BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend

Subject: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 07:04 AM

Tom Tancredo, (Republican--, of Colorado, I believe)-- the spirit behind the current push to punish all illegal immigrants in the US (who are primarily Hispanic) is the best thing to happen to the Democrats in a long time.

Like the Bushites used the abortion, the homosexual marriage, and the "patriotism" issues --(implying or declaring their opponents to be unpatriotic for insufficient enthusiasm for the Iraq war)-- as "wedge issues"--that is, one that splits the opposition--the Democrats, if they have any sense, can use his campaign against illegal immigrants to firmly place themselves on the right side of a moral issue--and push the idea that the opposition is on the wrong side.

Bush and several conservative spokesmen (including George Will and the Wall St Journal editorial page) have come out against Tancredo's crackpot ideas. But most of the visible spokesmen supporting Tancredo--including, it appears, a majority of the House, are Republican.

Not only are the ideas of Tancredo and his ilk morally reprehensible, in the long tradition of nativism in the US--from Know-Nothingism to the KKK, and more recently the unreasoning anti-Arab fear fed by Bush---but they are stupid economically. Illegal immigrants now do a whole array of jobs Americans would not want to do. Obviously the right approach is to set out a path to citizenship for illegals--as the Senate version of ghe bill on illegals envisioned, so they cannot be exploited by their employers, as is now happening.

On top of this, the punitive anti-illegal- immigrant ideas, including a 700-mile- long fence along the Mexican border, place their sponsors squarely on the wrong side of demographics. By far the fastest growing segment of the US population is the Hispanic. If these new citizens ( and any person born in the US, even to an illegal immigrant, is now a citizen by birth)--get the idea that Republicans are anti-Hispanic, that will condemn the Republicans to a minority status---for generations.

Supposedly there are some union members anxious that illegal immigration is threatening their jobs. But it's clear what the direction of a solution to illegal immigration has to go. And workers in general will benefit, as will the US, if illegals become legal.

Comments?

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 07:12 AM

Obviously, I do not mean to imply that being against homosexual marriage or being against abortion is in fact being on the right side of a moral issue. But this is how the Bushites sold it--- and it worked--especially among Hispanics. I've read that between 2000 and 2004 Bush increased his percentage of the Hispanic vote--and that with 9% more of the Hispanic vote, Kerry would have won.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 06:24 PM

Tancredo and his kind should be careful what they wish for.

I hate to say it, but the best thing that can be done about the illegal immigrants is nothing. Bush is finally right about something--our eceonomy depends on illegal immigrants. What I am against is giving them guest worker status or helping them to become legal. The reason is simply that if they become legals, you can't exploit them anymore. We can't pay them 50 cents a day. We'd have to pay them minimum wage with benefits and vacations and what not. It would become like the auto industry where even the guy sweeping the floor is making $22 an hour. Sounds nice until you see the sticker price.

Our groceries and produce would be essentially unaffordable. The best thing is, let them work those jobs if they want to for a pittance. And when you see a group of illegals working somewhere--KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT!!! Don't try to help them, don't try to deport them. either option is a disaster waiting to happen. Mind your own business and let them take care of themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 10:43 PM

AR--

You really think they should be paid 50 cents a day? I hope you're kidding.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: katlaughing
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 10:58 PM

Ron, he is from COlorado Springs, a hotbead of neo-con Christians. There is a compilation of interesting articles on this at this site.

AR, I, too, hope you are joking. Otherwise I'd say you need a serious attitude adjustment.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: michaelr
Date: 03 Apr 06 - 11:05 PM

It would be great if the Dems used this as a "wedge issue". I don't hold out much hope that they will, however. It's one of those divisive topics that they've been too cowardly to take a stand on, like the crimes of the Bush administration.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 10:14 PM

AR--

You might want to check Kat's link. Legal and illegal immigrants already do the menial jobs at Colorado ski resorts--earning starting pay of $9/ hr--not 50 cents per day--and the sky hasn't fallen. "It's menial things that people talk about, but they are very essential to how things run" said Roger Gomez, who represents GOP Rep Scott McInnis.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 04 Apr 06 - 10:23 PM

Some Bushite done swiped my cookie

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

>>You really think they should be paid 50 cents a day? I hope you're kidding.<<

No I am not kidding. They're here illegally. What do they expect?
What do they have a right to expect?? If they're willing to come here illegally and work for a pittance then I say fine. Because, like it or not, our economy depends on that. I can't afford $30 for a bag of apples and that's where it's going if we make them guest workers or legals. Nobody here illegally should receive any option to become legal. If that's the case, then we should abolish legal and illegal categories and just let anyone come here who wants to and let them file for citizenship so that they can compete for YOUR job instead the ones no American wants. You'll be the first one crying foul.

Then you have the problem of them getting status that might enable them to unionize and strike. Who then goes into the fields to pick our produce? You?? I highly doubt it. And it won't be me, I'll tell you that up front. So who then?

Don't fix what isn't broke. Leave it be. Just shut up about it. Beatifying or demonizing them will not help them or us. Just leave it be. And if my attitude needs adjusting, then have at it.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 05:17 PM

>>Legal and illegal immigrants already do the menial jobs at Colorado ski resorts--earning starting pay of $9/ hr--not 50 cents per day--and the sky hasn't fallen.<<

Because no one works for $9 an hour accept illegals and college students.

$9 an hour IS a pittance. I couldn't survive on it without a serious readjustment of my lifestyle. I'd lose my house and I am not exactly living in a mansion in an exclusive neighborhood. I live in Detroit. I think that's all that needs to be said about that. And a $9 an hour job would put me on the street.

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


Because no one works for $9 an hour accept illegals and college students

What a fucking joke!

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 05 Apr 06 - 11:22 PM

AR--

Thanks for answering--the more perspectives we can get the better, on this topic, which should be of concern to all Americans (maybe even more than the second thread on fire trucks).

I'm glad you're willing to let illegals get $9/ hr.--that's up from 50 cents. And it's also considerably above the minimum wage. In fact lots of people make only about $9 or $10 per hour. You are correct they cannot live on that--but often it's a 2-earner situation.

"Compete for my job"? Are you really afraid that poor uneducated people who barely speak English can displace you? I'm not afraid. Nobody expects you to work for $9 /hr--you're a skilled citizen and a smart guy.

It's to the advantage of all Americans that everybody be educated--(maybe then they'd recognize Bushite-style propaganda)--, that everybody who drives have a license, that everybody have a Social Security number and pay taxes under that number--not a fake SSN obtained by an employer. If you think illegals' just being made legal will push up wages so high that inflation will skyrocket, I think you're being unduly alarmed. It will still be a question of supply and demand--and the supply will still be coming, especially from Mexico--but also elsewhere. Some of the ski resort workers, you can be sure, are legal--but they still only make $9/ hr---to start. Why shouldn't that rise over time?

Costco cashiers, in 2004, started at $10/hr--but they were on a path to be making $40,000 within 3 years--see the threads on Walmart (I can give specifics next time, if you'd like).

This is really a situation where simple decency, as well as self-interest, should mean Americans favor a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants--which is not the same as the loaded term "amnesty for lawbreakers".

I'd be curious to hear your further thoughts--this is not an issue which has to deteriorate into invective, a la Teribus.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 07:01 AM

>>"Compete for my job"? Are you really afraid that poor uneducated people who barely speak English can displace you? I'm not afraid. Nobody expects you to work for $9 /hr--you're a skilled citizen and a smart guy.<<

I'm a guy who could lose his job just like that. And so are you. Amd there may nothing open to me but to try to land two or even three $9/hr jobs to survive and that's going to be hard to do when millions of illegal immigrants with guest worker status have taken most of them.

>>It's to the advantage of all Americans that everybody be educated--<<

It's no adavantage at all if the people getting the education aren't citizens. Mexico has a school system when last I checked. And a preety good one from what I hear. If these people coming here are uneducated then they are Mexico's hillbilllies and they don't even want them, why should we?

>>If you think illegals' just being made legal will push up wages so high that inflation will skyrocket, I think you're being unduly alarmed.<<

Tell that to those who said the same thing about unions.

>>It will still be a question of supply and demand--and the supply will still be coming, especially from Mexico--but also elsewhere. Some of the ski resort workers, you can be sure, are legal--but they still only make $9/ hr---to start. Why shouldn't that rise over time?<<

If they're here legally, they still have restrictions because they aren't citizens. And I favor that. That is as it should be. As citizens, they have all the same rights I do and I don't begrudge them anything. But clearly this is not the case. As long they are willing to come here and do the jobs most Americans don't want, I don't care. If they can manage a decent wage out of it, good for them. But the rules are the rules. They get caught, they get deported. End of story.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: artbrooks
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 08:55 AM

And what do you call the young lady, valedictorian of her high school class, who cannot get any financial aid to go to college because her parents carried her across the border before she could walk? What do you call her younger sibs, born in the US? How do you deal with the border regions, where families often straddle the international boundary and have lived here since long before the border existed? Is a bilingual child born in Mexico and raised in Tucson less "American" than one born in Tucson and raised in Magdalena?

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 12:22 PM

We need an honest look at the immigration problem..legal AND illegal. Right now a lot of the arguments you see are emotionally driven and based on special interests...personal and organizational.

The fact is, although we DO need some specialized labor...seasonal and some otherwise....we do NOT need unlimited millions pouring into the country, draining medical & educational resources and creating demographic imbalances that will change the very structure of the laws, language, customs and economic relationships much faster and more unpredictably than we can accommodate.

   We need a fair, but controllable system for allowing seasonal labor, managed immigration, and reasonable green card regulation.

It is crazy to try to base a policy on some notions of 'political correctness'....or on unreliable statistics.

Far beyond the current security and contraband issues, we need to integrate immigrants (largely Hispanic at the moment) into the society under controlled conditions, NOT simply according to how many can crowd in. This means we have to have controls, awkward as it may be to enforce them.

   It upsets me to no end to see suggested policies based on various politician's ideas of what will get them re-elected!

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 01:26 PM

"demographic imbalances" - nice phrase that. Very useful, for all kinds of purposes.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: katlaughing
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 02:46 PM

...we do NOT need unlimited millions pouring into the country, draining medical & educational resources and creating demographic imbalances that will change the very structure of the laws, language, customs and economic relationships much faster and more unpredictably than we can accommodate.

I imagine the Native Americans may have felt the same way, Bill.:-)

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Bill D
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 05:27 PM

McGrath...yep, demographic imbalances can mean a LOT of things...and are handled differently all over the world. Japan certainly takes a fairly rigid attitude toward them. All *I* am trying to convey is a sense of how crucial it is to have some control over the process and not just wait while folks on both sides try to manipulate it for self-serving interests.


kat.....Oh, indeed they (Native Americans)probably did! We all know why it went the way it did back then, and with that hindsight to help guide us, perhaps we can contrive a system to avoid the worst decisions and mistakes in this situation! In all situations, we cannot 'turn back the clock', we can only work from where we are now. This means making practical, fair adjustments to the situation as we find it, while avoiding an escalation of it which is likely to be less than happy for ALL parties!

Ask anyone who lives in places like Los Angeles what it is like to have multi-cultural tensions on the agenda every day...in schools, in government, in prisons, in neighborhoods, in public transportation...etc.

If this great "melting pot" experiment were to proceed more gradually, so that we really HAD integration, rather than ghettos and demands and frustrated, awkward band-aids on flare-ups, we might become a nation that ALL could be proud of...someday.

For those in other countries who want to follow some of this, we have one newscaster who has taken this as his primary concern...you can read his take on Lou Dobbs page.

I am QUITE aware that his opinions, like all opinions, must be looked at carefully, as this ain't an easy problem. ANY solution will make someone unhappy.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 06 Apr 06 - 11:22 PM

Bill--

It really boils down to whether you think illegal immigrants should be offered a path to citizenship or not.   It's fairly obvious what Dobbs thinks--the site you linked to didn't mention a wall outright, as I recall--but it's evident what Dobbs means with his harping on "security"--as if a wall will provide that. And he won't even consider integration of illegal immigrants into US society until the nirvana of complete security has been reached. Of course he's also the one who came out against St. Patrick's Day--that's how much of a deep thinker he is.

If Democratic candidates don't offer a clear choice between them and Republicans on this issue, Hispanics will look to other issues. And a lot of them are pretty conservative on issues like homosexual marriage, abortion (obviously, the Catholic church influence), and susceptible to Bushite specious appeals to patriotism, as in the Pledge of Allegiance controversy, not to mention the Iraq war--in which a lot of Hispanics are fighting.   Some Democrats are already susceptible to attacks on the basis of opposition to organized religion--a la "Religion: A Form of Mental Illness".

So if Democrats don't offer this clear choice on the single biggest issue to Hispanics, they will deserve what they get.

At this point, anybody born in the US has automatic US citizenship. But the more we edge towards creating a large group of people living in the US but who are not on track to become citizens, the more likely we''ll wind up with problems like those of France. And mass deportation, I'm sure you'll agree, is not an option.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Barry Finn
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 12:37 AM

Mass deportation of US citizens of Mexican ancestry happened during the 1930's (1930-1935). It was wide spread & government sponsered. It was a reaction to the onset of the depression. A very large percentage were US citizens or those that entered legally by paying for there entrance before the laws changed. Many had children that were born here & they were force to leave. Many were never able or allowed to return. So it seems that those of Mexican ancentry or of Hispanic heritage are again feeling the brunt in bad times. It was fine to exploite them in better days? Instead of looking at shoring up our fences & closing us in with bigger & better walls my not look at the reasoons that folks exit one nation & look towards another. Is the US a better place for education or medical treatment? Do we offer better employment opportunities? Maybe it's the scenery or the climate? Ya! I'm sure it's all that & more. Well, when they do make there home here it's usually not in a place that you or I would want to live in. When they do find employment here it's usually not a job that you or I would want to work at. When the look for an education or medical treatment for their kids it's usually not in the places that you or I would want to bring our kids to.

If we didn't have a war draining us dry & if we had the surplus we had then maybe we could play the good neighbor & try some kind of policy or system of helping out in a way that would also benifit us
& make it worth while. Spending our money and getting a return in some other form is better than pissing off a neighboring nation, our largest growing minority, a decent amount of decent citizens & besides it might have us looking a little more human in the eyes of the world. Ist it just the Hispanics? There are more illegals than just them. The South East Asians, the Mid Easteners, the Irish & so on, why no hype about the rest? Are they the present pick of the litter? Come on, when times get tough we will always try to pick on someone. We have better minds (maybe not in government) that can come up with better solutions than the ones being perposed now.

OR, is this just a needless smokescreen issue to capture the nation's attention from what would be more pressing issues. I'll bet Bush & company are in heaven just yucking it up, shouting back & forth over a few drinks laughing their pink little asses off, making more fuss of this hill of beans while relaxing, right now, their on vacation.

It may turn out that Tancredo is the Democrats' best friend but surley is no friend to our country & should be dumped promptly.

Barry

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 04:29 PM

>>And what do you call the young lady, valedictorian of her high school class, who cannot get any financial aid to go to college because her parents carried her across the border before she could walk?<<

So what?? There's millions of Americans who can't get financial aid either and I'll be damned if she gets it before them if she is not a citizen. May not be her fault but tought shit.

>>What do you call her younger sibs, born in the US? How do you deal with the border regions, where families often straddle the international boundary and have lived here since long before the border existed?<<

Hey, I don't make the friggin laws. They're legal if the law says they are. If the says they aren't, then they aren't.

>>Is a bilingual child born in Mexico and raised in Tucson less "American" than one born in Tucson and raised in Magdalena?<<

If the law says that child is legal then that child is legal. If the law says that child is not legal then that child is not legal.

Really, there's no need to make a fuss where none exists.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: artbrooks
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 04:50 PM

AR282, I guess I'm ashamed that you are an American.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 05:45 PM

"It really boils down to whether you think illegal immigrants should be offered a path to citizenship or not."

hmmm...no, Ron, I don't think this issue CAN be boiled down that far. There are far too many variables and special cases to consider. Sure, you can write a clear, simple law "No one allowed in!" or "Anyone allowed in."; but neither of those make any sense.

   And you get the problem ...IF you offer current illegals a path to citizenship, are you then offering subsequent illegals the same path? Does citizenship go by default to those who are sneakiest, and find a way over the border? (And lucky and brave enough to survive?) Why even man the border at all if it's only use is to deter the old, lame & dumb?

.....There ARE reasons to have a sane, orderly way for a temporary work force to come here, and to have a sane, orderly, process for those who wish to apply for citizenship....but there are also reasons to have ***LIMITS*** on both. No process can BE sane and/or orderly if it is not controlled!

and so to "If Democratic candidates don't offer a clear choice between them and Republicans on this issue, Hispanics will look to other issues."

I certainly HOPE that the Democrats don't make the mistake of choosing a platform based on 'being different', just to attract Hispanics! I have seen far too many races run on political expedience, when the platforms were essentially unworkable and soon abandoned.

If you read and listen to Lou Dobbs carefully, and over a period of time, you will see that he is saying much of what I am.....that this stupidity foolishness of ignoring both the law and common sense in favor of rubber-stamping faits accompli will make any future attempts and control both immoral and impossible.

...you know, a bully who harasses you, knocks you down, and steals your lunch because he is poor & hungry is still a bully...the solution is not to reward him, but to head off his perceived need to bully! (I know...thats too hard!...easier to just fix an extra lunch everyday!) (what, me? cynical? naawwwwwww...)

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Wesley S
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 06:05 PM

Bill - Just curious - how many years has your family been in the US ? Most of my family have been here for three generations. Except for the Native American branch.

My guess is that the Hispanics that are coming across our borders now are looking for the same things our familys were looking for at the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 06:05 PM

I finished all that typing and went to fix some coffee, still thinking about how I had said it all....and it hit me that one thing I am asking is: DOES the end justify the means?...and I am saying that I seldom think it does.

and that 'bully' metaphor may bother some....but I am still thinking how to say it directly without having my point taken wrong ....I'll go ponder

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 06:17 PM

*sigh*...Wesley...that is not the POINT! Or, it is only a portion of the point. The situation is not really comparable to what it was 100 ...or 200 years ago. We were NEEDING immigrants back then..(well, we, meaning everyone but Native Americans)....now we TAKE some immigrants...from many countries... based on certain rules. We actually need very few of them. I am not against immigration...I am against the idea of absorbing everyone who doesn't like it where they are, and whose own countries just don't want...or can't..cope.

Vincente Fox has as much as said...'We have more people and fewer resources than is easy to balance, so our policy is :anyone who can get to the USA is fine with us...we will make no attempt to help you police the situation!'

right..."hungry? We can't help you...go see what you can do at the neighbors!"

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 08:20 PM

Reguardless of what the "point" is - can you answer my question ?

And how else was this country formed but for "absorbing everyone who doesn't like it where they are, and whose own countries just don't want...or can't..cope". ??

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Apr 06 - 10:56 PM

well, my ancestors were Scots-Irish...mostly Scots. I have one great-great-grandmother who was full blooded Cherokee. I have records of my family going back to about the 1820s or so, and have no idea when the first ones came here.

But how the country WAS formed has but small relevance to what is possible today. We still take many, many refugees, political and otherwise...and rightly so. The population of the earth in 1700 was about 600 million; these new colonies numbered in the hundreds of thousands, (counting Native Americans, maybe a million or so...)

Is it crowded where you are Wesley? It is where I live. How crowded and tense and frustrating and insecure and ecologically imbalanced does it have to be before you would call it a problem? Does the entire world have be be brought to some sort of 'equity' of population density per acre of arable land? How DO you provide quality schooling in several languages and medical care and social services to a larger & larger underclass every year? Are you willing to devote a much larger tax bite to these things?

Those are not easy questions, and I'm sure there are many different ideas about HOW to answer them, but I assure you...doing it by default just because of an abstract ideal will backfire....that's a prediction. Call me in 20 years, and we'll see how it's gone.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 12:21 AM

Bill--

Sorry, I have to respectfully disagree with you-- (it's good to know we can disagree without descending to invective)--(but with no respect for Mr. Dobbs, who has just decided illegal immigration is his hobbyhorse--and he'll ride it for all he's worth.)

I believe you are needlessly complicating the issue. It does boil down to offering illegal immigrants a path to citizenship--or not.

You seem to think all an illegal will have to do is sneak across the border--presto, he's a citizen.

Actually he will have to:

1) pay a fine ($2,000)--not easy for poor illiterates
2) prove he has worked 3 of the past 5 years in the US. Yes, documentation will be a nightmare. I feel we should err on the side of accepting documents, unless they are obvious forgeries.
3) work another 6 years-- and get behind all applicants already applying for visas.
4) have arrived before April 2001

If he arrived after January 2004, he'll have to leave. If he arrived between Jan 2004 and April 2004, he'll have to go to US port of entry, re-enter legally with a temporary work permit, pass background checks, and pay back taxes.

I think proof of English ability is also in there somewhere--and it should be.

It's not an "amnesty for lawbreakers".

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 10:45 AM

"If he arrived after January 2004, he'll have to leave."

and who will see to it that he does? And if he does, will he come back again illegally? etc.etc....and how do folks with no papers and who have been in the shadows prove they were here before April 2001?

I never claimed or even considered that "easy citizenship" was the main problem. The ongoing problem will be how to deal with those who do not fit the citizenship criteria, but still intend to come here on an 'indefinately extended temporary' basis.

If proof of English ability were REALLY enforced, we could make serious inroads on part of the problem, but even around here it is not well monitored, and in L.A. or Miami or Brownsville it is a joke.

What we have is 'official' estimates of 8-10 million currently illegal, and up to 20 million by educated guesses....and more millions wishing they could make it.

But, as we see from today's news, the Senate cannot agree on ANY method of creating a fair system.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 10:56 AM

Absolutely right, Bill, enforcement will be an issue. And some will beat the system. But, as I said, if we don't provide a path to citizenship for illegals, we are heading for the situation in France, where they have a large group of very angry people who see themselves as second-class citizens. Not a good idea.   Furthermore, every group of immigrants has enriched the US---and been opposed by people already here.

Ironically enough, if there is in fact no immigration bill but the punitive one the House has come up with, what I predicted in my first post may well happen--Hispanics will be convinced that Republicans are against Hispanics--and the Democrats will benefit. Democrats will in fact not have clean hands on this either--Reid didn't even allow the test amendments--to see if the pro-immigrant coalition would hold together--to be voted on. But it will not be easy for Republicans, some of whom favor the Senate bill (including Spector and Bush) to explain the arcane workings of Congress to angry Hispanics--all the Hispanics will see is the abhorrent House bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 11:26 AM

and there you have the meat of the problem...Almost any bill or ruling which doesn't give Hispanics what they seek will be labeled racist, and will lose votes among Hispanics who are already citizens.

I have no problem with the IDEA of creating a legal "path to citizenship" for those who genuinely qualify, but everyone wants the criteria to apply to THEM, no matter what. You want to be the one who tells those just below the cutoff point..."go home"?

You durn betcha enforcement will be a problem...as it already is.

but...hmmm..." every group of immigrants has enriched the US--" "enriched"??? really? ALL of them? That sort of statement is often thrown out as almost a mantra of generalization. We can easily agree on the virtues of 'diversity', but diversity must always be looked at carefully, as it also has its built in dangers.

I have been active in civil rights and followed the racial tensions scene off & on since 1962, and I have seen and read some things about humans that worry me. You can't just have 'diversity' and expect harmony...in fact, it is more often than not the opposite case.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 12:19 PM

OK ,Bill, you're on--can you name an ethnic group that has not enriched the US?

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 03:15 PM

That was unfair, I admit. Can you just name a wave of immigration which has not enriched the US?

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 06:52 PM

I was just reading about some Cambodians that grew up in America but were deported. Many have trouble adjusting to their new environment since few remember much about Cambodia and many are not picking up the language well. All of them consider themselves American. Others that were deported had to leave families behind in America. Many cannot find a societal niche after arriving in Cambodia which is still largely feudal as far as societal structure goes and so they are essentially pariahs in Cambodian society.

Sounds terrible until you find out they were deported for committing crimes. When you come into my country, I expect you to obey my country's laws or get out. I've been to quite a number of foreign nations and always respected their laws. If I didn't, I'd deserve to be kicked out.

The other thing about the expatriated Cambodians is that all of them could have long ago become citizens but put off undergoing the naturalization process not feeling it necessary despite knowing they were not legal citizens. Apparently, they thought that just feeling like an American was enough to make them one and could therefore break and violate America's laws.

So, in the end, they get no sympathy from me. They were deported because they deserved to be. You want to emigrate here, do it legally and behave yourself while you are here. Violate either of those and you'll be taking one-way trip and I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that policy. We don't owe immigrants anything. It is up to them to show us they belong here.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 06:57 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 06:59 PM

Mistake.

The question is to what extent the criminal Cambodians are typical of Cambodian immigrants to the US. I would guess not very typical. If so, this example is a red herring.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 08:36 PM

Ron, you set up questions in a funny way...I'd have to spend most of my answer explaining why "enriched" is a loaded term and why finding some positive aspects of any "wave of immigration" does not necessarily demonstrate that the entire situation was generally benefical.

   When there was a large influx of immigrants from Costa Rica and Nicaragua after wars and disasters awhile back, we got quite a large number of criminals and social misfits among some perfectly decent folks....so were we 'enriched'? Does ONE nice, decent school teacher in a group of a bunch of former army death squad members mean we are enriched? See the problem? You can have all the 'enrichment' slogans you wish....we still need a way to sort out the decent school teacher from the others BEFORE they arrive here and fade into the shadows.

I saw prison officials explaining that about 90% of inmates in S. Cal. jails and prisons are affiliated with ethnic gangs of some sort...Latino, Black, White, Chinese etc....and now, even Russian..(though smaller in number). These groups cause enormous law enforcement problems just from fighting among themselves...not to mention preying on the populace in general. New immigrants, especially illegal ones, usually end up in neighborhoods where they cannot easily avoid the gang culture, and are often co-opted into criminal behavior when the promised jobs are not easy to find.

That is happening even as some others are 'enriching' us with the better aspects of their varied cultures.

You asked me if I could name any group which hadn't enriched us. I could ask YOU if there's any group which hasn't brought its share of problems. I repeat...we need to control the process, so as to minimize the problems and enjoy the enrichment.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Apr 06 - 10:01 PM

"grew up in America"

so, were they born here? If so, shouldn't we deport any and all criminals? If so, where to?

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 05:44 AM

Bill--

As a student of history, I'm sure you appreciate it has been ever thus. New York City after the massive Irish immigration of the late 1840's and 1850's had by some accounts the worst crime rate in the Western world. All sorts of crime was rampant in the 5 Points--excellent book on that area by Tyler Anbinder--from stolen elections to prostitution and murder. Most of the rioters in the 1863 draft riots, the worst riots til the mid 20th century, were Irish or Irish-American. Yet Irish-American spokesmen of the Catholic church opposed the riots--and were instrumental in ending them. ( Another argument for much-despised "organized religion"?)

And I would say that the Irish have enriched the US, to say the least. Any argument?

It's too easy to tar an ethnic group--or a wave of immigration--with the misdeeds of some.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 02:54 PM

Tancredo sounds like a Spanish name. They ought to stop him at the border or at least deny him citizenship. Just kidding.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 02:58 PM

some of the Irish have indeed provided a LOT of enrichment, Ron..*smile*

As you see I will not be trapped into formulating a reply that is not couched in my own terms and with the exceptions and disclaimers I require.

And I am not trying to tar anyone who does not have tar already on them.

Once more...today's America..(all of it...not just the U.S of A.) is not the same as it was in the 1840s...or the 1720s. Laws are different, space is more limited, travel is easier,...even monitoring and tracking procedures are more technical. We can establish some general principles of admission and remind ourselves of our basic desire to help and aid those with problems...that is a GOOD thing...but neither our space nor our definitions of 'problem' are unlimited.

Over & over I am being told that we were founded by poor emigrants and have always taken in those who needed to escape situations "over there"...and I do not deny either the history or the basic attitude...and I am NOT suggesting we stop accepting new immigrants - just that we cannot do it at the current scale and with few controls. If we do not restrict and control the process now, we shall certainly be faced with MUCH more awkward decisions if we have to correct a totally untenable situation later. Preventative medicine, no matter if some of it tastes bitter, is better than emergency surgery!

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 03:46 PM

Just like they say on Wall St. The 4 most dangerous words: "It's different this time".

Proof please.

We don't need 11 million illegal immigrants. Correct. That's exactly why they should be made legal.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 03:56 PM

Actually, Bill-- "some" of the Irish are worthwhile? How about the overwhelming majority?

And that's the way it always is--there are bad apples in any wave of immigrants--perhaps more at the start when they're clawing their way up the ladder. But they are the exception, not the rule.

And they do become integrated into US society--as you know, the kids are more likely to do that than the parents. Yes, I'm aware of certain sections of Miami. etc. Do you really want to stand in the door shouting "Stop!" forever.

"Don't stand in the hallway, don't block up the door." Etc.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Bill D
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 04:15 PM

"We don't need 11 million illegal immigrants. Correct. That's exactly why they should be made legal."

uhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! Tell me you didn't say that!....."we can't allow leaking classifed documents...here, I'll DEclassify them"

'some' does not imply a minority...it merely designates less than 'all'. I am not qualified, (nor, I suspect are any of us) to state what % of ANY group is or was a positive influence.

Do you really want to stand in the door shouting "Stop!" forever"

Lovely rhetorical question...*smile* So many cute answers come to mind..
"No, I'd board up the door."
"No, I'd rather stand to the side, so I don't get trampled!"
"I'd rather sit at a table, examining credentials."
"No, I'd shout "Hola!"

but a serious answer is: It should not come to that....the door should be open, with an orderly line and 'store hours' and limitations, just like the fire marshal would enforce in a theater.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 08:15 PM

Bill--

Then it sounds like we agree--both believe the illegal immigrants now in the US should be made legal--given a path to do that. That would be standing in line. How else would you like them to stand in line?

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 09 Apr 06 - 08:19 PM

I'm pretty sure I misquoted also--it's "Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall", I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Bill D
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:16 AM

No, we do not 'precisely' agree. The line 'should' form IN the home country...but even if the line forms here for convenience, I do NOT agree that **ALL** illegals should be made legal OR citizens. Blanket amnesty is just begging for problems.

The requirements should be made fairly tight and TOTALLY clear....a working command of English, a work permit based on skills, not just a desire to leave their own country, a relatively clean criminal record, regular check-ins at a relevant office to report address and status changes..(marriage, kids..etc..)

Yes, I am quite aware that enforcing any set of rules will disappoint many, and that it is not easy to define a set of rules which covers all contingencies...but I would allow a case-by-case review & exception process...IF it were understood that decisions were to be followed and accepted.

    Go to some of the small communities in Georgia that were noted in CNNs re-play of a 2004 report and see why I say that we must have something more than the chaos now in place.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:35 PM

Bill--

You sound like the voice of sweet reason.

However:

"The line should form in the home country"--are you implying all illegal immigrants should return to their home countries? If that's your plan, good luck in even getting them to come out of the shadows. With your approach, if I were an illegal immigrant, I wouldn't. Would you?

That's why the only practical and reasonable solution is to offer them a path to citizenship--and I've already listed the criteria in the Senate bill--it's not a free ride.


And I'm still waiting for citation of an immigrant group which has not enriched the US--are you saying the majority who came for Costa Rica and Nicaragua were criminals? Proof needed--which is not the same as a few horrible examples.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: GUEST,Ron Davies
Date: 10 Apr 06 - 11:36 PM

"came from Costa Rica"

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.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 09:37 PM

Rig--

I'm sure there are some Hispanic families who oppose illegal immigration. However:

1) This fact supports my contention that, as generations go by, all immmigrants eventually assimilate. Therefore the prediction that the current Hispanic wave is a long-term threat to the US is wrong.

2) Though some Hispanics may be against illlegal immigrants, most legal Hispanics see the mean-spirited attempts to make life difficult for illegal immigrants as aimed at all Hispanics, not just illegals. It pushes them further away from Republicans, whom they see as the ringleaders in the campaign against illegals, and towards Democrats--if the Democrats offer a path to citizenship for illegals. And they will.

Hence the title of this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 17 Jul 07 - 11:47 PM

"...if the Democrats offer a path to citizenship for illegals. And they will."


                Schumer will, Tester won't. I submit that in the next election more Tester Democrats will be elected than Schumer Democrats, so the party doesn't make the difference. It might it they were the only ones in the debate today, but the debate will probably not take place now, until after the 2008 election.

                I was presented with a ray of hope, however, today, while listening to NPR on the radio. The Catholic Church has expressed an element of concern relating to the seculariztion of Spain under its present government. Their fear, of course, is this: if Spain becomes sufficiently secularized, the trend could spread to Latin America. That's bad news for the Catholic Church.
                It's very good news for those of us who are concerned about illegal immigration in North America, however. If Latin America becomes sufficiently secularized and comes to its senses when it comes to family planning, much of the problem we face today will simply go away.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 18 Jul 07 - 10:06 PM

Rig--

I suspect Tester and like-minded politicians can be induced to support a path to citizenship for illegals. As I said, it's a path, not a magic wand.

And as I've pointed out--and you echo--the move won't be made til after 2008.

By then the probably overwhelming support of the Democratic presidential candidate by Hispanics-- and their growing clout-- will have the effect I cited.

If you don't think the Democrats will offer a path to citizenship, exactly why not?

If you think more restrictionists will be elected:

1) Why was that not true in 2006? Many lost in 2006.
2) The Republicans have the most vulnerable candidates in 2008--and the most restrictionists. Many will disappear--and their places will be not be taken by Democratic restrictionists, but by people more inclined to inclusion--since that's what the US has been about--and certainly what Democrats have been about for quite a while.    If you don't believe this, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 12:44 AM

Ron - You seem to want to divide the political factions into restrictionist and non-restrictionists, but there are a whole lot of other factors in play.

                Dorgan, for instance, is against legalizing a bunch of aliens because he feels it would hurt labor, which is also a major part of the Democratic party. Boxer was with him for a while, and you won't find a more liberal Democrat than Boxer.

                I agree that Democrats, unless they do something really stupid, should find themselves in control of both Congress and the White House after the next election, but a number of other things are going on.

               Do you think political operatives are going to move to legalize a bunch of aliens if the country is in a recession? That happens after almost every war, and Iraq can't go on forever.

               Technology is rapidly replacing unskilled labor, and the only reason it hasn't done so faster is the illigals have driven the value of labor so low, normal automation hasn't been allowed to take place.

               In addition to that, in the last round of the failed Senate bill, pressure was put on Congress to allow more highly skilled workers in, and cut back on unskilled workers. These people are not going to abandon their efforts.

               Couple all of that with more Protestant leanings and continued secularization in Catholic countries, which makes both the driving force, overpopulation, and the magnetic draw of jobs in North America work against continued immigration. If we can hold them off a little bit longer, I think, most of their motivation for coming here will go away, and they'll finally get to the task of fixing things in their own countries.

                None of that takes into account the growing realization of the environmental community that continued immigration is a really bad thing. I think you're trying to apply a 19th century model to a 21st century reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 10:40 PM

Rig--


I just wanted to say it's a pleasure to debate you on this--so good it doesn't get into a personality conflict--and that you're willing to both debate issues and provide facts. On top of this you're not a conspiracy theory addict--that seems to make you a rare bird around here. Too bad more political threads don't go this way.

At any rate, I don't have enough time to address all your issues tonight.

Re: Dorgan: he won't be against the new immigration wave when he realizes it could bring Labor--a lot of--new members. As I said, a hefty increase in the minimum wage--above the planned one--as part of the deal will likely be enough to win his support. Current union membership is slipping away with manufacturing jobs. One of the few bright spots is public service unions--in which Hispanics could easily be employed. Another growing area is medical workers. Both are non-manufacturing areas--and have places for lower-income workers. In fact ability to speak Spanish--as long as you also speak English--will be progressively more of an advantage.

It would be fascinating to have Big Mick's perspective on the issue of illegal immigration. I suspect he sees the new wave as more of an opportunity than a danger--and sees the upside of a path to citizenship for illegals.


Recession: remember the Iraq war is unlike any other but the Vietnam War. The problem for the economy with the Vietnam situation, I'm sure you know, was trying to have guns and butter at the same time. Not so this time-Bush cares nothing for butter. And consider how much money is being wasted in Iraq all the time--if we could turn off that spigot, it would help, not hurt, the economy. Were it not for the willingness of foreigners to support the US economy, we'd already be in a world of hurt. But they continue to do so----including the Chinese. Among other things they want what is seen as a stable place to park their earnings--and they know their own economy is overheated.

Maybe tomorrow night I can get to your other points.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 10:53 PM

Rig--

One more thing--I wasn't aware Dorgan was a big union man--are you sure it's Dorgan you mean? (My answer still holds).

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 19 Jul 07 - 11:30 PM

Yeah!

"(WASHINGTON, D.C.) --- U.S. Senator Byron Dorgan (D-ND) said Tuesday he's offering an amendment to remove the guest worker provision from the immigration bill because it is "part of the agenda to put downward pressure on the wages of American working men and women."

                I got this off the senator's web-site. I'm not sure which Tuesday they're talking about, but it was during the time the Senate was debating the immigration bill.

                  And you're right. It is constructive to have a discussion that doesn't degenerate into ideology. It's rare, it seems, and refreshing.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 07:23 AM

Rig--

Sorry, I got Dorgan and Dornan mixed up. They're different-to say the least.

But I still say that Dorgan can be won over to a policy of a path to citizenship for illegals--through the approach I cited.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 04:38 PM

It's interesting you'd bring up Dornan. He still contends he lost his seat in Congress because illegal aliens were voting.

               I still think the Dems. are going to be tougher on immigration in the future, and not more lenient. The state of the economy the next time it comes up will determine its fate, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 10:04 PM

Rig--


Poor Dornan. Pobrecito.

Democrats will be tougher on illegal immigrants in 2008? Why? There's nothing in it for them--and if they set out a reasonable path to citizenship they stand to lock in the Hispanic vote for the foreseeable future. And results in the 2006 election have already indicated that Republicans, through their restrictionist stance, lost the gains they had made from 2000 to 2004. Hispanics may be conservative as regards patriotism, education, and religion--all approaches Bush took successfully in 2004---but a perceived campaign against them--and that's how they look at Tancredo's push, trumps all the rest. And I am talking, of course, of Hispanic voters--that is, already legal.

And as I said earlier, unions will also see the benefit of a path to citizenship for illegals--if the approach I cited is taken.

The business community is already not smitten with restrictionists. Just today, the WSJ pointed out that, thanks to tighter border enforcement without opening up legal immigration, crop losses in California are likely to be 30% this year--nobody to pick the crops. Growers are already moving chunks of their operations south of the border. If the US won't import foreign workers to help harvest US crops, we'll be buying the same crops harvested by the same workers--but they won't be US crops. Or we'll pay a lot more for scarcer fruit and vegetables. Prices soaring at your grocery?--ask Mr Tancredo. Most Americans may not really like the idea.


Tancredo and his followers will be progressively isolated.

The only thing that can save them is a depression--with its attendant xenophobia.

I'm sure you're not hoping for a depression.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Jul 07 - 11:36 PM

Okay, leave Tancredo out of it for a moment, and concentrate on Lou Dobbs and his Hispanic wife. Lou is against runnaway immigration for the same reasons I am. Overpopulation, hurting the American worker, and the environment.

                  As far as a depression, if that's what it takes, that would be better than where we're going under Bush. In fact, that's probably exactly where we are going under Bush.

                  You can hold George W. Bush up as a perfect role model if you want to, but I think you're in the minority.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 Jul 07 - 04:06 PM

http://www.mailtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070723/BIZ/707230306


                   I don't know why I can't make it live.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 02:26 PM

Better late than never

"I don't know why I can't make it live".

That's OK, I don't know why you can never make any sense or do anything but smear Obama, proving, as I said earlier, that you have no principles--attacking the only person who can keep out of the Oval Office a witchcraft-believing, "End-Times"- welcoming fundamentalist (Palin).   And a man who will do his best to try to tear down the church/state division--which he can do with the strict constructionist judges he would appoint, since ("separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. (McCain). Anybody who does not try to defeat this pair and claims to be concerned about organized religion is indeed the perfect hypocrite.

However, back to the topic:




It becomes more and more evident that the thread title is indeed true.

Democrats stand to make big gains in areas where the Hispanic vote makes a difference. Between 2000 and 2008 "the Hispanic electorate will have doubled, to 12% of voters. By 2006 Hispanics represented 31% of voters in New Mexico, 13% in Nevada..."

"In Colorado alone, more than 70,000 new Latino voters have registered since 2004."

Source: WSJ 1 Nov 2008. Their source is Census data and a Democratic group which is studying the electorate. If anybody wants to point out that a Democratic group would not be objective, they are invited to provide their own data--with source.



And, of course, these are all citizens--though they are influenced by the harsh face of the Republican party toward illegal immigrants.

The face of Mr. Tancredo.


Too bad, Mr. Riginslimer, you lose---more every year.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 03:52 PM

"Anybody who... claims to be concerned about organized religion is...
                         There you go again!



    "Source: WSJ 1 Nov 2008."
                         There you go again!

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 06:05 PM

*just remembering why I dropped out of this discussion once it became an "oh yeah?" match between Ron & Rig.*

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 Nov 08 - 08:38 PM

I agree, Bill, it would have been best to have left it alone.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 10:25 PM

No contest.

My only point is that if Obama wins NM, NV or CO, or if Democrats make headway in any of these, it will likely be because of certified classically stupid attitudes like that of Mr. Riginslimer--driving the growing Hispanic vote to Obama and the Democrats in general.

For which we have to thank Mr. Riginslimer's patron saint, Mr. Tancredo--as the title of the thread indicates. And possibly his archangel, Mr. Dobbs.

In fact the results were already plain in the 2006 election

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Nov 08 - 10:32 PM

Except McCain didn't have anything to do with it, and Dobbs isn't a Republican, so the analogy doesn't work.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 12:29 AM

Mr. Ringinslimer--


A year ago you seemed pretty reasonable. Since then, however, you've treated us to a full year of nonstop singularly pathetic, seamy, and stupid smears of Obama. And that appears to be your real persona.



You still don't read very carefully, do you? I mentioned that Democratic gains in 2006--and any Democratic gains this year--not just Obama but down the ticket--in CO, NM, and NV-- can be attributed in large part to the growing Hispanic vote, lopsidedly Democratic, thanks to the Neanderthal attitudes of Tancredo, Dobbs--and you.

It is entirely true, of course, as you note, that in 2006 McCain had nothing to do with losses due to alienation of Hispanics. His stance on immigration at that point was quite reasonable.

And if he had stuck to his position, rather than truckling to bigots (like your good self?) who want to insist on the border being "secured"--a chimera several eons in the future, if then--before a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is considered--he would still be in good shape with Hispanics.

But now he is tarred with the brush of harsh attitudes toward illegal immigrants, which is the current dominant strain in the Republican party.

Harsh attitudes totally endorsed by you, and, as I read it, probably the main reason you attack Obama--in addition to the fact that he is a prominent black man, not safely dead--and hence a threat to you in what passes for your brain.

By the way, you still haven't mentioned anything about music you like. As I said, we don't need "politics only" posters--especially racists.

If you are a "politics only" poster or a racist, please don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Nov 08 - 08:06 AM

Ron - I'm sure you'd love to be the gate keeper; it's pathetic in a way that no one listens to you. But the reality is, the election will be over after today, so there's no sense in going on with this.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 01:50 AM

The title of this thread is particularly apt tonight--though obviously Tancredo has to take a back seat to Mr. Bush, who is truly Democrats' best friend.   But look at Obama's victories in CO, NV and NM--all 3 of the states I mentioned earlier. Hispanics played a huge role--and his share of them is way up from Kerry's share--due in large part to the incredibly stupid stance of the Republican party on the illegal immigration issue, placing themselves squarely on the wrong side of demographics.

His success in the 3 states mentioned is the sort of thing that makes Obama a national leader--not just winner on the east and west coasts.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 09:11 AM

Well, Ron, you seem to be right about the demographics of those three states, but in a way, it's kind of a chicken-or-the-egg kind of a question. If all of the many illegals had not been allowed into the country after the 1986 amnesty bill was passed--in other words, if the laws had been upheld at the time--great numbers of the people who live in those three states today would have been born in Latin American countries, and would not be voting here.
                      If you do the math, you will see that a person born in 1986 would just be reaching voting age in 2004--the Kerry election. So if nothing is done, the demographics will be different again in 2012, and radically different by 2016.
                      Many Hispanics think this is a really good thing; some of us do not.
                      All of that having been said, it's a problem now that the new president will have to deal with. It's important for the American public to get behind him now. The problems he faces are just too huge for him to have to put up with all of this endless bickering.
                     The election is over!

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 10:33 PM

Rig-

You can do as many "what if's" as you want, but eventually you'll have to come back to reality.

The election is indeed over--and one of the main building blocks of Obama's winning coalition is the Hispanic vote. Not only was it crucial in the 3 states I predicted, but it will not stop now. And we are talking about only Hispanic voters--all citizens.

As I said, the Republicans, stupidly ruled by restrictionists like Mr Tancredo and Mr. Dobbs, have now paid the price at the polls 2 elections in a row.   And it will only get worse from here on --as long as they are perceived as blocking a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.   The Hispanic voters themselves are of course totally legal--but a huge number know illegal immigrants--often part of their extended family--and they will reject any party which tries to prevent a path to citizenship for them.

The irony, of course is that these same Hispanic voters are often quite conservative on other issues--like abortion, patriotism etc--a fact which GWB used in 2004--before the push to close the border--and made the difference in that very close election.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 10:50 PM

I can see that you are right about all of that, Ron, but personally I think the issue of abortion is a stupid non-issue. It should be up to the individual person who is being affected and not dictated by people who have no stake in the matter.

                   And you're right again, by recognizing that Bush used this element to move those voters to support him in 2000 and 2004. Ultimately, it seems to me, the American people are going to have to decide just how many people they think North American can support comfortably, and that would be the determining factor.

                   Maybe the agonizing irony of it all is, the only option that is given to the voters is to build a fence or not to build a fence. The problem, of course, is that building a fence doesn't do much to curb population growth, but not building a fence is just a little bit worse. Nobody seems to be willing to deal with the entire problem--at least not people who are in a position to do anything about it.

                  Frankly, I think it is an issue that could very easily escalate to the point of armed violence. I'm a little surprised that is hasn't already.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Nov 08 - 11:41 PM

A fence just will not work--no matter how long or tall-- as long as there is economic incentive to come to the US.

Simple as that.

All you do by building a fence is alienate Hispanics on both sides of the border--and needlessly create problems for animal species used to roaming across the border.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 07:29 AM

Yes, I think you're basically right about that, but that's all the Congress and George W. Bush offered. Hopefully, Obama and the new Congress will have some more productive ideas.

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

Actually I think the 2006 immigration bill had great promise--needed some adjustment, but was on the right track. But the restrictionists, having deluded themselves into thinking they'd get a more favorable bill later, killed it.

Hope they're happy now.   They will never see a bill more in their interest than that one---as I said at the time---in fact, the longer they wait, the more unhappy they will be with the result.

And they won't be able to stop it--as both parties realize more and more the vital nature of appealing to the growing Hispanic vote.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Nov 08 - 11:14 PM

Ron - Your approach seems a little too fatalistic to me, but I'll continue to hope for the best.
                        Time is a tricky thing, though, sometimes. Just as we're seeing the price of fuel dropping at the pump, we are seeing hordes of illegals fleeing the country as a result of the financial meltdown.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 09:54 PM

They are not "fleeing the country"--another of your loaded terms, just when it seemed you were starting to make sense--they are leaving since they can't get jobs as easily, especially with the construction industry imploding. ( And they are not coming in as great numbers, for the same reason.)

There is a difference.

And it does not change the self-defeating nature of the restrictionists.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Nov 08 - 11:30 PM

Okay, Ron. I'll accept your terminology. They are leaving the country because there are no jobs.

                  The question now is, will they ever be back, given the economic realities that are being faced by American workers, and the need for other industries to "mechanize" in order to stay competative, including the industry of agriculture?

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 03:13 PM

As I'm sure you know, some jobs just won't ever be able to be mechanized, including some in agriculture.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Nov 08 - 06:05 PM

Well, that's true. But if efforts to bring realistic wages and benefits to migrant workers are successful, those things that have to be done by hand will simply cost more money. It will also spur some modern day Thomas Edison on to figure out a way to do the job more efficiantly.

             I can remember when they couldn't come up with a mechanical means of harvesting tomatoes. But then somebody came up with a thicker skinned tomatoe, and they just went on from there.

             Still, there are people who insist that modern tomatoes don't taste as good as the old ones, so they're willing to pay a premium price for organically grown thin-skinned tomatoes.

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

No matter how much progress technology brings, there will always be tasks--and not just in agriculture--which cannot be done by machine.   And no latter-day Edison will change this.

So there ought to be a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants--and it should be done in tandem with raising the minimum wage.

But just making illegal immigrants legal will itself have the effect of raising wages for all workers in fields now with illegal workers--since they will not be able to be exploited as easily. As we've discussed before.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Nov 08 - 10:13 AM

There probably are some things that will always demand human hands to build. Those kinds of products will simply have to cost the consumer more money. The solution should not be to scour the world for cheaper and cheaper labor.
                That's what has been happening, and advances in means of production have either not been used or have been discouraged.

                We'll see, however, how this economic downturn plays, as it relates to undocumented workers coming into the country to do work at below standard value.

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

"..undocumented workers coming into the country.."

I've already told you what effect the economic downturn is having on illegal immigration--and why--it's causing fewer to come in, obviously. That's not exactly a mystery.

I thought you already knew.

Why do you insist on treating it as if it is an open question?

If you have nothing more to add, you can always let the topic go. Though I like to see the title of the thread--and I think it's quite significant--it would not be a serious loss if it dropped off the list.

Subject: RE: BS: Tancredo: Democrats' Best Friend
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Jan 09 - 07:22 AM

Refresh--there's a lot more good information in this thread than in the Illegal Immigration thread--on the same topic.