BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 05:12 PM

>>"grew up in America"

so, were they born here?<<

No. That's what I was saying. If they had not beenlazy and gotten their citizenship like nearly all of them admitted they could have and should have (especially having family here that are citizens) they ouldn't have been deported. Too damn bad.

>>If so, shouldn't we deport any and all criminals? If so, where to?<<

They were not born here and were not citizens. They weren't here ilegally but they engaged in illegal behavior and I say good riddance. They weren't deported for breaking the law, they were deported for being non-citizens breaking the law. I see nothing wrong with deporting them. I'll promise you, other countries won't hesitate to deport you. Remember that 15-year-old kid that defaced people's property in Singapore some years back? What did they do to him? They sentenced him to caning and held him in jail until his caning date. He received five lashes on the buttocks (not love taps either, the canes tears the skin open) and was then deported.

And I say, oh well. He broke the law and he got what he was bucking for and if he wasn't aware of what the law was in Singapore--too bad.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Bill D
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 05:52 PM

golly GEE, Ron...*wry grin*...every time I make a post, you read the most extreme possible interpretation into it!

I said the line 'should' form in the home country....simply meaning that folks should apply before they come...that's what 'illegal' is about. But IF they are already here, I presume it will usually be easier to do the process here...especially if there are children involved...etc.

Did anything in my post indicate that I thought 'most' of those from Nicaragua and Costa Rica were criminals? Once again, the 'horrible examples' (there were more than just a 'few') are justifications for a filter....It's not much different from taking tickets at a theater...why not just just put a box out for people to throw the right admission charge into? Many would comply, but many would cheat!

We do not WANT people with a prior history of serious crime coming here to avoid justice at home! It is not necessary to have a majority to make it reasonable to conduct background checks.

   When I am asked all these rhetorical questions about unlikely scenarios, I feel like what needs to be asked in return is: What would YOU suggest as a workable, practicable process to fairly process all the folks who might like to come here?....and of course, to sort out all those who are already here illegally. You can't just complain about (possible) measures you find sad or awkward or some measure of emotionally reprehensible, you need to help find a middle ground that addresses ALL points of view and makes some progress towards a workable policy.

And I can guarantee you that benign neglect and blanket amnesty are NOT going to be among the long-term solutions.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 11 Apr 06 - 11:54 PM

Bill--

I'm glad you'll be willing to have the processing done here. We're coming to a meeting of the minds.

I'm sure we can work it out. Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting, my friend.

It's late so more discussion will have to wait. (And tomorrow will be even later.)

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Barry Finn
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 01:37 AM

It's great to have these issues taken to the streets in such numbers. Mean while our villan is tying lady liberty to the tracks & there's an ugly war going on with not even a soul to be found beating the sidewalk. Maen while Bush & company are back on the ranch, still on vacation & laughing & loving he whole show. I'm not minimizing the immigration issue, just wondering why the war doesn't merit this kind of show, when there's no real debate about it at all anymore.
Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Bill D
Date: 12 Apr 06 - 12:15 PM

Barry..."it all depends on whose Ox is being gored"

Personal, day-to-day issues mean more to most people than stuuf going on far away.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 May 06 - 12:24 PM

In response to PDQ and BB, I'm resurrecting this thread, which does in fact deal with illegal immigrants in the US.

Also, it now seems clear that mid-term election politics will preclude passage of any legislation which sets out a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants already here.

Sending them back to their home countries to start the process of becoming US citizens is wildly impractical.   Yet that is clearly the condition set out by Tancredo, Sensenbrenner, and many others who claim to be interested solving the problem. Anybody actually interested in dealing with the problem honestly should be able to see that requiring them to leave the US in order to start the process will just have the effect of keeping them in the shadows--given that condition they will never make their presence known to US authorities.

Would you?   I wouldn't.

The main reason Bush is in favor of a path to citizenship for illegals is that he realizes the truth of the first posting in this thread--to oppose such a path, especially for Hispanic illegal immigrants is to put yourself squarely on the wrong side of demographics.

More later.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: pdq
Date: 29 May 06 - 12:31 PM

Thanks Ron Davies, but I will not post anything serious to a thread with a misleading or invective-laden title.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 May 06 - 01:44 PM

The title is neither misleading nor invective-laden. However, PDQ, somehow we'll survive without your wonderful contributions. Sorry you're so sensitive. But at least you have drawn the proper conclusion--if you can't stand the heat....

At any rate, I wanted to point out earlier, that the Bush regime is at least politically savvy enough on this issue to realize the parallel between the the current situation and Pete Wilson in California in the 1990's. Wilson took a stand against Hispanics. Ever since then, California has been progressively more Democratic Now it is a quite reliable Democratic state in national elections.   As the Hispanic population has grown, California's tendency to vote Democratic has also grown.

The Bush regime realizes that the same thing could happen on a national scale. The fastest growing ethnic group in the US is the Hispanics. And I'm talking about a huge number of LEGAL immigrants--who can, and more and more, do, vote.   I have read that Bush took about 45% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. Reason: many new citizens tend to be conservative on such issues as patriotism. And Bush's anti-abortion stance resonated with many conservative Catholic voters--which again included many Hispanics.

But a perceived anti-Hispanic bias is likely to trump this.

The politicians taking the strongest anti-immigrant stance are, by a wide margin, Republican.

Either Bush will manage to get a bill through Congress setting out a path for citizenship for illegal immigrants--in which case he will alienate the Tancredos and Sensenbrenners, etc. And their many supporters.

Or, most likely, there will be no bill--and the Hispanics will see who is leading the charge against them. And not forget.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: pdq
Date: 29 May 06 - 02:14 PM

Ron Davies,

No discussion can be conducted in an honest and sincere manor when it is poisoned in the initial post. This is such a thread. Facts always put 'heat' on people like you. This thread could be called "Republicans that Ron Davies hates" and it woluld be more honest. You should join the 'new tone' here on Mudcat. After all, you did get your demand that Martin Gibson be banned, making the world safe for Ron Davies.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 May 06 - 02:30 PM

PDQ--

If you have facts to contribute, you are welcome to do so.   If you care to contradict my views, be my guest. I'd be curious to know your take on the issue.

It's too bad that so far all you have done is complain. And if you miss "Martin", by all means go find him. I think I am safe in saying that few Mudcatters miss him. He should have been removed a long time ago. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Robin for having finally got the attention of the powers that be to do what should have been done long since.

You will note that you, not I, brought up "Martin" on this thread. And regardless of what you say, I will have no further comment on "Martin".

As far as Bush is concerned, you are correct in saying that I believe his regime has been a disaster for the US and the world.

But that does not mean that he is incapable of ever doing the right thing. Regardless of his motives, he is right to push for a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants--just as he was also correct in his attempt to let a Dubai firm oversee some US ports--after all, US Customs and the Coast Guard would still have responsibility for security.

WMMV.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Jun 06 - 10:30 PM

Usually I read the Wall St Journal editorials for 2 reasons--comic relief--they're so far out in Right field--and/or to find out what the enemy is thinking---they often take a "more Bushite than thou" stance. I hardly ever agree with them. But they always have a deft way with the language--and once in a while I can actually revel in their words.

Today, for example:


"The Tancredo Republicans"

Most Congressional majorities campaign for re-election by touting their legislative achievements. Not this year. House Republicans have decided that the key to saving their majority is NOT to solve the immigration problem they've spent the last year building into a "crisis". Give them credit for novelty, if not wisdom.


...We realize this year's immigration debate long ago left the rational world and is now driven entirely by political fear. But even as political strategy, this is the equivalent of snake-handling; it will be diverting to watch, unless the snake bites back.

Republicans came to this strategic epiphany after concluding that Representative Brian Bilbray won his special election victory in California this month by demogoguing immigration. But all that election really proved is that a GOP Beltway lobbyist could keep a seat in a 60% Republican district so long as he outspent an opponent who committed the final week gaffe of encouraging immigrants to vote illegally...

What might well cost all of them (vulnerable Republicans) their seats is the growing perception that this Congress hasn't achieved much of anything.

House Republicans insist they can't vote for any bill that can be called an "amnesty" for illegals, and that that's what the Senate and Mr. Bush want. But this is a box canyon of their own making. No serious person believes that the 11 million or so illegals already in America will be deported. Nor will these illegals come out of the shadows unless there is some kind of process that allows them to become legal citizens and keep their jobs, even if it falls short of path to citizenship. And immigrants will keep coming here illegally in search of a better life unless there is some legal way they can apply for and find work.


...Making Mr. Tancredo the spokesman on this issue is a sure-fire way to make Hispanics into permanent Democrats.

...Republicans have put themselves at political risk if they do nothing. If the GOP finds itself in the minority next year, we trust its restrictionists will stand up and take a bow.




Fascinating. And what's more, this is a warning to Susu's Hubby and other giant intellects on the Right as to where their attitude on illegal immigration is taking their power structure----right down the drain.

Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of Neanderthals.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Frank Hamilton
Date: 24 Jun 06 - 06:17 PM

What people don't seem to realize is that becoming a legal citizen is an arbitrary factor which is based on political judgements. Some people are more welcome here than others depending on who's running the political store.

As to illegal immigrants, at one time every American immigrant might have been considered illegal. Legal immigration was not always fair. Indentured servitude was legal at one time.

The thing boils down to this, simply. If the corporations in America didn't require slave-labor to finance their operations, there would not be a problem.

If American workers were paid a decent wage and not short-changed by American corporations that hire illegals because they work cheaper, you wouldn't need a fence. Then illegals wouldn't be hired and they would go elsewhere to make a buck. The corporations are the problem, not the illegal immigrants.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Nov 06 - 11:39 PM

Refresh--and please check my Wall St Journal excerpts (post of 23 June 2006 10:30 PM.)

They put it pretty well.


And now the Democrats have an opportunity to both do good for the country and do well politically--by pushing for immigration reform which includes a path to citizenship for all illegal immigrants--without their leaving the US----and does not include the US-Mexico wall.

They should tell Bush those are the conditions. If he agrees, fine. If not, they may well be able to pass it--even over his veto.   The business community realizes this is the way to go.

And it's likely to have the added benefit of anchoring the fastest-growing ethnic group in the US firmly in the Democratic column. And probably splitting the Republicans badly for 2008.

Tancredo may not be Democrats' best friend--looks like Bush has that title--but Tancredo is #2.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Nov 06 - 08:35 AM

Immigration reform should possibly be combined with a sizable hike in the minimum wage--which is not only overdue, but should win union support for the immigration program.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 10:00 PM

Tancredo has wrested the title of Democrats' best friend back from Bush.

It's pretty obvious who the Hispanics will blame for lack of reasonable immigration reform. (Not the Democrats.)

Not that this bill was that--but it had the potential--if Bush had been really willing to tell the rabid restrictionists in his own party to go pound sand--and instead signed onto a bill without "touchback" and without a $5,000 fine--maybe $500. Business interests would likely have backed such a bill. And with sizable Democratic help, it could have made it through.

Now he gets the worst of all worlds. No bill--but still the deep distrust of a huge segment of his party.

Tancredo certainly led his forces to glory today.

Too bad that the next time the issue comes up--after the 2008 election--the makeup of Congress will have changed. And Tancredo will have a bill he likes even less---with fewer of his forces there to fight it off. And more--completely legal--Hispanic voters.

Well done. Good job.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 10:42 PM

"...the next time the issue comes up--after the 2008 election--the makeup of Congress will have changed."

               Yes, and the good news is, all three of the newly elected Democrats voted against this bill. If we get more new Democrats in the next Congress, we'll be back to enforcement only.

               I can't wait.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 10:52 PM

Don't bet on it, Rig. Remember, I opposed the bill too--as unfair to illegals--especially with the "touchback".   And I'm not alone. Also, some Democrats did not like the change from linking up families to a point system for skills.

And as I said, progressively more Hispanics can vote-- totally legally.

Do you think they'll vote for "enforcement only"?

If so, I have that bridge I was saving for Teribus--but I'll just take his name off and....


Face it-- this bill was the best deal restrictionists will ever see on this issue. And they killed it.

Congratulations.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: toadfrog
Date: 28 Jun 07 - 11:48 PM

The most effective way to limit immigration is to assure the immigrants the rights Americans have. If their labor weren't quite so cheap, there wonuldn't be quite so much incentive to hire them, and fewer would come. As to those who pretend to be morally indignant about the "illegality" of it all, I would be more impressed if I were persuaded they themselves would never break any law--even say, if it restricted broperty rights or gun ownership.

Illegal border crossing should be discouraged, but it isn't particularly immoral. It shows initiative. Don't Americans, especially conservative Americans, admire initiative? Aren't Americans supposed to believe in democracy--meaning equality? What I find morally reprehensible is the idea of creating a brown-skinned lower caste with no rights. So if the question is, should immigrants be given citizenship--even without going home and paying five thouwand bucks that they don't have, then sure! They should have citizenship, if they want it and will do what it requires.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 08:42 AM

"... some Democrats did not like the change from linking up families to a point system for skills."

             There are those, yes, but in the end, most of those voted for the bill. The ones who didn't were Dorgan and his followers who correctly identified the bill as being damaging to American workers, and Tester, McCaskill, and Webb, who made the point that they ran on doing something about illegal immigration and that their constituents were adamantly against amnesty.

          toadfrog - I agree, the problems would be much less severe if illegal aliens had to be paid a living wage with benefits and taxes take out. Employers would have no reason to hire them, and the illegals themselves would be in a position to pay for a greater share of their own expenses.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 08:52 PM

It's not often I scoop the Wall St. Journal, that's for damn sure.

But yesterday I said "Face it--this bill was the best deal restrictionists will ever see on this issue. And they killed it."

Today: WSJ editorial: "Should they win more Senators and the White House, Democrats will be in position to pass their own immigration reform that will be far less restrictive than this one. The conservatives who "won" this week will deserve much of the credit."

Rig--why do you disagree with this analysis?

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Jun 07 - 09:01 PM

Also--"if illegals were paid a living wage". Precisely. And the first step in that is a path to citizenship--for all of them--so they, like all other workers, can reap the benefits of the raise in the minimum wage which is coming soon.

As I've said before, that's the ticket--a combination of a program putting all illegals on a path to citizenship--without outlandish fines or "touchback"--and a substantial hike in the minimum wage. Both put through at the same time. And Labor, as it should, will recognize the value of this--and opposition to immigration reform will fall dramatically.

And Tancredo will start feeling lonely.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 08:32 AM

"Today: WSJ editorial: "Should they win more Senators and the White House, Democrats will be in position to pass their own immigration reform that will be far less restrictive than this one."


             I think one has to be careful about what one reads in the Wall Street Journal. It's desperately trying to fight off a takeover from Rupert Murdoch. But I do agree that there are likely to be more Democrats in Congress after 2008, but I think they will be Jon Tester and Claire McCaskill Democrats, and not Chuck Schumer Democrats.

             Further, I don't have any problem with people who work making a living wage. I think it's shameful that they don't. I don't, however, see why that has anything to do with making illegal aliens citizens.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Jun 07 - 10:15 AM

"And Labor, as it should, will recognize the value of this--and opposition to immigration reform will fall dramatically."


                     I don't think labor will see the value of supporting illegal immigration until, or unless, the immigrants are able to bargain for fair wages. Once that happens, they wouldn't have a lot of value to the employers who are hiring them now. So you've got a kind of "chicken or egg" scenario going on.

                     The other element to all of this is, at some point in time, the American taxpayer is either going to have to pay for the Iraq war, or worse, the interest on the borrowed money is going to start dragging down the economy. Either way, I think we are headed for a recession. Whenever that strikes, nobody is going to want to see a bunch of foreign workers in America, legal or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Jul 07 - 09:43 PM

Rig--

If the illegal immigrants are put on a path to citizenship, they will no longer have to fear being deported for rocking the boat. Therefore they would also be able to demand whatever minimum wage was in effect. Thus they would not be undercutting American workers by accepting whatever pittance the employer was willing to offer--which is likely now the case.

So anybody concerned about decent wages for American workers should be in favor of a path to citizenship for illegals. But somehow I don't hear this from Tancredo et al.

And as I said, the way to go is to couple immigration reform with a--large--increase in the minimum wage.

I'm amazed that you don't see the link between decent wages and immigration reform.

And if you read what Clare McCasland says, I suspect she could get along with, say President Obama.

By the way, I share your concern about Mr. Murdoch. I wouldn't trust him as far as I can throw him. I can just see the reporting in the WSJ going the way of Fox News--which it emphatically does not now--the reporting contradicts the editorials all the time.

Fox News in print?-thanks, but no thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jul 07 - 08:21 AM

Although the Wall Street Journal is objective in it editorial policies now, it still comes from a business oriented point of view, a point of view that is decidedly against the American worker.

                     I'm not sure about Clare McCasland. I was referring to Claire McCaskill, the recently elected senator from Missouri. She and Webb and Tester all voted against cutting off debate on the recent immigration bill. They are the voices of the new Democrats, and I think the next election will sweep more of them into office.

                     If the illegal immigrants are put on a path to citizenship, it will increase the population on North America, and I see that as a very bad thing.

                   Finally, and a point I neglected to state earlier, if the illegals are encouraged to leave America, enterprising business will find means of production that will eliminate the need for them, and we'll be well on our way to recovery.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Jul 07 - 10:42 PM

Rig--

I never did say the WSJ is objective in its editorial policy now. In fact it is not. (Objective editorial policy is , after all, an oxymoron, as you know.)   The editorial page, like all other editorial pages, is the farthest from objective you can imagine--and usually fits your accusation of "business-oriented point of view" to a T. I read it for comic relief--and to find out what the enemy is thinking.   That's why it's amazing when it actually agrees with me--and this very rarely happens.

But the actual reporting is forever detailing abuses of workers by business, the downside of free trade, unfair health care policies, destruction of the environment, problems in Iraq, and in general the flaws of whatever crackpot idea the Bushites-- (including the ones on the editorial page)-- have in mind at any given point.

That's the other side--and at this point the WSJ management makes no attempt to tone the criticism down. I fear this would change--dramatically--under Murdoch.

Clare McCaskill--sorry I got the name wrong. I don't claim to be perfect. But McCaskill's vote against cutting off debate does not tell you anything about how she would have voted on the bill itself. It certainly does not mean she stands with the restrictionists. More likely, she had or knew of amendments she wanted voted on. Also, if you note, Webb did have his own amendment--which would have eliminated touchback. A good step forward.

But if you don't think the growing Hispanic vote will have a--strong--influence on the next immigration reform bill, I think you're deluding yourself.

"Enterprising business..."--sorry, not likely. To pick peaches, for instance you need a person who knows what to look for--a machine can't do it. Also, are you envisioning a machine that would completely construct a house to your specifications? There will always be low-to-moderate skill jobs which cannot be mechanized. If you disagree, I'd like to hear details.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 12:08 AM

Ron - I agree, the Wall Street Journal editorial staff has way too much integrity to throw in with the likes of Rupert Murdoch.

             But when whoever was running Ronald Reagan took it upon themselves to destroy America in the early 1980's, I had to move to California to survive. When I got there, everybody in the area where I lived mowed their own lawns. When I left 20 years later, nobody mowed their own lawn. Illegal aliens were doing it so cheaply that everyday Californians considered it to be beneath them.
             But it could have been that they had to work more hours at their regular jobs to support the school system that the Hispanics had destroyed. In any case, I would say these people were doing jobs that simply didn't need doing.
             In addition to that, I was on a project in Fresno for a while, where I met some people who worked for a firm that sold and did maintenance chores on grape harvesting machines. A few years earlier, it had been a thriving business, but it was closing its doors because the illegals were simply working for wages that wouldn't allow for progress. It was much the same in the South prior to the Civil War.
             The downside to illegal immigration greatly outweighs any benefits it might produce.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 09:55 PM

Rig--


"Illegal aliens were doing it so cheaply...."    Exactly. I don't think anybody is in favor of illegal immigration--including the illegal immigrants themselves.

That's why legal immigration should be expanded--dramatically. Yet, as I said, I don't think I've heard Tancredo et al. push for this.   They seem to be operating in a neverland where you can "close the borders". Face it--ain't gonna happen. If there are better jobs here than at home, immigrants will come--one way or the other.

"Ilegals were working for wages that wouldn't allow for progress". A bit biased but I take your point. Solution: same thing--cut down on illegal immigration by expanding legal immigration---and by a large increase in the minimum wage.

Nobody argues in favor of illegal immigration--just legal immigration.

And don't count on the WSJ not being sold to Murdoch. From what I read, it's very likely. And that may well destroy the WSJ's value as a source.

Though Dickey, BB, etc. will love it.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jul 07 - 10:40 PM

Ron - I responded to this earlier, but apparently my "cookie" was not reset, so I don't know where it went.

            In any event, it is sad about the Wall Street Journal, but print media in general seems to be going that way, and I'm afraid it won't be long until an individual has to look through a variety of sources to have any chance of reconstructing what is really going on in the world.

            "Nobody argues in favor of illegal immigration--just legal immigration."

          And those of us who are concerned about the environment are concerned about legal immigration too. I think the problem we are having with this is we are looking at the problem from two completely different points of view. My point of view is this: fewer people are better. It's that simple. If we are going to import people, however, as stupid as that seems, we would be better off to import software engineers and prevent Microsoft from moving to Canada. To import poor people with no resources and no education makes no sense at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 10 Jul 07 - 10:13 PM

Rig--

Sorry, you can't just import the cream--or turn the immigration spigot off. Many countries have in the past been concerned about a brain drain----to the US. But there are other jobs that need to be done in the US. Do you honestly think that without Hispanics, there'd be enough Americans to pick peaches, lettuce, etc? It's backbreaking, boring, work--and my guess is nobody wants to do it except as a first step on the economic ladder. And I don't hold that attitude against fruitpickers. Do you? They get little enough recognition--and pay--as it is. They'd get more pay if they were legal--then there'd be less chance they could be exploited--that's why we should be pushing for less illegal immigration--by making more legal immigration possible--and a sizable rise in the minimum wage.

Haven't you heard "Deportees"?

I'm fully aware of the problem of overpopulation--but I say, yet again, the solution is
education--not an unrealistic notion of slamming the door.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 10 Jul 07 - 10:49 PM

Ron - I agree education is the solution to the problem, but they need to be educated where they are now. Once they're here we're well on our way to the status of Haiti.

                Let the fruit and vegetables come from somewhere else if need be, until American industry figures out a way to do without illegals. Or simply pay more money for them. I wouldn't be nearly as expensive as supporting all those immigrants.

                  The real problem, though, as I see it, is if we continue to allow the most industrious immigrants to come here, nothing will ever happen in the countries from which they come.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Stringsinger
Date: 10 Jul 07 - 11:01 PM

Thom Hartmann has put it succinctly. There is no illegal immigration problem in this country. There is an illegal employer problem in this country. It's the corporations that are hiring illegal aliens that need to be prosecuted. If the Dems were to focus on this, they would have more clout.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 07:48 AM

Stringsinger - I agree completely, and I don't know why some presidential Dem doesn't go that way. It's the only thing that makes any sense.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 09:52 PM

Rig--

"well on the way to the status of Haiti"--which I gather is chaos?--just for educating the children of illegal aliens here? That sounds alarmist.

More like--well on the way to the situation of France if we don't--and especially if another restrictionist brainstorm--doing away with automatic citizenship for any child born here--is enacted.

Those ideas would set up a young underclass with no stake in the success of this country.

Would you like to see the US version of the fall 2005 French riots?

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 11 Jul 07 - 10:29 PM

"Would you like to see the US version of the fall 2005 French riots?"

                  Yes, Yes, Yes! That's exactly what I would like to see. If we had such a demonstration in this country, I think people would begin to see what an overwhelming problem this really is. Once that happened, I think we would find a solution very quickly.

                   I would further point out that your drawing on an example from another part of the globe, simply exemplifies the point I've been trying to make all along. This situation is global, and it's human migration. Looking at illegal aliens in the US is just one small part of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 12 Jul 07 - 07:36 PM

Rig--

If you'd like to see the US version of the French 2005 riots, I suspect you're in a minority.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 12 Jul 07 - 08:14 PM

Ron,

          I don't think so. A year or so back, very few Americans, outside of the ones living in border states, were aware of the extent of the illegal immigration problem. When the illegals came out to march with their Mexican flags, it woke up the entire nation.

            If we have riots now, I think we'll be well on our way to recovery.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 13 Jul 07 - 09:43 PM

I don't understand--why are you in favor of riots at all? When have riots solved a problem?


And what would your picture of "recovery" look like?

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 12:11 AM

I don't know if you were around during the race riots of the 1960's, and I don't know if they really solved anything. One thing they did do was to let the American public know there were a bunch of people out there who were really pissed off.

             My picture of recovery would be to have elected public officials in America who understand the problems of runaway population growth, and who would not interfere with an honest attempt to bring family planning to places that would benefit by it.

             Additionally, recovery would include ordinary people in third world nations taking control of their own destinies; kicking out corrupt politicians and putting honest people in place to govern their countries.

             We seem to have lost that here in America, but it's time to get it back and start working for honesty in government.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 12:14 PM

Hey Rig-

I agree with your prescriptions--especially since they don't seem to require a halt to immigration to the US.

Problem of course is that the US probably shouldn't dictate to other countries how they should improve their social policies. If you're talking about Mexico, the Mexican government has already had a campaign on how smaller families are usually more prosperous ones.

But you're going up against the macho culture and the Catholic church's teachings. And, yes I know your feeling on the Church--but I don't think the Mexicans will appreciate a campaign by the US to destroy the Catholic church in Mexico.

By the way, did you catch the Pope's recent proclamation--that non-Catholic churches are not churches?   Maybe you'll get your wish and the churches will be too busy squabbling with each other to do anything else.

Meanwhile, as long as there are better jobs in the US than in Mexico, immigration from Mexico will continue--if not legal, it will be illegal. Walls, fences etc. are just a challenge to be overcome.

And as far as drug-running etc.-- as long as there is demand-- (in large part, in the US)--there will be supply from elsewhere. There's a strong argument to be made--and I've seen it several times recently in the WSJ, of all places--to legalize quite a few drugs. It would take it out of the criminal realm--and provide more revenue to governments as well as cut down dramatically on the violence that comes with illegal drugs.

Paying farmers to destroy their coca crop--or governments like Columbia to do the same--is a loser---as long as you have no comparable source of income for the farmers.
There's so much money involved that corruption and violence are unavoidable.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 01:20 PM

"...as long as there are better jobs in the US than in Mexico, immigration from Mexico will continue--if not legal, it will be illegal. Walls, fences etc. are just a challenge to be overcome."

             Ron - I think that's kind of a defeatist take on the thing. All you have to do is to start throwing employers who hire illegals in jail and confiscating their property, and the problem will stop.

             As far as your take on the drug thing, I agree with everything you say. The whole "war of drugs" idea is stupid.

             I did read the comments the Pope made. This Pope seems to be like that Watts guy who was in the first Reagan Administration. Everything that comes out of his mouth seems to make somebody mad.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 03:48 PM

Rig--

Dream on. Let's be realistic. Who contributes the most to PAC's--on both sides of the aisle? And haven't you noticed that businesses are contributing more to Democrats now than for quite a few years (articles in the WSJ about that). They know what side their bread is buttered on.

And they're very concerned about provisions that would punish them for, as they see it. inadvertently hiring illegals by missing something in their backgrounds.

It's a good bet that any meaningful sanctions on employers would have been stripped out the immigration bill just defeated--even if it had made it through the Senate.

That brings us back to dealing with the 12 million we now have--and with the long-term problem. I still haven't heard anything better than a path to citizenship for all current illegals-- without leaving the US--not "amnesty", but requirements like learning English, proving no criminal record aside from the act of illegal immigration itself, getting in back of everybody who is now in the legal system, etc, It's not waving a magic wand.

And expanding legal immigration opportunities.

And sooner or later--my guess is, soon after 2008-- this kind of solution is coming. Restrictionists just threw away their own best chance to have a law more to their liking.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 04:13 PM

"as they see it, inadvertently.."

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 14 Jul 07 - 06:30 PM

"It's a good bet that any meaningful sanctions on employers would have been stripped out the immigration bill just defeated--even if it had made it through the Senate..."

                All of us who worked together to defeat the bill figured that out. It's another good reason why it didn't pass.

                Strides are being made in this area, though, they have sanctions on employers in Arizona now, and various towns and counties around the country. Members of congress will get the drift only when they start to see their buddies loosing elections. We saw quite a bit of that in 2006, and we'll see more in 2008. The most encouraging element of it all are the new Democrats who are taking tough stands against immigration.


                It's a lot like drunk driving laws. Very few people took them seriously at all thirty years ago. But they take them seriously now. It was a matter of education. Once the public discovered how much damage drunk driving did, they back tough legislation.
                Illegal immigration does a lot more damage than drunk driving ever did. It's just a matter of informing the public.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 10:50 AM

Don't bet on it, Rig. Many of the hard-core restrictionist Republicans may well be defeated in 2008. And some were already defeated in 2006--didn't you notice that? Many of Tancredo's buddies from before the 2006 election are no longer there.   Do you need a few names?

The combination of the many Americans who want a reasonable, do-able, immigration law--not punitive towards immigrants, the business community which wants something similar, and the growing Hispanic vote itself--taken all together mean that the trend is away from the restrictionists, not towards them. They will be progressively more in the minority.

As I said, the restrictionists just threw away their own best chance for a bill to their liking.

And when the Congressional bill becomes law, it will trump the mean-spirited local laws now being passed in some locations.

Opposing immigration has always been a loser in US politics--with only temporary wins. The long-term trend has always been inclusion, not exclusion.   It won't change.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 04:37 PM

I think it's you, Ron, who is missing the trend. The problem with immigration left unchecked is the same all over the world. That's why a number of countries in Europe are moving to restrict immigration. There's simply not enough room for everyone who wants to move there.

      Once France tightens its immigration laws, more immigrants will go to Germany, then Germany will have to tighten, and so on.

      The same thing is happening in the states. Georgia tightened its laws, and that puts more strain on Alabama and surrounding states. Arizona just passed a law against hiring illegal immigrants, and McCain is just about out of the presidential race because of his irrational stand on immigration.

    Politicians have power, but they have to depend on voters to keep them in office. The voters, by larger and larger margins, want the current immigration laws enforced before they want to see any additional immigration legislation go forward. That's why the Senate got cold feet at the last minute and scuttled their bill.

                     But all we have to do is wait and see how things come out.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 15 Jul 07 - 06:16 PM

We'll see, Rig. Both the business community and liberal Democrats believe in a reasonable path to citizenship for illegals. Some of the recent restrictive local laws passed are on appeal--and likely to be rejected--since they're trumped by federal law. If you don't think the Democratic candidate for president, whoever it is, both has a very good chance to win, and after winning will recognize the role the Hispanic vote played, and is likely to play in the future, I think you're mistaken.

Remember that without a substantial improvement for him in the Hispanic vote in 2004 over 2000, Bush would not have won.

Both parties look carefully at such trends.

Apocalyptic predictions--or hopes--for riots don't help in politics. The high-water mark for the restrictionists has passed.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 12:29 AM

Ron - At the risk of beating a long dead horse, I think the outcome of the election and what people will eventually do about illegal immigration has a lot to do with the shape of the economy in 2008. If those business forces who want cheap labor are strong enough to make their case credible at that point in time, they might get some Republican support. If blue collar workers are looking at layoffs, we very well might see violence in the streets.
             If I'm a technition who manufactures parts for small engines, for instance, and I'm drawing unemployment while an illegal alien is doing my job for pennies on the dollar, I probably will not support a candidate who wants to legalize that illegal worker.

             As it stands now, it seems to me that the fate of where sub-prime lending goes has more to do with the outcome of illegal immigration than any of the current players at the table, Democrat, Republican, or honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 09:07 PM

Rig--


Those business forces might get some Republican support?    I thought you knew business forces ARE in fact a lot of Republican support. And combined with the growing Hispanic vote and liberal Democrat support, they are likely to get a bill much more tailored to a path to citizenship for illegals. And Tancredo et al. will be out of luck.

Or are you predicting a new Depression soon?

You're talking a lot about rioting. I'm saying it's not a wonderful idea--but you seem to disagree.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 16 Jul 07 - 10:39 PM

Ron - I think we'll just have to wait and see what happens.

               One of the mistakes that the media seems to make, consistanly, is to assume that the "Hispanic" vote consists of a bunch of sheep who will do what they are told. There are a number of Hispanic people in the country whose families have been here a very long time who do not like illegal immigration any more than most of the other working citizens in the country.