million ethnic Germans were deported from the Eastern Territories after WW II in less than a year and they weren't just across the border? Moreover, our transportation systems are much more efficient and pervasive now. With the will to do so we could easily repatriate 12 million in less than a year. I would add the caveat that no one expects to do so. In general,the Anti-illegals prefer a much more orderly process with internal enforcement leading to self-deportation. Take away the jobs and there will be no reason to stay here. As far as children are concerned, the donor countries could use a few valedictorians imbued with American ideals. They might be able to help their countries to become more progressive and develop their economies. After all their parents had it even tougher when they came here illegally without speaking a word of English.

ultima said...

"Our country is hung up/threatened by redefining marriage."

Marriage is generally thought of as a religious ceremony although there are certainly civil ceremonies as well. What seems to be the problem here is that same-sex marriage to most organized religions is anathema and probably would not be permitted under any circumstances. What is puzzling, given that fact, is why partners are so adamant about marriage as the proper descriptor for their particular arrangements. I believe they could better focus their efforts on achieving all of the rights of married couples without pursuing the idea of "marriage" per se which is an affront to many and which is unlikely to draw the support needed to achieve the other more important objectives, including immigration related issues.

sandra said...

Ultima, Christa and Liquidmicro I commend you all for your very well thought out points. Ultima what your said in particular that if Hispanics would show their loyalty to this country and its citizens rather than foreigners ethnically like themselves they would be viewed in a different light. They don't and yet they complain and act like they don't know why.

ultima said...

"Some feel that it is due to the strong anti-illegal immigration rhetoric and the scapegoating and criminalization of a race/ethnicity/nationality."

The rhetoric may have something to do with it but some of that rhetoric is fully justified not as "hate" but as an expression of the chagrin of those who feel their country slipping away from them or being compromised by the illegals and excessive legal immigration. There is some evidence that the latest waves of immigrants will not assimilate as those in the past have done, with difficulty and turmoil. The reason for this relates to the ease of communication and transportation to and from the countries of origin and the tolerance for multinationalism, dual citizenship and dual allegiance. We should all endeavor to separate the legitimate concerns from those of the fringe elements on both sides of the issue.

ultima said...

"That is what is our carrying capacity in this country. How will adding another 100 million people in the next several decades affect the quality of life of our citizens, the stress on our infrastructure, schools, hospitals, and social services."

Kudos to Christa for putting her finger on a key issue.

Christa said...

Are Americans learning to be more enlightened and accepting of others? I hope so.

You are clearly insinuating that Americans are lacking in their "enlightenment" by raising this question.

I answered your question that Americans are in fact among the most accepting people in the world. We admit more immigrants in to this country every years than any other country in the world. All we ask is that people come through legal channels. These legal channels exist for a reason; it is not acceptable to say that because your family and friends can't come in legally that they have no choice but to come in illegally. That is like saying that because you cannot get in to see a show because it is all sold out, you had no choice but to sneak into the theatre.

Now do not pee down my back and tell me it is raining. You are clearly suggesting that this country is not "enlightened" enough and I took exception to it. I never said that you said ALL AMERICANS were intolerant.

I have acknowledged that being profiled would be an unpleasant and annoying experience. But you seem to be quite dismissive of my attempts to explain my perspective. Things aren't perfect for any of us, Dave. We have both had unpleasant experiences. The only thing is that I have acknowledged your point and you are refusing to listen to what I am trying to get across to YOU.

You also did not answer my question on how the citizens of Mexico would react if the shoe were on the other foot. How "enlightened" do you think they would be, Dave?? As it stands now, Mexico as well as other countries effectively enforce their immigration laws while no one questions how enlightened and tolerant of others they are.

You are doing what most pro-illegals do: confuse those who have a right to be here, who have come legally with those who have come illegally. We tolerate quite nicely those who have come here legally. To insinuate otherwise is your nonsense.

ultima said...

"That sure sounds like YOU are the one who sees Obama favoring only certain ethnic or racial groups because of his own racial/ethnic background, not Leesee."

The proof of the pudding will be in the eating. We all hope Obama will come to his senses and not waste his honeymoon on illegal aliens.

Dave said...

ultima said: The rhetoric may have something to do with it but some of that rhetoric is fully justified not as "hate" but as an expression of the chagrin of those who feel their country slipping away from them or being compromised by the illegals and excessive legal immigration.

So when that "expression" leads to violence, is it justified? We already refer to them as illegals, spics, wetbacks, etc. That leads to thinking of them as somehow less than human, somehow to blame for taking what should be for citizens only, it leads to thinking that they are not documented so they are not really real, therefore I can kick them and beat them up, maybe nobody will know or care anyway. Is that justified?

Christa said...

Also, nobody answered my question about why can we not secure our borders and implement e verify FIRST before deciding what to do with illegals?

I suspect that pro-illegals really do not want to stop the flow into this country, otherwise there should be no opposition to security FIRST.

Dave said...

Christa said: But you seem to be quite dismissive of my attempts to explain my perspective. Things aren't perfect for any of us, Dave. We have both had unpleasant experiences. The only thing is that I have acknowledged your point and you are refusing to listen to what I am trying to get across to YOU.

Honestly, I really don't even know what you are trying to get across to me, or what you want me to admit. That Americans are enlightened and accepting? That they are tolerant? That Whites are not hateful or oppressive towards people of color? That Racism doesn't exist? If I point out something bad that happened to me in the context of a discussion of racism, racial profiling, oppression, I'm supposed to say, "Oh no, wait, what was I thinking? of course not! I was just being nitpicky! Christa says we are a tolerant nation. It was wrong to talk of my experience."

I shouldn't let my experience taint my view of the world, because not all white people are bad. Did you think I thought all white people are bad? Did I say ALL WHITES ARE BAD?

When I speak of racism in the context of white racism, why don't you go ahead; just feel that frustration, take "exception" to it? Don't try to negate or minimize my experience or give me examples of racism towards whites, as if I was minimizing your perspective. I'm not.

Christa said...

"You then give examples of tolerant white people (per your middle eastern friend), crimes committed against whites, bad neighborhoods in 'philly' to be white in, how other countries are more intolerant than ours, and how frustrated you are when any time "racism" is brought up it seems to be in the context of "white" racism and that is no longer the case.

Well, maybe you should consider the context of what is being said in a blog with statements written by someone who isn't white. All of the things you have said about me are not true, and the fact is, hate crimes are going up against latinos, and those who appear to be latinos. That is a fact. If you wanna read into my statements relating to that fact, or about racial profiling, and assume that I think all whites are intolerant, that is your nonsense."

Well, looks as though I hit a nerve. First off, I did not give examples of tolerant "white people." That is YOU looking at everything through the prism of race. What I said is that my friend was greatly impressed with the level-headedness of AMERICANS. Americans come in all colors, Dave.

All of the other examples I gave are the complete truth. This country is very tolerant. Yes, there will be incidents of hostility. But there is hostility shown by non-whites towards whites. I think it somewhat arrogant of you to want me to consider your point of view when you are so dismissive of mine. I have already acknowledged several posts back that I sympathize with a legal citizen who is profiled simply because of their race.

Nobody is saying that it is right; but Ultima gave a very good solution. If there were not so many American citizens of Latino descent advocating for illegals because they are ethnically like themselves, there would not be this antipathy towards them.

I await your answer on how the good citizens of Mexico would react if the shoe were on the other foot.

Also, I would like to know why you think that CIR is assured? Is it because Obama was elected? You couldn't have had a more pro-CIR president than Bush and yet CIR did not pass. In addition, the Dems who replaced Republicans in Congress are Blue Dog Dems who ran on anti-illegal platforms.

CIR is simply not in the best interests of our country and the majority of its citizens. At the very least, citizens want our borders secured and a mechanism in place to ensure that employers are no longer able to hire illegals and claim that they didn't know they were here illegally.

Christa said...

Let me put it to you this way, Dave: "that whites are not racist and oppressive towards 'people of color.'"

That pretty much sums up your attitude. You have a victim mentality. What I am trying to say is NOT that you have no right to your feelings about your negative experiences. And I am NOT trying to minimize these feelings. What I am trying to say is that non-whites are ALSO "oppressive and racist" towards whites.

You have to understand--and I just don't believe that you do yet--that we are NOT living in the 50s. You say that you do, but that is not what you are communicating to me by the words you use.

I AM the minority where I live. I AM THE ONE who is discriminated and has racism shown towards. My experiences are similar to yours, you just don't want to understand that because it runs afoul of your world view that whites the majority and the oppressors and non-whites are the victims of white oppression.

That might have been the case years ago. And it might even still be the case in some areas. IT IS NOT MY EXPERIENCE and the experience of many whites who are now the minority in majority non-white areas.

Now do you understand? I simply do not know how else to explain it.

Dave said...

Sandra said: Since Dave was justifying illegal immigration, he WAS wrong. There is no justification for breaking any U.S. laws. Our laws are not subject to OPINION, they are meant to be followed

I'm not justifying illegal immigration. What Antis don't get is that I'm not PRO-illegal, I don't want illegal immigration to happen. I'm PRO as in PRO-CIR! I ackowlege the issue of undocumented and/or unauthorized immigrants, but disagree that it is just a matter of an enforcement only approach. I also want us as a country to ackowlege and accept that there are people here who have been here, some for a while, who are hard working that have been able to come in here, and that we have a flawed system that rewards that kind of behaviour (coming in here undocumented or unauthorized) and also then scapegoats them for all our problems, accusing them of being criminals, and robbing us of healthcare, jobs, causing disease to spread, etc., rather than looking it as a flawed system with many factors causing migration. I agree that we may have problems with pop. control, the environment, the employers, the other countries who need to take care of their own, the things we do that cause poverty and subsequent migration of their poor to our country. Once again, I'm not for illegal immigration, I instead want change that make illegal immigration unnecessary or managable. Partly that might encompass enforcement. But I'm not for criminalizing and yes, demonizing a group of poor people that mostly work in low wage jobs. The difference between me and an anti is that an anti thinks we can just blame the undocumented immigrant for lots of things and neglect to see our role in what causes migration in the first place, and then deport them all, end of story. Not my appoach. I don't have all the answers, but I see lots of human suffering with that apporach, and it wouldn't solve the problem.

Dave said...

christa says: What I am trying to say is that non-whites are ALSO "oppressive and racist" towards whites.


And so? racism exists in different forms!

What is your point? I never said I'm the only one who feels this, or that white racism is the only form of racism or oppression.

The world is changing; some whites are the minorities of their area. It is oppressive as well for them. We don't live in the 50's anymore. I get all of that. It is unfortunate.

It still doesn't change what I've expressed here. You think I'm victim? I do not play the vicitm, so there.

That's good that you are not minimizing my experience, and I'm not minimizing yours. Great! Then why are you here? Why this insane arguement?

And the cycle continues...(because I'm convinced you still don't get it.)

Christa said...

Did you actually say, "why am I here???" Excuse me, but this is not your blog, is it??

I am here to voice my opinions just the same as you are. You said your piece and I said mine.
And if you say something else which I feel moved to comment on, I will do it!

Dave said...

christa said: it runs afoul of your world view that whites the majority and the oppressors and non-whites are the victims of white oppression.

Just because I can relate and offer examples of white racism or oppression towards me doesn't mean I can't relate or offer examples of other forms of oppression.

And based on the few comments I write here, you do not know my world view.

If there was a post here about racism or oppression towards whites, I can write about that, too. Consider the context of the posts you read before you comment.

I should follow that myself, because this conversation is only tangentially related to the post.

Christa said...

And I still don't think you get it either. It doesn't change anything I've expressed either.

You've had your unpleasant profiling and I've experienced my unpleasant hostility and racism. Neither is good or acceptable.

Dave said...

sandra,
Sorry. i'm not implying you should leave by asking why you are here. It does take two to tango. So, again, I'm sorry. It's not my blog. I feel bad already that I've writen so much on this. And I sense an equal frustration on your part, but you sound like you've just been repeating yourself, and I truly don't know what you are getting at. if I don't get what you are saying, i'm sure the feelings mutual.

Dave said...

meant to say christa.
above comment

Christa said...

Also, nobody answered my question about why can we not secure our borders and implement e verify FIRST before deciding what to do with illegals?

I suspect that pro-illegals really do not want to stop the flow into this country, otherwise there should be no opposition to security FIRST.

Christa said...

Well, I guess we are just talking past each other on this one. I am not trying to dismiss your points, honestly. For some reason I have not been able to communicate my feelings effectively. So, we'll just have to let it go for now. Maybe at some other point we'll have better luck.

Dave said...

Honestly, Christa, you point out that you are not minimizing my experiences, but in a sense, by pointing out that "we all have it bad" you are. Consider the context of the post. This is only tangentially related to the post in that it is mentioned that hate crimes and racial profiling is on the rise against brown people. When you start writing about white oppression, you are implying that no, "we all have it bad." Do you see what I'm saying.

And about the border wall and e verify. If both of those systems can be perfected, I don't se why not. I feel that the governemnt benefits by purposefully not fixing the border and e system. It ensures jobs for DHS?ICS, it also ensures that at least some will migrate back and ensure cheap labor. It enables an administration to say that they are doing something about the immigration problem.

sandra said...

I repeat, why is racism being brought up since it is not rampant in this country anymore and all races are the victims of it today? Racism does not play a role in the immigration issue for most anti's but I question the racial motives of those on the pro/CIR side.

I repeat again, that it was not the fault nor the desire of the majority of Americans that we have millions and millions of illegals among us today. It is the fault of our government for not securing our borders as promised in 1986, the employers who hired them and the illegals themselves that knew what they were doing. There is no justification for rewarding them for doing so either.

I repeat again, we have immigration policies and quotas in place to benefit our citizens and country and not immigrants. That is also the case for all countries. No sane country would welcome a demographic, cultural and population change by illegal immigration. No sane country would allow its social infractructures to be maxed out because of illegal immigration.

I repeat, only radical fringe groups call all illegal aliens serous criminals other than the crime of entering our country illegally. Some are and some are not and that is just a fact. To hear the pro's in here talk you would think the sentiment of the anti's is quite the opposite though. Just like they dwell on the "minority" of citizens who are racists they also dwell on the "minority" that call illegals very serious criminals. If they didn't do that, then they know they couldn't make a false case for their agenda. We know this and you know this so lets not hide behind the curtain anymore and stop pretending that the majority represent the fringe minority, ok?

If you are of the CIR mindset then fight to push legislation through to attain it but keep the white-bashing, race card out of it.

Liquidmicro said...

Here's my understanding of why Obama won and why McCain lost. Americans wanted someone to vote for, not against. And McCain never told Americans 'what he stood for' and why we should vote for him; he only told us why not to vote for Obama. That's just not good enough anymore.

It was not about treating someone as an 'Ugly Date'. Ugly dates usually are treated with respect and courteousness. Hopefully the GOP can learn from this mistake and make the needed 'change' come next election.

sandra said...

It is my understanding with the Latino vote that they believed Obama's promises of CIR rather than McCains because he wants the border secured first and wasn't able to get his McCain/Kennedy bill passed last year and had decided against it himself anyway because it was lacking in some areas. Latinos held that against him not to mention that most miniorities vote Democratic and Obama is half miniority himself.

sandra said...

Since McCain is a Republican and Latinos are holding that party responsible for the raids and detentions that is another reason that many Latinos wouldn't vote for him. Therefore the remark "ugly dates." The thing is though, this is about illegal immigration and enforcement of our immigration laws and not citizen Latinos. Very telling, right?

Liquidmicro said...

As for the Hispanic/Latino vote for Obama. I'm thinking the leak of, Aunty Zeituni, was by Obama's team looking to lock up the Hispanic/Latino vote. This would fit right in with his Chicago style tactics and nobody would be the wiser all the while Julie Meyers or even McCains own team are having the finger pointed towards them. More deception by Democrats to fool the sheeple??

Liquidmicro said...

It can be shown that by Obama having a family member as an 'Illegal Alien', he understands the plight of many families in the USA, he now has become one of them by this.

This is my theory and my opinion.

Dave said...

sandra said:

I repeat, why is racism being brought up since it is not rampant in this country anymore and all races are the victims of it today? Racism does not play a role in the immigration issue for most anti's but I question the racial motives of those on the pro/CIR side.



from Dee, November 7, 2008 12:42 PM

The reason Racism was brought up was because one of the major issues Brown citizens are facing in this country is Racial Profiling. This has become prevalent since the Immigration Marches in 2006. Racial Profiling is wrong and must be STOPPED. It is a major issue (not the only issue but a Major issue) for all minorities. That is why it was brought up.


I added an example from my personal life, had a lengthy discussion with Christa, but I'd also like to add it doesn't negate the experiences of other types of oppression. Other forms of oppression, such as being harassed as a "white" minority in some cities (Christa's example) does not negate the fact that there is an increase in Hate crimes against Latinos and brown people. Many feel that it is direct relation to the anti-illegal hate speech being used. I myself would recognize that not all antis feel the same or have racism even, but even the usage of words used to describe undocumented immigrants add to the oppression of brown people--spic, wetback, illegal criminal aliens, even the term anchor baby, spawning, "spreading her spawn", "dropping an anchor", etc. These are "just words", as some argue, but they dehumanize. Some antis then take that further and decide to act on it. Do all antis act on it, or even use those words? No. The fact that white supremist groups also flank to some anti rallies and are welcomed, doesn't help, though. Are all antis white supremists? no.
Is there racism against brown people in the immigration debate? yes.

Dave said...

sandra said: "...that it was not the fault nor the desire of the majority of Americans that we have millions and millions of illegals among us today"

You, as an anti, have more of an opinion, but I'd argue that for a majority of americans, they do not have strong opinions either way on "illegals". But go ahead. keep on speaking as the voice of the majority of americans.

ultima said...

“Are you an illegal immigrant?” “Are you Mexican?” The eyes are not kind. They are angry and accusatory.”

As well they should be if they think about immigration’s unarmed invasion and its deadly consequences for the American republic. While racial profiling is wrong, philosophically speaking, it can be justified in time of war or when our country is imperiled by illegal aliens, excessive legal immigration, chain immigrations, anchor babies, an outdated interpretation of the 14th amendment, potential terrorists infiltrating our porous borders, and an unwillingness of all citizens to support secure borders whatever that takes.

ultima said...

“…what is worse is the poor treatment being received by the 12M undocumented workers in our country. In 2007 and 2008, we have witnessed some of the most inhumane treatment of workers in history as they were sent off to cattle barns and families sent to crony owned private prison Detention Centers.”

In case you haven’t noticed, no one has proposed a reasonable alternative that will assure illegal aliens are apprehended, secured and deported as required by law. Characterizing the temporary confinement of illegals in cattle barns and detention centers as “inhumane” is ridiculous on the face of it. Those who raise the dairy cows and beef cattle we depend upon for food spend hours in cattle barns every day by choice. Of course, the illegals could have been confined to an open air barbed wire enclosure especially constructed over night for this purpose. That would be particularly fitting in inclement weather or in the winter, wouldn’t it? This hyperbole has to end.

We are still waiting for how you would proceed if you were the boss and were responsible for carrying out the law. Your silence speaks volumes about your unfortunate characterization of the treatment of illegals.

ultima said...

"...they frequently bash anyone who advocates Comprehensive Immigration Reform." Again as well they should. CIR to the pro-illegals, in its simplest terms, means amnesty and open borders. The anti-illegals define CIR in quite a different way: secure borders, E-verification, expeditious repatriation, hard time for repeat offenders, no dual citizenship, no dual allegiances, birthright citizenship limited to children who have at least one parent who is a citizen, birthright citizenship awarded at age 21 or upon enlistment in the armed forces for not less than four years, an end to chain immigrations except for the spouses of citizens, legal immigration limited to 200,000 per year excluding students, tourists and temporary migrant workers, priority given to English speakers with the skills we need, full family health care insurance for all foreign workers, foreign workers paid at the standard for American workers, illegal aliens classified as felons, improved infrastructure, staffing and rules of engagement at the border, no catch and release, self deportation classified as expulsion, etc. Now that’s a form of CIR all loyal Americans should be able to live with. That would put an end to the bashing of CIR advocates.

Dave said...

Sandra said: McCain had decided against it (the McCain/Kennedy bill) himself anyway because it was lacking in some areas. Latinos held that against him not to mention that most miniorities vote Democratic and Obama is half miniority himself.

I agree somewhat, but Latinos usually vote Democrat anyway, like you mentioned, and CIR was not the only issue for latinos, but a big one. Plus, McCain put out quite a few negative ads in english and in spanish, blaming Obama for the failure of the McCain/Kennedy bill, and implying that he would be still for such a bill today, when in fact he had caved in to his republican base. His spanish ads heavily implied that he was for CIR and amnesty, while he sided strongly with his party's approach on immigration, border security and enforcement, while downplaying his stance on providing a path to citizenship.

ultima said...

“While there are some in their ranks that have valid concerns, there are also many members from extremist hate groups like the KKK and White Nationalists.”

This should read: While most in the ranks of the anti-illegals have completely valid concerns that most pro-illegals refuse to recognize…. The pro-illegals are well-organized and have many more lobbyists on the Hill than the anti-illegals. They not only know how to communicate with Congress but, in fact, some, like La Raza, receive appropriations from the federal government. How fair can that be? Now the Democrats are trying to require equal time for the liberals on stations that air conservative talk shows. How fair can that be if the conservatives have sponsors that enable the stations to prosper while the liberals do not? If they want to talk, that’s fine but they need to pay for the time. This proposalis an outrageous infringement of the right of private enterprises to air whatever programs will enable them to prosper and, in my opinion, a violation of the 1st amendment. By extrapolation, such a proposal should affect all media not just radio talk. Oprah and Ellen would be fair game as would all the network newscasts and print media. If all those supporters of Obama wish to hear liberal trash talk, they should all sign up to fund it. If they can cough up $650 million for Obama, surely they can afford a few million for radio talk shows.

ultima said...

"The PRO Immigration Reform supporters are different than many of the ANTI groups. They are not angry exclusionists. They seek resolution to the Immigration issues via Comprehensive Immigration Reform and the end to Racial Profiling."

Most are shortsighted who know not what they do. They give no consideration to the long term effect of their ideas for CIR. They have no answer for the fact that the limit of finite natural resources per capita as population increases without bounds is zero. They studiously close their minds to anything except their points of view and insist on using word like restrictionist, exclusionist, bigot, nativist, racist and xenophobe without subjecting it to reasonable thought processes that would enable them to understand the legitimate concerns of those who would like to preserve what is best for and about this country. No reasonable person can say that a population of 300 million to 1.3 billion is in the national interest or will improve our standard of living and quality of life. What are they thinking? Perhaps the answer is: they aren’t thinking at all. They like to think that they are supporters of a new civil rights movement. The difference from the movement of the 1960 is that those affected then were citizens while today they are illegals being aided and abetted by disloyal Americans who try to find legitimacy in parallels with unrelated events.

ultima said...

“Like all Americans, PROs want an improved America…” Well, if they do, why is it so many other Americans disagree with them? How do they think that a more congested America, even more short of natural resources, a nation like China will be an improved America? If they really want an improved America they would be opposed to the type of CIR they advocate and they would be strong anti-illegal and anti-excessive legal immigration proponents. Their basic position on these matters is basically irrational. They want an improved America but advocate the very things that will work against any improvement. We do share a common interest in getting our economy back on track and in re-establishing the financial strength and stability of our nation and the dollar as the international standard of commerce. Similarly, we can agree on the general concepts of improved health care and avoidance of war except as a last resort. Education is problematical and has been discussed on this blog. The solution is not more money. Rather it is to insist on getting our money’s worth out of what we already spend. We can do that by reducing the power of the NEA and by penalizing parents who fail in their duties to their children in terms of encouraging them to study and to provide them with the proper environment so they can learn.

ultima said...

"McCain flip-flopped to the restrictionist perspective. This hurt him with Latinos."

Another way of looking at this is that he made a small concession to the vast number of Americans who favored securing the borders first. If Latinos took umbrage at this move, that shows clearly that they are neither capable of understanding the problem nor the solutions. Instead, they want open borders no matter the cost or, what’s worse, they are driven solely by ethnocentric considerations instead of concerns about national sovereignty and the national interest. When Sheriff Joe is impugned, more than half of the population of Arizona is impugned with him since they re-elected him. Apparently all Americans do not want what Latinos want. They want a better America but their vision is vastly different in that regard than the vision of ethnocentric Latinos who are unable to see the damage their advocacy is doing and will do to America—causing changes not even they will like in the end when it is too late.

Dave said...

Instead, they (Latinos) want open borders no matter the cost or, what’s worse, they are driven solely by ethnocentric considerations instead of concerns about national sovereignty and the national interest.


I think a flip flopper on this issue would look bad, whether viewed by Latinos or otherwise. I don't think you can say all latinos want open borders, but if you lived in a border town, latino or otherwise, you'd want a border that serves the community as well. It can be secure without having to be militarized. To say that Latinos want open borders or are drivien by enthnocentric considerations rather than national interest just doesn't ring true. I think there are lots of latinos who want CIR, which includes a secure border, they just don't want continued ice raids and deportation.

Dave said...

They want a better America but their vision is vastly different in that regard than the vision of ethnocentric Latinos who are unable to see the damage their advocacy is doing and will do to America—causing changes not even they will like in the end when it is too late.

Latinos are Americans, and that includes "ethnocentric" ones as well. Thus, they should be included in this dialogue just as any other American. If and when CIR happens, opposing viewpoints should have an equal chance to express their concerns, even white nationals. I can argue that your viewpoint is damaging, too, but I won't because dialogue, giving people a chance to voice their concerns, would be one way to come to a conclusion or solution that benefits all.

sandra said...

Dave,

Perhaps you would like to post a credible link to your claims that there is a rise in hate crimes against Hispanics. The Hispanic population is increasing immensely, don't you think that percentage wise that would play a role in the stats? As I said, if what you are stating is true then it is directly due to the fact that so many are here illegally. It only makes sense that would cause resentment against Hispanics. Even the citizen ones like yourself stick up for them. What do you expect!

As far as racial profiling goes, I don't know how many times it has to be repeated in here that in any investigation law enforcement will go to the neighborhoods and question those most likely to fit the description of whom they are looking for. Why do you find fault with that? If you have nothing to hide, then there is no problem!

Again, why do all those terms offend you? They are not directed at Hispanic citizens. The government term for those in our country illegally is "illegal aliens"! You keep repeating words and actions that the anti "fringe groups" say or do and they are among the minority. I have asked you several times, why are you so concerned about the minority? We never get an answer from you. You keep repeating over and over about "white supremism and racism". Again you are talking about a minority group. You and Miss Dee keep repeating the same things over and over no matter how many times we tell you that you are talking about a minority of people and ask you why you are so concerned about them but you never give us a viable answer to that.

We whites don't keep harping about racism directed towards us by others because they are also among the minority in this country. I would fully expect that if the majority of illegals were white to be questioned and viewed with suspicion because I fit that description. I would understand it but I wouldn't have anyting to worry about because I am a citizen with papers. I also would not be advocating amnesty for them just because they are white like me.

Dave said...

ultima said: "As well they should be (angry and accusatory) if they think about immigration’s unarmed invasion and its deadly consequences for the American republic. While racial profiling is wrong, philosophically speaking, it can be justified in time of war or when our country is imperiled by illegal aliens, excessive legal immigration, chain immigrations, anchor babies, an outdated interpretation of the 14th amendment, potential terrorists infiltrating our porous borders, and an unwillingness of all citizens to support secure borders whatever that takes."


That's just wrong, Ultima.

First off, what exactly do you mean by: "its deadly consequences for the American republic."? An "unarmed invasion" of janitors and undocumented fast food workers will end up murdering thousands of US citizens very soon?

Secondly, Racial profiling can never be justifed. Period. Look up what it means.

Third, you are saying it's okay to racially profile legal immigrants and anchor babies? So, even the people that are here legally, and by extension, anyone that looks like an "illegal" can be racially profiled, and that's okay?

Lastly, isn't anyone a potential terrorist, and didn't I say that in the context of CIR, I was willing to support a secure border?

ultima said...

It takes a shallow grasp of history to believe that solutions exist to most domestic and international problems that will have a satisfactory result for all. Often there are no solutions, only confusion and unsatisfactory choices about what can or should be done to optimize the result for both the dominant culture and those who only partially wish to drink from the same cup. The advocates for illegal aliens and open borders think that they can have their cake and eat it too, that they can grant amnesty to all the illegals, invite in all of their relatives, continue their high birthrates, leave legal immigration open-ended and still enjoy the same standard of living forever and ever. They are living a fairy tale, hoping for a pleasant ending rather than facing the reality that from any logical and objective point of view, they couldn't be more naive and more wrong.

ultima said...

Dave wrote "An "unarmed invasion" of janitors and undocumented fast food workers will end up murdering thousands of US citizens very soon?"

I mentioned the American republic as an institution not its indvidual citizens. Why do they come here? Do you think it has anything to do with the fact that their own culture is unable to provide for them? Does that bode well for the American culture and the American republic or does it suggest that we will become like the countries of orgin of these millions of unwashed aliens? You may disagree but I believe that is the long term deadly consequences I refer to--the death of the American republic as we know it.

Dave said...

It takes a shallow grasp of history to believe that solutions exist to most domestic and international problems that will have a satisfactory result for all.

Did you just diss me, and/or our form of government, or were you accusing McCain and Obama specifically, who both want some sort of CIR, of having a shallow grasp of history?

ultima said...

Dave said "Racial profiling can never be justifed. Period. Look up what it means."

Civil rights have been regularly violated throughout our history, especially when the republic was threatened as it is today. There is a benign way of profiling that protects us all. I was stopped once in the dead of winter by a police officer who was looking for a white male because of a domestic disturbance. I was glad to show him my id. Why are Hispanics so reluctant given that 12 million illegals are roaming this country.

sandra said...

Kudos to you Ultima for your common sense approach to immigration and respect for this country's immigration laws.

Dave said...

There is a benign way of profiling that protects us all.

There is a more proper way to profile that includes race as one factor. It's called criminal profiling. By definition, racial profiling is just using one factor. It is a flawed way of profiling criminals. And I don't agree with its use on latinos/hispanics as a broad sweep of neighborhoods, or in work raids, or border patrol checkpoints set up far from the borders in the name of national security.

Anonymous said...

did you ever consider those marches, the ones where the people were carrying those mexican flags and holding the american flag upside down, you know the marches demanding amnesty---maybe this led to racial profiling. makes sense to
me. perhaps another march, carring only american flags, shouting in english, i would be proud to be an american citizen would discourage racial profiling. think about it.

ultima said...

Dave say, "I don't agree with its use on latinos/hispanics as a broad sweep of neighborhoods, or in work raids, or border patrol checkpoints set up far from the borders in the name of national security."

So I guess you, like Dee, subscribe to a policy that says if you can escape the immediate environs of the border, you are home free and that the government has no right and no obligation to enforce the law internally. Does this apply to terrorists who escape the borderlands? If neighborhoods hire, shelter and encourage illegals, they bring the sweeps on themselves. If they on the other hand cooperated fully with the authorities, they would have nothing to fear and could live in peace. the immigration authorities and the cops would know who is cooperating instead of aiding and abetting and would reward them accordingly.

Like Dee Dave opposes anything that might actually be effective and favors all measures that are bound to fail.

ultima said...

Dave says, "racial profiling is just using one factor. It is a flawed way of profiling criminals."

Let's put this in simple terms so we can all understand it. The great preponderance of illegal aliens are Mexicans. If you were a sheriff or border patrol agent in one of the border states, what strategy would you use and how would you deploy your resources to accomplish your job most effectively? I think the answer is obvious. You are not going to waste resources stopping grandmothers in tennis shoes to ask for ids. You are going to focus your strategy and resources on the source of the problem--Mexicans or Hispanics from farther south. I believe this is an application of Pareto's Rule that if you properly focus your resources you can achieve 80% of the result with the first 20% of your resources. After that it becomes much more difficult and costly to make additional progress on the problem. While at variance with our antithesis toward profiling as a general approach, it appears to be fully justified in this case. What we need to do is explain it better to the Latino community and solicit their help and support. The response would be a measure of how long and how vigorously we would need to continue this unfortunate but necessary approach to border security and internal enforcement. In essence, the Latino community has in its hands the solution to this dilemma as well as a way to demonstrate its allegiance and loyalty to the U.S. and to thereby avoid the unfortunate aspects of effective enforcement. Now if you oppose effective enforcement, then we know where you stand and that in itself explains the necessity for the effective deployment of assets and the employment of strategies that we know will work as opposed to those we know from long experience will not.

ultima said...

Dave said, "Did you just diss me, and/or our form of government, or were you accusing McCain and Obama specifically, who both want some sort of CIR, of having a shallow grasp of history?"

It is patently obvious that politicians in general have basically only one thing in mind and that is election or re-election. There myopia is humongous and pervasive. Does that mean they have a shallow grasp of history? Perhaps, or perhaps they simply have chosen to ignore the lessons of history, at least until after the next election. As Dee pointed out, McCain changed his tune to some degree when he got an earfull from across the
country from voters who would otherwise threaten any chance he might have had for the oval office. If you had been reading the posts here earlier, you would have noted several who said they could never vote for either of the two candidates because of their shortsighted stand on that issue. That, of course, is self-defeating but it does make a statement. I personally lectured McCain at length on this subject and criticized him at every opportunity during the primaries when I hope we might nominate a better candidate.

I did not diss you but if the shoe fits put it on. Neither did I diss our form of government. It is the shortsightedness of our government and its leaders that I continue to criticize and frankly no one has been able to find a reasonable argument for open borders, amnesty for illegals and population growth that threaten species extinction, global warming, climate change, depletion of finite natural resources, the American culture, language and ideals.

It is the nature of things that politicians are like this and that is the reason they are so roundly criticized. But do not mistake that criticism for a criticism of our "form" of government. I am reminded of a guy who got fired from the university where I worked because the president said, "We can't have someone working here who criticizes the university." He overlooked the fact that the criticism was aimed at him and his administration not the university per se, just as much of the criticism of recent times was focused on W., not our form of government. There is a difference.

ultima said...

Dave said, "Lastly, isn't anyone a potential terrorist, and didn't I say that in the context of CIR, I was willing to support a secure border?"

Certainly anyone is a potential terrorist ala Tim McVeigh, who may have been trained by Al Qaeda. Those who say they support secure borders must recognize that no amount of infrastructure and staffing improvements at the border can succeed without vigorous internal enforcement and workplace verification of work status using E-verify. It is simply not possible. If East Germans were willing to brave machine gun guard towers, barbed wire entanglements and mine field to escape to the harsh regime in the East to join their countrymen in the West, what chance do halfway measures have of stopping the hemorrhaging at border?
I don't propose anything like that. If your livelihood depended on it how would you achieve secure borders? Please explain in detail and tell us how this would work to guarantee results.

Dave said...

ultima said: So I guess you, like Dee, subscribe to a policy that says if you can escape the immediate environs of the border, you are home free and that the government has no right and no obligation to enforce the law internally.


no I don't subscribe to that.

I also never said I was for open borders and don't want border security. I want it as part of a whole package that includes discontinuing raiding and racial profiling and treating people like animals.

I'm not going to discuss with you what happens at a border state. As I said, there are border patrol stations far away from the border, looking for undocumented immigrants, stopping brown people mainly, but waving other people to go through, and then they are saying it is in the name of trying to catch criminals and possible terrorist threats. This is what is happening in my state, 100 miles from the Canandian border, and 100 miles inland from the Washington Coast.

ultima said...

Dave says, "I can argue that your viewpoint is damaging, too, but I won't because dialogue, giving people a chance to voice their concerns, would be one way to come to a conclusion or solution that benefits all."

That is true but there is little evidence on your side to support your position. It is mostly based on personal feelings or ethnocentricity not on the facts related to climate change, population growth, finite natural resources, extinction of species, and the real and palpable threats to the American dream that attacts so many to our shores. There are arguments and arguments. Some have substance; others do not. I would welcome something from you regarding the substance of your arguments.

ultima said...

It's all about the ice cream.

Dave said...

Ultima said: That is true but there is little evidence on your side to support your position. It is mostly based on personal feelings or ethnocentricity not on the facts related to climate change, population growth, finite natural resources, extinction of species, and the real and palpable threats to the American dream that attacts so many to our shores.

I believe I supported my opinion with facts and substance, along with yes, personal feelings.

I did not present facts related to climate change, population growth, finite natural resources(?), extinction of species,(btw, isn't this an argument AGAINST a border wall--the extinction of species? Have you presented evidence here that CIR will lead to extinction of certain species?) or threats to the American Dream(?!--Most want to be part of the American Dream, not threaten or attack others for it) because, although those are important issues, those are NOT issues solely dependant on whether or not we have CIR. In other words, you've not presented evidence to suggest that not having CIR will prevent those things from happening, anyway. Those are separate issues that need to be addressed regardless of what we eventually decide to do with 12 million people.

But you want substance. Ok. Here's one I presented earlier, which is based purely on economics, not feelings or "ethnocentricity":

As I mentioned earlier, the deportation of undocumented or unauthorized workers is simply not feasible, aside from the human and social impacts, which I personally object to.

(If you wanna call that ethnocentrism, you should know that technically I'm not ethnically latino/hispanic. I just personally have a hard time being part of a country or system that scapegoats, criminalizes and punishes mostly lowly law abiding workers striving to have better lives.)

Partly the raids continue because it is a result of this administration trying to look like they are "getting tough" and dealing with the immigration issue, and also as an excuse to continue to pump funds into DHS/ICE budgets. The cost I presented in an earlier comment was about 154 BILLION for ICE to continue to go from worksite to worksite to deport the workers first. This is assuming that there is a finite number of workers after which we will never need to deport anyone ever again. Remember that, with our current enforcement only approach, people are still making it in to replace the workers deported from the ICE raids.

(You see, CIR encompasses securing the border as well as examining what is causing migration in the first place that our country can feasibly help remedy, whether its looking at employers that hire cheap labor, re-examining our trade policies that may have created poverty in other countries, helping other countries decrease poverty and/or hold them more accountable for their poor people.)

We are not even addressing the deportation of people that don't work, like some spouses, the disabled, elderly, children and infants, but simply workers in factories and warehouses, etc. Even if this could be done (deport 12 million people), where will we get the legal workers to take their place? How have the communities been impacted? How is Postville doing right about now?

I'm not suggesting that CIR won't cost money either. It will surely cost a lot for CIR. But to me it is a no brainer to look at the issue "comprehensively" and without attacking and criminalizing another group of people who only generally are poor and hard working and do not commit crimes (outside of the inital crime of coming in or overstaying, which wouldn't continue after CIR)

But that is just one thing that makes me want some other more sane and realistic approach than the current system of an enforcement only approach to illegal immigration.

I don't have the answers specifically to what CIR will look like, but it includes enforcement and border security, which people assume we PROS are always against. At least I'm not, as long as we prioritize our actions and treat fellow human beings as we would want to be treated.

sandra said...

Dave,

It is futile to even debate with you. All the questions and remarks you have made over and over have been answered and addressed to you over and over. Ultima's posts in particular answered and addressed every single one for you with intelligence, facts, common sense and in great depth. It really is futile to discuss immigration with you or Miss Dee because you are both blinded by humanitarism towards foreigners who have broken our immigration laws but your humanitarism towards this country and its citizens and its laws is non-existant.

sandra said...

Dave,

First off what ethnic/race group are you where you say you look Mexican/Hispanic but are not? Just curious. Didn't you say you have relatives living here illegally?

Seond, I am going to show you what I mean about how you keep repeating the same things that are not subject to opinion or feelings but are not factual that Ultima in particular has proven you wrong, paragraph by paragraph from you last post.

Dave said,

"I did not present facts related to climate change, population growth, finite natural resources(?), extinction of species,(btw, isn't this an argument AGAINST a border wall--the extinction of species? Have you presented evidence here that CIR will lead to extinction of certain species?) or threats to the American Dream(?!--Most want to be part of the American Dream, not threaten or attack others for it) because, although those are important issues, those are NOT issues solely dependant on whether or not we have CIR. In other words, you've not presented evidence to suggest that not having CIR will prevent those things from happening, anyway. Those are separate issues that need to be addressed regardless of what we eventually decide to do with 12 million people."

There are many reliable statistics out there that support limited population in any country and on this entire planet. Common sense and logic has to prevail here also. Those are facts and are not subject to opinions or feelings.

As for the border wall, the way it is being designed it will allow for small animals to pass through. It is only being built on 700 miles of the border. The border is 2,000 miles long. Now tell us again how any species is going to become extinct because of it. Ultima did not say that CIR will lead to extinction of humans so I don't know where you got that one. These are facts and are not subject to opinions or feelings.

The fact is that we cannot offer the American Dream to every human on this earth that wants it. This another area where common sense and logic has to prevail also. These are facts and are not subject to opinion or feelings.

As for the actually more like 30 million illegal aliens in this country, our quality of life would improve by deporting them because that would mean less limited resources for Americans. Here is where common sense and logic prevail also. These are facts and are not subject to opinion or feelings.

sandra said...

Dave said,

As I mentioned earlier, the deportation of undocumented or unauthorized workers is simply not feasible, aside from the human and social impacts, which I personally object to.

(If you wanna call that ethnocentrism, you should know that technically I'm not ethnically latino/hispanic. I just personally have a hard time being part of a country or system that scapegoats, criminalizes and punishes mostly lowly law abiding workers striving to have better lives.)

Then you are technically what? This country does use illegal aliens as scapegoats for all of our ills. They are PART of the problem, however. Again, you repeat the same thing about them being called criminals as in serious criminals. Some are and some are not but they are all guilty of violting our immigration laws. Our immgration laws state that deportation is the consequence of doing that no matter what their reason for coming here. When you start attacking other countries for having the same policies, get back with us, ok?

It IS feasible to get illegal aliens to self-deport by cutting off the jobs and benefits that they come here for. Consider the human and social impacts to our citizens for a change by having millions of illegal aliens in our midst. These are facts and are not subject to opinion or feelings.

sandra said...

Dave said,

"Partly the raids continue because it is a result of this administration trying to look like they are "getting tough" and dealing with the immigration issue, and also as an excuse to continue to pump funds into DHS/ICE budgets. The cost I presented in an earlier comment was about 154 BILLION for ICE to continue to go from worksite to worksite to deport the workers first. This is assuming that there is a finite number of workers after which we will never need to deport anyone ever again. Remember that, with our current enforcement only approach, people are still making it in to replace the workers deported from the ICE raids."

The raids continue because Americans have demanded that we do something about illegal immigration and because our immigration laws dictate that we do. It isn't a show by this Administration. They are finally doing what they were supposed to be doing in the first place! Oh, sure we just want to throw away money being we are already trillions in debt. Since when is enforcing our laws not in our budget? Should be disban all the police departments in this country also because it costs money to go after those who have broken our laws? How about those employers who are hiring them? How are we going to prosecute them if we don't raid their businesses?

Yes, there are still some illegals getting through even with the raid and that is why we need e-verify in the workplace, no benefits to illegals, a fence and beefed up technology and additional BP at our borders. Don't give them a reason to come and they won't come then! That hasn't happened yet!

sandra said...

Dave said,

"You see, CIR encompasses securing the border as well as examining what is causing migration in the first place that our country can feasibly help remedy, whether its looking at employers that hire cheap labor, re-examining our trade policies that may have created poverty in other countries, helping other countries decrease poverty and/or hold them more accountable for their poor people.)

But the kind of CIR you and the rest of the pros want doesn't include securing our borders first and implementing e-verify first. We have to stop the bleeding at the border and stop the employers from hiring them before we can deal with those already here. Otherwise we will never get a handle on what we have already. After doing that we should research what we actually need in foreign labor while keeping population growth in mind.

Mexico's government is at fault for the poverty of their people. Don't blame us for that. Any foreign policies we have in place with them, they signed also. Their corrupt government and their blatant disregard for their own people is the main problem, not us.

sandra said...

Dave said,

"We are not even addressing the deportation of people that don't work, like some spouses, the disabled, elderly, children and infants, but simply workers in factories and warehouses, etc. Even if this could be done (deport 12 million people), where will we get the legal workers to take their place? How have the communities been impacted? How is Postville doing right about now?"

As the illegal workers are caught on the jobsite and leave so shall their families. We have 300 million Americans. If offered a fair wage with benefits there are very few jobs that Americans won't fill. For those we can't fill we can import legal and/or temporary workers. I couldn't care less how a town like Postville survives after their liveliehood depended on a law breaking employer and them being accomplices to it to survive. They don't deserve to exist as a town then. Make it a ghost town or entice employers who will abide by the laws of this country to re-locate there. Or their citizens can move on to other towns who abide by the laws of this country.

sandra said...

Dave said,

"I'm not suggesting that CIR won't cost money either. It will surely cost a lot for CIR. But to me it is a no brainer to look at the issue "comprehensively" and without attacking and criminalizing another group of people who only generally are poor and hard working and do not commit crimes (outside of the inital crime of coming in or overstaying, which wouldn't continue after CIR")

"But that is just one thing that makes me want some other more sane and realistic approach than the current system of an enforcement only approach to illegal immigration."

"I don't have the answers specifically to what CIR will look like, but it includes enforcement and border security, which people assume we PROS are always against. At least I'm not, as long as we prioritize our actions and treat fellow human beings as we would want to be treated."

There you go repeating yet again about attacking and criminilizing illegal aliens again. How many times do we have to repeat that some are only guilty of violating our immigration laws and some are guilty of more crimes besides that. That is just a fact. You keep making general statements as though the majority of Americans are physically and verbally attacking them and calling them felons. That simply isn't true so why do you continue down that road?

Enforcement in the workplace and securing our borders has to be a priority as I said before we can decide what to do with those that remain here. Otherwise we will never get a handle on this.

Illegals are granted their basic human rights so your marks stating otherwise are moot. It is never pleasant to any law breakers including citizen ones to be arrested and detained but it is a necessary part of a society based on laws and not lawlessness.

These are all facts and are not subject to opinion and feelings.

ultima said...

We are in the midst of a major transformation of American society as minorities become the majority and the incredible achievements of the Founding Fathers and the inventiveness and innovative genius of our people become lost or submerged in a new order. In the past the key to fame was who liked you, the elite rather than the hoi polloi. Today, as evidenced by the Obama campaign, it is now how many like you not necessarily who they are. By that yardstick Madonna will always trump Jessye Norman. As Fareed Zakaria puts it, "Quantity has become quality".

Like any broad transformation, the current one has its dark sides. Yet our leaders rarely speak about them. To do so would be to provoke instant accusations of racism, bigotry, xenophobia, nativism or restrictionism, as though there could be no other basis or rationale for worries about the downside of the transformation. Or that there could possibly be unrecognized benign and objective interpretations present in those accusatory terms as well as the more conventional pejorative meanings. But this means that we never really stop to understand these times and their portent for the future. Silenced by fears of being branded with one of the terms above, ordinary people tend to look the other way while politicians focus uniformly only on the near term and the next election. As a result we have no way to understand what might be troubling about the changes in American society. We assume that no problem could ever because by an over abundance of humanitarianism or concern for the downtrodden masses of the world, especially those who illegally cloud the landscape of our country, our culture and our language. When we see social, political, and economic maladies we fight among ourselves to place the blame. In the process we forget about our obligations as citizens and our allegiance to the national interest. Instead, we deflect problems, avoid answers, forswear effective solutions, and never talk about the long term effects of the great transformation that is at the center of our political, economic, and social lives.

ultima said...

Dave says, "it is a no brainer to look at the issue "comprehensively" ..." Of course, it is but the question remains about the meaning of CIR and what provisions should be included. So far the bills introduced in the House have been far closer to the mark than those introduced in the Senate. So when we talk about CIR we need to define what we mean not just assume that whatever either House has proposed or considered is the correct solution. It may be no solution at all. It may just sweep the problem under the carpet by granting instant legalization to all illegals who are here.

Dee said...

Sandra,
Reread my post.

And, as I said, these are YOUR OPINIONS and you ARE entitled to Your Opinions. They are NOT Fact!



sandra said...
Miss Dee,
Neither racism NOR racial profiling is rampant in this country ethier so it is a moot point.

Dee said...

Christa,
I disagree with your opinion on this.
The incident you mentioned was about an innercity poverty stricken area. Anyone venturing into a crime ridden area alone at night would have a problem, regardess of ethnicity.
You could go into a deeper issue. Why is there so much crime in poverty innercity areas?
What about Education and other factors in these areas that would reduce crime. You could go on and on investigating root cause. I would not identify the SOLE cause as whites as minorities.


Christa said...
Dave, I never claimed to be in a contest; sorry you feel this way. What I was trying to do is to point out that whites are also a minority in many areas and also the victims of racism and hostility by non-whites. We sometimes feel frustrated because any time "racism" is brought up it seems to be in the context of "white" racism and that is no longer the case.

Dee said...

I do agree with individual accountability, family responsibility and Education.
So does Obama.

Dee said...

Ulty,
There are many Latinos that were voting or at least leaning towards the Republican party in both 2000 and 2004, however the antics of the Bush Administation and Racial Profiling changed that in this election.



ultima said...
"...whispering a few lies they thought we wanted to hear, would swing our votes to them." This is about the same as the lies all the other candidates whispered during their pandering to the Hispanic communities. Hispanics with their Catholicism and work ethic are a much better fit in the Republican Party.

Dee said...

Ulty,
I invite you to put on some dark make up, pretend you are an illegal immigrant and go get detained in one of these centers.
I will be publishing a post about Myers and ICE tomorrow. She just resigned.
I understand Obama and his staff are investigating each of agency. Good! It needs to be done!!


Ultima said....
They dishonor themselves by characterizing legitimate detention centers as something akin to the horrible Nazi concentration camps.

Dee said...

Dave,
I think Christa (or whoever she-he really is) is just yanking your chain, attempting to raise your ire for some reason.


Dave said...
Christa,

You think that I (and I paraphrase slightly):
-am hellbent on honing in on individual actions and applying it to the nation.
-am insinuating that we live in an intolerant nation.
-am only able to nitpick ...blah blah

Dee said...

Ulty,
You sound like Obama. You are right. We should be about just America. However, everyone has an agenda, and so many want to impose their will.
Examples:
. ANTI Women´s Right to Choose
. ANTI Gay Marriage
. ANTI Gun Control, especially Assault Weapons.
. ANTI anyone other than Christian

oh, did you mean you only are discussing items you disagree with like CIR, No Mass Deportation, Affirmative Action, etc?


ultima said...
A more important question is why are there such things as Asian American, Black American or Mexican American issues? Why aren't they just American citizen issues? If that were the case, we would have less to worry about when it comes to who we choose for president. It is the fact that everyone seems to want their special interests dealt with rather than the national interest.

November 7, 2008 10:17 PM

Christa said...

Dee, the point is that I live in an area where I am a minority and I (and others I know) have been on the receiving end of racist comments and actions.

Dee said...

Ulty,
I agree. This is NOT a white thing or minority thing. ALL of us should be focused on helping our children and ensure Education is a top priority.



ultima said...
"How do we get the parents involved with wanting there children educated?? "

Parents are clearly the most important factor. I suspect that if every parent preached education every day to his or her child, and told them it is stupid to think of this as a "white" thing, we would see an immediate improvement.

sandra said...

Sandra,
Reread my post.

And, as I said, these are YOUR OPINIONS and you ARE entitled to Your Opinions. They are NOT Fact!



sandra said...
Miss Dee,
Neither racism NOR racial profiling is rampant in this country ethier so it is a moot point.

November 9, 2008 7:39 PM

You do know what the word RAMPANT means, don't you? Therefore it was not my OPINION but FACT just as I said.

Dee said...

Christa,
You said you were listening to Dave. Your comment below clearly illustrates you have not been.
Tolerate quite nicely? How does Racial Profiling and Suppression sweeps equate to Tolerating nicely!
Not by my definition!


Christa said...
You are doing what most pro-illegals do: confuse those who have a right to be here, who have come legally with those who have come illegally. We tolerate quite nicely those who have come here legally. To insinuate otherwise is your nonsense.

Dee said...

Actually Christa, We have discussed this issue for some time on my blog.

We do have a significantly improved secure border than we have had in the past. ICE reports indicate we are at the lowest rate of new illegal immigrant entry than in the past decade.

Regarding eVerify, ask business. They are the ones so adamently opposed to it.

My question to you is, have you studied the history of immigration into our country? Since the Immigration Act of 1924, we have had virtually open borders to the south. These workers have assisted in nation building our country from AgJobs, to the railroad, to construction to technology today.

We have 12M here because they were invited, employed and utimately, exploited.
Or are you one of the ANTI CIR advocates that doesn´t look at history nor the role both the Administration and Business have played in bringing the number to 12M?


Christa said...
Also, nobody answered my question about why can we not secure our borders and implement e verify FIRST before deciding what to do with illegals?

I suspect that pro-illegals really do not want to stop the flow into this country, otherwise there should be no opposition to security FIRST.

Dee said...

Dave,
You are so right. So many times the ANTI CIR advocates mischaracterize what we are saying. You hit the nail on the head!! Thank you!!

Dave said...
I'm not justifying illegal immigration. What Antis don't get is that I'm not PRO-illegal, I don't want illegal immigration to happen. I'm PRO as in PRO-CIR!

Dee said...

Ulty,
I have provided my response on this several times.
I advocate CIR.
1. Secure Borders
2. Employer Sanctions for those who hire/exploit illegal immigrants.
3. The 12M brought out of the shadows and allowed into legal status, perhaps Guest Workers. Then those felonious free and interested, allowed to get in line for citizenship.

If these steps occur, then there is NO NEED for Detention Centers or ICE Raids. Once they are registered as Guest Workers, there will be no one in the shadows. We would save billions!

Ultima said...
We are still waiting for how you would proceed if you were the boss and were responsible for carrying out the law. Your silence speaks volumes about your unfortunate characterization of the treatment of illegals.

Christa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sandra said...

The raids are not targeting legal immigrants or citizens although they may be asked to prove their status in this country. That doesn't equate to "intolerance".

The history of illegal immigration or any so-called open borders didn't happen with the approval of the American people so how does that justify it or demand our acceptance of it? We outnumber the employers and our politicians. We are a Democracy, therefore the majority rules and it happened without our approval.

Perhaps some employers don't want to use e-verify but so what? It should be part of workplace enforecment. If they don't want to use it, it is because they want to continue to use cheap illegal labor. I thought you wanted employers punished for that. E-verify will do precisely that.

Dee said...

Ultima,
Wrong! No open borders. Rather for the 12M here, come out of the shadows and register as Guest Workers.
No new illegal immigrants, rather the borders secured and the employers hire those here legally or be jailed.


Ultima said...
CIR to the pro-illegals, in its simplest terms, means amnesty and open borders.

Dee said...

Ulty,
I say the same thing about ANTIs as you say about PROs.

Ultima said..
They studiously close their minds to anything except their points of view

Dee said...

You know Sandra, Try reading any of my blogs about Sheriff Arpaio and his Suppression sweeps. Or, read any of the newspapers in Maricopa county. Or read some of the AZ blogs particularly from Arizona and Southern California.
Do some research. It is ALL there!!



sandra said...
Dave,

Perhaps you would like to post a credible link to your claims that there is a rise in hate crimes against Hispanics.

Christa said...

"Tolerate quite nicely? How does Racial Profiling and Suppression sweeps equate to Tolerating nicely!"

This country is very accepting of legal immigrants; although, I agree with Ultima that we need to begin to have a serious discussion of how much longer we can continue to accept the current high levels.

I also think that Ultima provided a good explanation of why there is profiling taking place and what the solution is. You know that it is not the legal immigrants who are being sought out.

Dee said...

Ulty,
How funny. Using Pareto´s rule to justify Racial Profiling. Dr. Deming is turning in his grave over this!

sandra said...

Law enforcement seeking out illegal aliens is not a hate crime.

sandra said...

If someone is going to make claims about something (as in hate crime stats) it is up to them to provide credible government links to prove their statements. Blogs are nothing but mere opinion and biasness one way or another.

Liquidmicro said...

"Try reading any of my blogs about Sheriff Arpaio and his Suppression sweeps."

He just WON re-election, so what does that tell you?? What happened to the Latino Vote in Maricopa County?? Look at the laws past by Ballots in all the states, some were very heavy handed against "Illegal Aliens".

Liquidmicro said...

" Dee said...

Dave,
You are so right. So many times the ANTI CIR advocates mischaracterize what we are saying. You hit the nail on the head!!"


And you do the exact same thing, Dee. You consistently bring up the fringe as all on our side. Until you can have an intellectually intelligent conversation, you are no shining light.

Liquidmicro said...

"How does Racial Profiling and Suppression sweeps equate to Tolerating nicely!
Not by my definition!"


Sorry but our definition is obsolete and has no bearing on the subject matter. So far, there has been NO RACIAL PROFILING. The FBI has cleared Arpaio. We have had this discussion many times before, you have yet to PROVE racial profiling. Your accusations of it equate to squat.

Liquidmicro said...

" Dee said...

Ulty,
I have provided my response on this several times.
I advocate CIR.
1. Secure Borders
2. Employer Sanctions for those who hire/exploit illegal immigrants.
3. The 12M brought out of the shadows and allowed into legal status, perhaps Guest Workers. Then those felonious free and interested, allowed to get in line for citizenship.

If these steps occur"


These steps are occurring, your just complaining about it. They are happening in your order, so why continue complaining??

Liquidmicro said...

"Regarding eVerify, ask business. They are the ones so adamently opposed to it."


And you have been advocating giving what business wants. Mandate E-Verify, rid those who are unable to legally work, open the business community to hiring legal workers and allow the workers to have the say so as to there conditions, benefits. Let the employer fight to have decent/good employees by offering better opportunity then the other employer.

Have the Government charter buses for Illegals to go back to the southern border to drop them off. They traveled through Mexico to get here, they can travel back on their own.

ultima said...

Dave says, "How funny. Using Pareto´s rule to justify Racial Profiling. Dr. Deming is turning in his grave over this!"

Probably but then again it wasn't his rule nor would he have anticipated the presence of 12 million illegal aliens in this country. Who knows what Deming would have prescribed given the problem and the circumstances?

Dave said...

Sandra,

I think its funny that you described how discussing immigration with me or Dee is futile, accusing both of us of being repititious, and then go on to post several more comments afterwards, POSING NOTHING MORE THAN WHAT I PRESENTED, OPINIONS, and stating several times that your opinions are "Facts, and are not subject to opinions or feelings."

And I realized something. I am not presenting a lot of facts, here, but neither is anyone else! Largely our comments here are all OUR OPINIONS, based on some facts and yes, OUR FEELINGS!

For example, when I presented my OPINION that I thought it wasn't feasible to deport 11.5 million workers, based on the FACT that it would cost ICE 154 BILLION DOLLARS, to deport all of those workers, you comment back that it it IS feasible. That is your OPINION Good luck trying to get others to agree with you on that. I'd be interested in how, during these tough economical times, with numerous other pressing domestic and foreign concerns, how are government will justify using, much less find, 154 billion dollars to give to DHS and ICE to conduct raids on a much larger scale than what they are doing currently.

You then go on to pick through my prior comments I made for Ultima, disagreeing with everything I say, once again adding your opinions, and again stating again that they are "facts, not subject to opinion or feelings", when in fact that's exactly what they are.

If you want to disagree with Dee or me and say that undocumented immigrants and hispanics/latinos too are not being marginalized, scapegoated, criminalized, demonized, etc, go ahead. That is your opinion. I base my opinions on reports of how ICE raids are conducted, what conditions are like in detention centers, how citizens are being racially profiled and treated, etc., and also draw from my experience as being perceived as an undocumented latino immigrant, though I am none of those things. As Christa pointed out, we live in a very tolerant country compared with other countries, but on this issue, it is true that brown people are being harassed and treated poorly, in part to the Anti-illegal immigrant sentiment, hate groups, hate speech, and misconceptions out there about undocumented immigrants and unauthorized immigrants in our country.

You then go on to talk about things that I already discussed with Ultima as not being related solely on CIR, such as among other things, population control, stating that there are "many reliable statistics out there that support limited population in any country and on this entire planet."

Population growth issues can be dealt with along with CIR. You assume that if we are to grant citizenship to 12 million already here who are already impacting the environment we live in, that it would be too late to think of population control, that CIR cannot take into consideration the population growth expected in the next several decades.

I actually agree with some of the things you want--secure borders, following the law, environmental concerns, employer punishment and accountability, e-verify (if fine tuned and 99.9% error free), all in the context of having CIR. You fail to see that we agree on some things, and yet instead focus on trying to refute everything I say. Now that's futile!

I think where we differ mainly is in how you feel undocumented immigrants should be/are treated, and whether we should grant citizenship to people already here. You instead simplify things to make it sound like I am for unlimited migration, open borders, no accountablity with employers, and putting migrant needs before citizens. Even Ultima gets it:

Dave: "...it is a no brainer to look at the issue "comprehensively"..."

Ultima: Of course it is, but the question remains about the meaning of CIR and what provisions should be included.

The point I want to make is that you have your opinions, and so do I, but if you accuse me of not providing facts and repeating things that make you mad, you have not done much better. There are no facts that you've presented. We both have things to offer. What we need to do is find things we can agree on. The clock is ticking, and some say to do nothing is a kind of amnesty.

Dee said...

Actually Deming had his own gumball theories you know.

Liquidmicro said...

"e-verify (if fine tuned and 99.9% error free)"


E-Verify is pretty much 99.9% error free, the .4% that are in doubt are of their own making. Changed last names and never notifying SS to correct the change. If they fully incorporate ID with E-Verify, that should make it even more error free. Since the 'Illegal Population Working' is .5% of the workforce, with the above corrections, it's more than ready.

Liquidmicro said...

"Dee said...

Actually Deming had his own gumball theories you know."

Yes, but your version was a wild ride across the country where the best part was at the end, driving through the water ways of LA. It also had many good actors, and is still worth watching once a month. Nothing better than DVD's.

ultima said...

"Ulty,
I say the same thing about ANTIs as you say about PROs."

But why? The situations are totally different. You wish to aid and abet illegal aliens. We wish to return them to their homelands until they can enter legally with the proper nonfraudulent documents. There doesn't seem to be any reasonable basis for equating the two positions.

Let me suggest an alternate position for you as follows:

"Having been a member of a migrant farm worker family, I (Dee) have a different perspective on the illegal alien problem. There but for the grace of God go I. Having been subject to some degree of discrimination off and on since that time and having succeeded in spite of or because of those experiences, I quite naturally seek a way for others of my original culture to succeed in bettering the lives of their families, especially those who are already here, oftentimes as a result of employer culpability. I realize that this places me at odds with others who for good and valid reasons would prefer to see all illegals repatriated as quickly as possible. I fully understand that concerns of other citizens regarding the rule of law, national security, sovereignty, and the national interest place me in an awkward position vis a vis those who see my position as a act of disloyalty. In the past, some have proposed subjecting all illegals to an employment test that would establish irrefutably which of the jobs they hold could be filled with citizen labor if employers offered a living wage and a hiring preference to them. An additional proposal was offered which would require employers to offer the same wages and benefits to foreign workers as they do to American workers, and not vice versa. This would require some sort of local union sign off. As an American citizen I am uncomfortable in the role of defending foreign nationals who have violated our borders but believe there are many extenuating circumstances which would warrant special consideration for those illegals who can pass the employment test as well as a background check and health exam and who have children in American schools making good progress toward learning English, civics and American culture and ideals. If those proposals would enable me to see some potential middle ground for a solution, I would be willing to provide my full support."

I could add more but this will suffice for now.

sandra said...

Dave,

Re-read my post. I said it was feasible to encourage them to self-deport by taking away the reasons they are here and come here. That is a fact and nothing else I stated was opinion either it was all fact!

You exaggerate and make broad sweeping generalizations about everything related to illegal immigration and I called you on them several times but you keep repeating them over and over anyway and that is a fact! Your sweeping generalizations and exaggerations are not fact, they are your biased opinions. I don't do that, I quote facts!

Dave said...

Sandra,

You quote facts?? Where are they? It is you who needs to reread something. Please reread the DEFINITIONS of the words fact and opinion.

To state simply that "It is feasible to encourage them to self-deport by taking away the reasons they are here and come here." may have some possibilities, can you do a feasibility report that provides FACTS? Otherwise it is still an opinion! An OPINION OF IT NOT BEING FEASIBLE is all I provided, as well, not a fact.

Do you recall Operation Scheduled Departure? Should ICE try that again, then? I think there were 8 people total that self-deported. (Hey! Maybe if times are bad enough, and we legislate laws that make it very miserable to stay here, maybe then they'll leave, right? Still an opinion.)

Look in the mirror Sandra, you are the one constantly repeating yourself!

Sandra says: "Your sweeping generalizations and exaggerations are not fact, they are your biased opinions. I don't do that, I quote facts!"


Your facts are just Opinions, like mine! You just don't agree with mine. I can dealt with that.

Dave

Dee said...

Ultima,
Here are my edits.

"Having been a member of a migrant farm worker family, I (Dee) am sharing my perspective regarding Comprehensive Immigration Reform. There but for the grace of God go I. Having been subject to some degree of discrimination off and on since that time and having succeeded in spite of or because of those experiences, I quite naturally seek a way to end Racial Profiling and to support an improved Immigration Policy.

Those that come here seek the American Dream. For the past 100 years, the borders have been virtually open to all Latin American countries due to the Administration and Business wanting them to help "Nation Build" our country. Now the numbers have accumulated to 12M and it is time to find a solution, especially for those that have been here +5 - 20 years, with citizen children, often times as a result of employer culpability.

I realize that may place me at odds with others who for whatever reason would prefer to see all 12M mass deported and repatriated as quickly as possible. I fully understand these few ANTI CIR advocates use their "rule of law", "national security," "sovereignty", and "the national interest" pre-packaged arguments provided to them by their ANTI leaders. I realize they choose not to recall the history of immigration into our country nor do they attempt to understand the enormity of impacts, inhumanity and costs associated with mass deportation. Their choice to NOT Listen to the PRO CIR persective does place me in an awkward position since they pretend to be the only loyal americans in the discussion and refuse to acknowledge the loyalty and American-ness of anyone with a PRO CIR perspective.

In the past, Ultima did concede some CIR recommendations. He recommended subjecting all illegals to an employment test that would establish irrefutably which of the jobs they hold could be filled with citizen labor if employers offered a living wage and a hiring preference to them. An additional proposal was offered which would require employers to offer the same wages and benefits to foreign workers as they do to American workers, and not vice versa. This would require some sort of local union sign off.

Ultima also indicated he believes there are many extenuating circumstances which would warrant special consideration for those workers who can pass the employment test as well as a background check and health exam and who have children in American schools making good progress toward learning English, civics and American culture and ideals.

If these proposals would enable the ANTI and PRO groups to see some potential middle ground for a CIR solution, I would be willing to provide my full support."

Anonymous said...

How do we overcome the fact that with the economy in such bad shape and unemployment raising, that we give legal status with the attendant welfare benefits to 10-20 million people? Almost all of them will qualify for government assistance and greatly add to our already huge deficit. Where is the money going to come from? How do we justify the fact that with unemployment raising dramatically and blacks and the poor disproportionally affected, we will sanction adding millions of foreign nationals to compete with them in the workforce?

ultima said...

Here are my edits:

"I quite naturally seek a way to end Racial Profiling and to support an improved Immigration Policy." However,I fully recognize that until we get control of our borders some measures that would otherwise be unacceptable may be necessary, at least in the short term. I would hope that these measures would be applied with a soft glove rather than a mailed fist and that all citizens, regardless of their ethnicity, would cooperate with the authorities so that these extraordary measures can be discontinued as soon as possible. In the meantime, our best approach is to support fully those measures necessary to solve the problem.

ultima said...

More of my edits:
"...it is time to find a solution, especially for those that have been here +5 - 20 years, with citizen children,..." That solution must be tilted in the direction of citizens rather than foreigners. American labor and the financial condition of social programs and the country in general must be fully protected. Some CIR provisions would make illegals ineligible for social programs or welfare in any form including the negative income tax proposed by President-Elect Obama. In general, this type of provision is similar to that imposed on legal immigrants who must show that they have the wherewithal needed to sustain themselves so that they do not become a burden on society. This is an outcome that must be avoided at all costs if illegal aliens are to be accepted for any pathway to citizenship.

ultima said...

More edits: "I realize that may place me at odds with others who for whatever reason would prefer to see all 12M mass deported and repatriated as quickly as possible. I fully understand these few ANTI CIR advocates use their "rule of law", "national security," "sovereignty", and "the national interest" pre-packaged arguments provided to them by their ANTI leaders."

Although logistically feasible, no one in the mainstream of intellectual thought regarding illegal aliens believes that mass deportation is the answer if that implies some massive overnight roundup and transport of the aliens back to their homelands. A much more systematic approach is needed and favored. The intellectual underpinnings of the pro-legal, pro-reduced immigration, pro-stable population movement are not dependent on any so-called pre-packaged arguments provided by titular leaders of the movement. Rather they are the logical products of study and research of the problem by those who have the intellectual capacity to discern the long term impacts of a continuation of present policies or the disasterous version of CIR favored by those organizations and individuals who aid and abet the illegals in their defiance of the law. The pro-illegals malign the terms: national sovereignty, national interest and rule of law as if they do not have the intellectual capacity to understand them or do not comprehend their significance for the survival of our republic. If we, the pro-illegals, wish to be effective in reaching a reasonable compromise on issues and priniciples, that from most perspectives should not be compromised,we must show an indepth understanding of these valid concepts and not relegate them to the trash heap as though they had no legitimacy. We must show those imbued with the conventional concept of loyalty to their country that they can move some distance toward our position without abandoning the national interest or national sovereignty. If we say we are in favor of secure borders then we must be willing to provide the tools to achieve that goal, recognizing that internal enforcement must be an essential element of border security. We cannot continue to say we are in favor of border security knowing full well that we are not and that we have, in the past, repeatedly denied the need for infrastructure and staffing improvements at the border, including the deployment of national guard troops with full authority to apprehend and detain illegals, changes in the rules of engagement, and E-verification. We must realize that if employers are to be punished E-verification is the essential tool for identifying the miscreants. Finally, we must stop insulting the pro-legals who have the high ground in this argument, as though they are not the intellectual peers of the pro-illegals who flount the law and denigrate national sovereignty and the nation interest.

sandra said...

Dave,

It has already been reported that many illegals have left the country from states that implemented tough laws against illegal aliens. Some have moved to softer states but these anti-illegal laws are spreading all over the country since our federal government isn't doing its job. That is a FACT! Why would they stay here without jobs and benefits? You have to use common sense and logic along with the already well known FACTS.

Are you telling me that if e-verify was mandated nationwide and other taxpayer benefits denied them that most of them wouldn't go back to their homelands? The FACT is that they are already doing so and that isn't an OPINION. Also there are less entering out country illegally now because of the tougher laws in many states. That also is a FACT.

Dee said...

Anon,
You are missing it.
The point is, it will cost multi billions to mass deport all 12M people. Think of the billions needed to build detention centers. With their families you are talking about the size of the state of NY.
The 12M are here today. They are working and contributing to our economy. They do not collect welfare benefits.
If they go to Guest Worker status, they do not get welfare. They are workers.
If they get in line for citizenship, part of the requirement is working, not welfare. And it will take years to obtain citizenship.
Today, we have the lowest rate of new illegal immigrants coming in to the country than in the last 2 decades.
Once we have CIR, the only immigration coming is will be for legalized since the backlog is cleared with CIR.
There are so many positives. You need to understand the processes.


Anonymous said...
How do we overcome the fact that with the economy in such bad shape and unemployment raising, that we give legal status with the attendant welfare benefits to 10-20 million people? Almost all of them will qualify for government assistance and greatly add to our already huge deficit. Where is the money going to come from? How do we justify the fact that with unemployment raising dramatically and blacks and the poor disproportionally affected, we will sanction adding millions of foreign nationals to compete with them in the workforce?

Liquidmicro said...

"it is time to find a solution, especially for those that have been here +5 - 20 years, with citizen children"


The has been given 7 times since 1986, the last time in 2000. Why should we go back as far as 20 years ago, they should have applied for the previous amnesties. If they didn't to bad so sad. If we go back to those that have been here for 5 years or more, then that leaves just a 3 year window of which those here could effectively apply. Those here longer than 8 years should be removed along with those here less than 5 years. The other part is verifying documentation that is submitted to prove their eligibility.

Liquidmicro said...

"The 12M are here today. They are working and contributing to our economy. They do not collect welfare benefits."

It has been proven that they do, even your Messiah's own Aunt was collecting welfare, living in Government housing.

Dee said...

Ulty,
Define "Measures..that may be unacceptable"


ultima said...
Here are my edits:

"I quite naturally seek a way to end Racial Profiling and to support an improved Immigration Policy." However,I fully recognize that until we get control of our borders some measures that would otherwise be unacceptable may be necessary, at least in the short term. I would hope that these measures would be applied with a soft glove rather than a mailed fist and that all citizens, regardless of their ethnicity, would cooperate with the authorities so that these extraordary measures can be discontinued as soon as possible. In the meantime, our best approach is to support fully those measures necessary to solve the problem.

Liquidmicro said...

"Once we have CIR, the only immigration coming is will be for legalized since the backlog is cleared with CIR.
There are so many positives. You need to understand the processes."

Seems you don't understand the process either, as by thinking that CIR is the fix all to the immigration system. It will still take years to clear the backlog, it's not a wave a magic wand fix.

sandra said...

Self-deportation costs nothing! As I said, this is the most effective way to get illegal aliens removed from our country. To reiterate, e-verify implemented nationwide would end any available jobs for them and taxpayer benefits such as education and healthcare. Most will not stay if there is no incentive to stay nor will they continue to come if all incentives are removed.

Detention centers will always be necessary for those who remain anyway or those who try to work under the table and are caught. It is no different than the reason that jails and prisons will always be a necessity for citizen law violaters.

Some illegal aliens DO collect welfare for their citizen children. That is also a well know FACT. It is also a FACT that the taxpayer is footing the bill for the birthing of their instant citizen children. If they don't pay in enough taxes to cover their children's education, that is also another form of welfare that they are receiving.

Dee said...

Ulty,
Ask your own members here. Ask Sandra or Christa or Anon.
They want the 12M gone, now, as soon as possible.
You try to put some lipstick on it by saying they can go back over 4 years. With their children you are talking about 5M a year, larger than the state of Colorado a year! Where you going to put them as you round them up? How many billions in more private prisons? How you going to round them up? more Raids on all Latino neighborhoods? Increased Racial Profiling?

You can put all the lipstick you want on it, but mass deportation is still a pig.

Or, Self Attrition? They tried that a few months ago. They had 8 volunteers. That means it will take about 10,000 years. In other words, keep doing what we are doing.

The only group that wants your lipsticked Mass Deportation are ANTI CIRs. Your side didn´t have enough votes to nominate Tancredo as Dog Catcher.


ultima said...
Although logistically feasible, no one in the mainstream of intellectual thought regarding illegal aliens believes that mass deportation is the answer if that implies some massive overnight roundup and transport of the aliens back to their homelands.

Dee said...

Sandra,
ICE tried self attrition.
Didn´t work. Won´t Work. Never will work.

Regarding eVerify, the powerful US Business lobby lobbying against this is the group roadblocking these measures. Go talk to them.

Dee said...

Sandra,
Prove it.
Provide your data source.

sandra said...
Some illegal aliens DO collect welfare for their citizen children. That is also a well know FACT.

Dee said...

Liquid,
Actually I am going to write an article about that story later today.
It will be good to get some facts set straight about this issue.


Liquidmicro said...
"The 12M are here today. They are working and contributing to our economy. They do not collect welfare benefits."

It has been proven that they do, even your Messiah's own Aunt was collecting welfare, living in Government housing.

Liquidmicro said...

Extent of Welfare benefits Received on Behalf of US Citizenship Children

This is stuff you could find in a matter of seconds, Dee.

Dee said...

Liquid Liquid Liquid,
Nothing gets fixed until you decide to fix it. As long as we do not have CIR, we will continue living in status quo, backlogs, exploitation, raids, detention centers, etc.
No one said it would be an overnight fix but we do have to start somewhere.


Liquidmicro said...
"Once we have CIR, the only immigration coming is will be for legalized since the backlog is cleared with CIR.
There are so many positives. You need to understand the processes."

Seems you don't understand the process either, as by thinking that CIR is the fix all to the immigration system. It will still take years to clear the backlog, it's not a wave a magic wand fix.

November 10, 2008 3:01 PM

Liquidmicro said...

"No one said it would be an overnight fix but we do have to start somewhere."

Have we not started?? Are we not going about it in accordance with your 1 2 3 list above?? You made it sound as if CIR was the only solution and that it will clear all the turmoil, when in fact it is only theory. As I have previously shown above about past amnesties. Obviously you haven't been reading what I have been writing.

Dee said...

Liquid,
Did you bother to read it?

"In recent years, public concern about illegal immigration has often focused
on the costs associated with illegal aliens’ use of public benefits and the
extent to which these benefits serve as an incentive for immigration.1 In
1996, the Congress took steps to address these concerns through welfare
and immigration reform legislation. The Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193) further restricted the
limited access of illegal aliens to federal public benefits and limited their
access to state and local public benefits. In addition, the legislation
established requirements for states and selected federal agencies to report
information to the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) on any
individual they know is unlawfully in the United States. In the Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (P.L.
104-208), the Congress addressed several enforcement issues, including
the need for improved border control and better ways of deterring the use
of fraudulent documents."

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 241   Newer› Newest»

Page Hits