As many of my long time viewers know, I started my blog in May 2007 and write about Immigration issues and Politics in our country. I have written many posts defining who´s who in the Immigration Debates. Recently, some of my newest viewers have been asking for my definition of PRO vs ANTI. For that reason, I am reposting my most popular illustration: "Who is Who In the Immigration Debate." 
click HERE for larger view of this picture.
click HERE for larger view of this picture.
AZ,
ReplyDeletePlease put on your bifocals.
CLOSET Supporters!
For your side, your CLOSET supporters are the KKK, Stormfront and other Hate Groups.
Consider this ppt a Training Guide for Immigration 101.
Perhaps you should add the principles or rationale behind each of the positions like:
ReplyDelete1. The National Interest
2. National sovereignty
3. The Rule of Law
4. Borders will never be secure without vigorous internal enforcement, detention and repatriation.
5. Four years may be too short a time period for the partial repatriation necessary for secure borders.
6. The basic criterion of effectiveness
7. Recession and unemployment
8. Finite natural resources and their depletion
9. Pollutants at 20 metric tons per capita per year
10. Cost of Aid to Dependent Children, Medicaid, Education
11. A bankrupt CA
12. A state of becoming
13. Mexico Norte
14. Reduced diversity
15. Disloyalty
Ulty,
ReplyDeleteGood first draft. Here are my edits.
1. The National and Global Interests
2. National sovereignty in relation to the Global Economy in the New Millenium
3. The Rule of Law Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.
4. Borders, Walls and Restrictionist Views vs the Global Economy in the new Millenium
4. a. the Inhumanity of ill run Detention
4. b. repatriation vs out of the shadows and into citizenship.
5. Mass Deportation: If it is done, is Four years too short a time period for the partial repatriation necessary for secure borders? At what the cost?
6. The basic criterion of effectiveness of CIR
7. Global Economy: What are the impacts of CIR vs Status Quo. What will cause the moste Recession and unemployment
8. Global Warming, the Environment and Birth Rate Replacement: How natural resources are impacted.
9. DELETE (same as above) Pollutants at 20 metric tons per capita per year
10. Education vs Illiteracy: Long term Costs vs Short Term, long term benefits vs short term for each option.
11. The US vs Global Economy, by State with a comprehensive report on the root cause for each state´s issues.
12. Success in a Diverse USA and helping Nativists understand and respect Diversity.
12. Don't worry so much about the so-called Nativists whom you claim means they object to some diversity in this country. They are a minority in this country just as the reconquistas are. Most Americans have no problem with racial diversity in this country. You can't change everyone to your liking.
ReplyDeleteHere is a different view of the immigration debate
ReplyDeleteDee, your edits are thoughtful so I will give them some thought.
ReplyDeleteUlty,
ReplyDeleteThank you.
I always appreciate your willingness to listen.
Ulty,
ReplyDeletePerhaps you will make thoughtful edits to my edits and I will do the same again.
Aztlan is a sacred historical place of our cultural ancestors. No one knows where it exactly is, but many believe in its physical existence where the tribes of our ancestors once lived. Yet, you connect it to equivalent of the Pro-immigrant KKK.
ReplyDeleteTrue, there are extreme groups on both sides, but to call extreme pro-immigrants after a sacred place in Mexica lore is no different than calling the KKK Americanists because they espouse the belief that America should be a country for Whites.
Aztlan is not a bad word. America is not a bad word. Because extreme groups wrap themselves around those words is no reason to disparage either word by connecting it to hate groups.
You should be ashamed of yourself for giving in to those, on both sides, who use Aztlan as something with a negative connotation.
Shame on you.
Anon,
ReplyDeleteYou bring up an interesting point. I am going to change it to Reconquistas.
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteDoesn't the mythical land of Aztlan refer to where the Aztec tribes once occupied our Northern Continent? If so, the Aztecs never occupied territory this far north (the country called the USA now).
If memory serves me right and I am no expert on this but rumor has it that those who desire a return to that mythical land are seeking to reclaim part of the southwest USA (where that mythical land was suppposedly at)and make it into an independent country from the USA for "brown" descendants of the Aztec tribes. This is what is commonly referred to as the Reconquista Movement. That would make them no different than the KKK who seek an all white country, wouldn't it? Thank goodness that the KKK and the Brown Nationalist group above are small in numbers and therefore not a threat to the majority of Americans.
Dee
ReplyDeleteThank you. As a passionate pro-immigration reform advocate I can stand firmly against those who preach a radical view of reconquest.
Aztlan is not their word to disparage as a symbol of their extreme views.
to the other anonymous,
ReplyDeleteI do not consider Aztlan mythical anymore than Plymouth Rock is mythical.
The oral history of the Mexica spoke of their land of origin. These stories were only a few hundred years old at the time of the arrival of the Spanish. If the Jews were able to maintain their sacred oral histories for centuries to provide for the foundation of the Judeo-Christian faith, it is insulting to think that the Mexica could not maintain their sacred oral histories for only a few hundred years.
No one knows where Aztlan was. Some educated historians think it may have been somewhere in the United States, perhaps in the Four Corners region. Others think it was in Mexico.
Your statement that the "Aztecs" never occupied land this far north is easily debated. They obviously had influence here. Evidence shows that there was trading of goods and knowledge with tribes from what is now the USA.
There are linguistic connections between the language spoken by the Mexica and many of the ancient tribes of northern Mexico and the Southwest United States. Nahuatl was not an indigenous language to central Mexico. It was a language brought into the Mexico City valley by tribes form the north. It became the dominant language of the region to the point where some indigenous tongues were lost forever.
The cultural similarities between ancient Mexica wedding ceremonies and those of the Hopi, a tribe that predates the presence of the Navajos by hundreds if not thousands of years in the Four Corners area, blew me away. I have close connections with many Hopis
and some of them believe that they were the tribe that remained behind in Aztlan while the other tribes migrated to the south.
As an American of indigenous Mexican ancestry I know thousands of people with connections to Mexico. I know few who actually advocate for a reconquest of the Southwest. I do not share their views but I respect their right to express their views as long as it is not accompanied by hate.
As a resident of a state where the Four Corners region is, I have a strong belief that my ancestors were once here. I do not believe that it was Aztlan, but the abundance of historical, linguistic and cultural connections to the ancient tribes of the region strengthen my belief that my ancestors once migrated through here and later traded in this area.
Nothing about that should threaten the anti-reform folks nor give ammunition to the reconquistas.
Dear Dee :
ReplyDeleteHave a nice New Year 2009 !
I am so glad that you are up and working and striving for a better world. I can perceive your enthusiasm, posting on December 31.
Nice Synoptic and Cartoon Table. It has food for thought.
Some related topics about Humanity/Inhumanity and Kindness/Hate to others :
Why is it that Tom Tancredo did not seek Reelection ?? I am very little informed of his decision and anti-immigration politics. And I would thank to be informed about this strange behaviour of retiring from (unkind) politics.
The Hitler Cake : People naming their children "Adolf Hitler" and ordering Swastika Cakes ... This is amazing and repugnant.
Lately I have posted about "Hitler Jugend" and about Victor Kemplerer, the Brave and Courageous Jew that survived tons of hate, humilliation, Gestapo beatings, etc ...to tell the Big Story, while humilliated Victor was a great philologist and scholar at home and in the Nazi forced "JudenHaus".
His works on the Nazi Perversion and corruption of the German Language and his Tagebuchen or Diaries of Nazi Brutality shed light on today's inhumanity and perversion.
So Hitler is not Past and Passé, but it is very real, actual, nowadays actuality.
The more we study the past, the more we understand the present.
I also watch the Hate TV and Hate Radio and I discovered that there were Nazi and AntiSemitic Radio in America during the 1930s, so I post on that topic too ! ... These Hate Anchors of Today are nothing new.
I hope that you continue in good health and spirits to inform us with your cultured and educated Blog.
Thanks a lot friend !
Raciality.com
Vicente Duque
Thank you Anon-A for your very informative, insightful comments. Please come back often.
ReplyDeleteVincente,
ReplyDeleteSome say Tancredo did not seek reelection because he had announced for some time he was planning on retiring.
I think he retired because he was upset he received such poor showing during as a presidential candidate. He was often ridiculed by his own peers. He became a media joke, especially after his extremist statements like "Miami is a 3rd world country" or after sending McCain a plate of Nachos because of the McCain/Kennedy bill, or when he told border residents against the fence to move on the other side to Mexico.
Some say he will run for Gov. of CO in the next election. I doubt he will ever be elected for office again.
Makes you ALMOST feel sorry for the guy.
Dee is Texan. And we want to be experts in Texas :
ReplyDeleteThanks for information about Tancredo. God Help us that he never reaches elected office again.
Now a good part of the Southwest : Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico have moved to Democrats. Florida too with a lot of help of Latinos.
Virginia and North Carolina also moved to blue in the map and Latinos put a little grain of sand.
The Big Question is if Texas and Arizona will be pushed by Latinos as well.
I have read desperate letters of Texas Latino and Democrat Politicians telling the National Pary that the only thing that they need is money in order to turn Texas blue :
The Dallas Morning News
Texas Democrats to national party: Show us the money
By Wayne Slater
http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2008/12/texas-democrats-to-national-pa.html
"In a letter to Sen. Chuck Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, state Sens. Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio and Mario Gallegos of Houston noted that Texans raised $1.1 million at a San Antonio fundraiser for the national Democratic committee -- and got nothing in return."
Please Dee, as a Proud Texan ( that you are ), Please give us an opinion on this and Please tell us something about these two "state" senators.
Will these two people : "Leticia Van de Putte of San Antonio and Mario Gallegos of Houston" go for National Election ??. What is the potential of these two "politicos".
I am extremely grateful for all the illustration that I receive from you.
Thanks a lot.
In Milenials.com I study the Youngsters. Latinos are largely millennials, that is very young voters :
Milenials.com
Vicente Duque
Vicente,
ReplyDeleteMany Texans are asking this question. I think we will turn blue by 2016.
Here is one analysis done by one blogger:
Texas. This has been the bastion of Conservatism, the home of the Bushes, ground zero of the Republican machine. Tom Delay was from here. Much of W's famous advisers, and cabinet selections have roots in Texas (Rove, Gonzales, Miers, Leavitt, McClellan, etc).
McCain won the state, but only 55-45%. And by less than 1 million votes. Why was this? Most of the more conservative states had McCain winning by more, supposedly bolstered by the Sarah Palin excitement. Why not Texas? Here's a few things I to think about, as we watch some of the upcoming Texas elections.
1. Katrina--how many people who have left New Orleans as a result of Hurricane Katrina, have stayed in the Houston area? I probably need to try to get some stats on whether there is a significant portion of Democrat-leaning people who have now settled across the Texas border. It may explain some of the trending towards the Republican party in Louisiana in the recent elections.
2. Immigration--As primarily Mexican immigrants come into Texas, it is no coincidence that the Democratically elected congressmen and women are all along the Mexican border, is it? The Republican party had made some tremendous inroads into the Hispanic population, until the GOP fought off the Comprehensive Immigration Reform efforts in 2007. In doing so, they looked like they were very anti-Hispanic in the process. Whether such a perception is warranted or not, it is there, and was obvious in the 2008 general election, where John McCain (who actually SUPPORTED the bill!) lost support in the Hispanic community, and lost 2/3rds of the Hispanic popular vote to Barack Obama. Can the Republicans afford to lose this block of voters, if it is the growing minority demographic in Texas?
For kicks, I looked at the names of the Texas Congressmen that were Democrats (Rodriguez, Cuellar, Ortiz, Reyes), and I looked at the names of the Congressmen that were Republicans (Paul, Olson, Barton, Conaway, etc). I am not suggesting that the GOP is solely the party of JR Ewing. But Texas is no longer solely the land of rich oilmen. It is a multi-ethnic population, that is becoming increasingly Hispanic. If the Republicans continue to look anti-immigrant, and in turn, anti-Hispanic, they are going to lose in the long term.
3. Austin/Hi-tech--It is interesting that the high-tech and university area of Texas has become such a hot bed of liberalism. Let's see if that population increases next time.
4. Oil--Does Texas still produce oil? I know we import a lot these days. But even T. Boone Pickens is looking at wind, LNG, and other sources. And with oil dropping down to $40/barrel, I wonder if Exxon is thinking about their profit margins, and their workforce reduction possibilities. Let's see how dealing with a Democrat, who is interested in working on alternative energy sources, leaves the people who were Republicans simply because of the power it wielded them in Washington on this topic.
5. Democratic Primary--perhaps the biggest influence on the Democratic party in Texas was the primary/caucus last year. Before 2008, when was the last time we even talked about Democrats in Texas? 1988? Nothing rallies the party like a primary, and some national attention. It will be interesting to see if it translates into some party interest statewide.
So, let's see how Texas does in the upcoming elections. A blue Texas could equate to the death of the Republican party in its current state and ideology. Similar to the effects of the Reagan landslides of 1980 and 1984 on Democrats, if Texas were to turn blue, it could mean a LONG walk in the wilderness for the Republican party in the years to come.
http://www.pragmaticpundit.com/2008/12/could-texas-ever-really-turn-blue.html
Regarding both state Senators, they were absolutely right. The DNC ignored our state and Rick Noriega.
ReplyDeleteI have heard there may be a boycott next big election. In other words, all funds collected by the state will be kept by the state for state candidates unless they receive a commitment by the DNC to fund state candidates.
We may even seen one or both of them up for a national office. They are both good for Texas.