64-35. Tom Tancredo — watching the proceedings from behind razor-wire twisted around his TV on the off chance a Jennifer Lopez movie slips through his hate filter — just threw up a little bit in his mouth.
Ironically, it tasted a teensy bit like refried beans.
Here’s Stanley Kurtz, speaking, in the runup to the vote, on behalf of those redneck bigots who oppose this “reform” bill simply because they despise the whole concept of the pinata — and find the sombrero an affront to western Christian sensibilities. Either that, or they just like them some big fences to keep the fruitpickers out of their backyards:
Something about this immigration battle doesn’t sit well. For all the bitterness of our political battles, there’s at least the sense that the government responds to the drift of public opinion. The Republicans in Congress turned into big spenders and the war in Iraq went poorly. As a result the Democrats prospered in 2006, if narrowly. That’s how democracy works. Our politics are often angry and ugly (and that’s a problem), but this is because the public is deeply divided on issues of great importance. Deep down, we understand that our political problems reflect our own divisions.
Somehow this immigration battle feels different. The bill is wildly unpopular, yet it’s close to passing. The contrast with the high-school textbook version of democracy is not only glaring and maddening, it’s downright embarrassing. Usually, even when we’re at each others’ throats, there’s still an underlying pride in the democratic process. This immigration battle strips us of even that pride.
I’m still stuck on the way this bill was going to be pushed through without a public airing of crucial provisions, in the two or three days before Memorial Day recess. But I should be stuck even further back–on the way this bill was cooked up in a backroom deal that bypassed the ordinary process of public hearings. We take them for granted, but those civics textbook fundamentals are there for a reason. We’re going to pay a steep price for setting the fundamentals aside.
Senators who believe that by passing this bill they will at least be getting a divisive issue out of the way are making a serious mistake. This is not 1986. The immigration issue is far more prominent now, and it will only grow in importance. Demographics, and the problems of assimilation in a globalized world of satellite dishes and easy travel will see to that. Look at how votes on the war have come back to haunt Democratic politicians. Votes by legislators of both parties on this bill will be haunting them–and all of us–for years to come.
Supporters of this bill sell it as a compromise that will heal America’s divisions. I fear it’s quite the reverse. This bill is infuriating the public and undermining faith in government itself. You can see it in the polling on confidence in Congress and the President. If this bill passes, it’s going to aggravate and embitter politics for years to come. Passing a measure over such overwhelming opposition is like slapping the public in the face.You can’t solve an argument by imposing a “compromise” on parties who don’t actually view it as a compromise. You can’t heal social divisions by forcing your version of a “solution” down the public’s throats. Real healing comes only when two sides reach what they themselves consider a valid compromise, or when one side wins the argument by persuading a clear majority of the validity of its case. Democracy does work, but first the Senate has got to give it a try.
This is, to put the best face on it, the kind of consensus governing, by the Senate, that we see in the “enlightened” halls of western European power.
To put the worst face on it, it was a travesty of the democratic process — and, as Allah intimates, a textbook example of form over content:
Everyone understand what’s going on here? They’re so eager to pass this piece of shinola, they’re adding provisions that will make it less likely that the bill will actually work just to get the votes needed to pass it. They’re trading practical viability for legislative viability.
Hopefully the House senses the heat coming from opponents of this “reform” intiative and breaks out in a vigorous sweat.
Notes Rosemary Jenks, government relations director for NumbersUSA.:
“The American people have been working day in and day out to make the Senate understand they do not want this bill, and the administration is up on Capitol Hill trying to buy votes from senators … When we see the final vote count, we’ll know where to look for favors.”
66 Replies to “Verdict: AMNESTY!”
Recall elections. Now.
I’ve been following this bill, and had hopes that it would be killed in this cloture vote. Too bad not enough of those jokers have any spines to speak of. Now, our only hope is that the House will not pass it. The pundits think they will not, but I am not as sure.
The fact that it continues to be watered down is another indicator that they think passing something, anything, is better than doing nothing. That sort of logic is unfathomable to me.
All I wanted, as many here wanted, is real enforcement of the border with some real, tangible results, before we proceeded with dealing with the illegals currently living and working in the U.S. I could’ve lived with fast-tracking legal residence those who are already here, though I find it unfair to those who’ve done things legally and are still waiting to be allowed permanent residence if not eventual citizenship. I certainly found any idea of “rounding them up” to be an overall negative, though of course proponents of the bill used that logic to demean those who hold my position.
It’s more likely that the House will respond to popular pressure, since they are all up for election next year. If they do pass this piece of poop, I will make very sure that those who voted both for cloture and for the bill itself will not get my vote.
I second Dan.
If we can get Tancredo assigned to Iraq, we might get a twofer:
1) Remove support for that ridiculous border fence, and
2) Pretty soon we’d be getting a border fence around Iraq, which might slow down the flood of jihadis out of Iran, Syria and Jordan.
Politicians are being bought and paid for on a massive scale by agribusiness and labor-intensive lobby interests.
Anyone got a more viable theory?
I’m still holding to my “the power of stupidity” theory from the other thread. It’s held up quite well for Senate Republicans for several years, and I think it probably still has a lot of miles left in it.
I hadn’t thought of it so explicitly in terms of an abrogation of the democratic process. I think Kurtz is right and that he describes a rationale for tabling the bill. Tabling the bill for this reason should not be interpreted as a wholesale rejection of the bill’s aims, but it will be. I blame Trent Lott.
I think hoodlumman’s got it: greed, not stupidity. The same thing–Jeff touched on it–is a problem in Europe, where they are even now they are–having changed the name–forcing the universally disliked constitution down everyone’s throat. To hell with popular referendums.
EU Referendum has several recent posts on it. Everywhere, Democratic governments are in retreat. Tyranny is on the rise.
But perhaps the most important was that the EU finally abandoned the idea that it wants ordinary Europeans to understand what it is doing.
Fuck Bush. Fuck the Republicans. Fuck the Dems. Fuck the whole lot.
Your government in action! Washington doesn’t want to hear the American people. Its time to water the tree of liberty.
Who is in favor? Go to Opensecrets.org, here
http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=268
Agribusiness, the construction industry, labor, etc.
If it passes, recalls are a good idea.
I don’t really understand the whole histrionic “travesty of democracy” sentiment. Crappy issue. Crappy bill. Everyone hates Congress, but nobody hates their own Congressman. Therein lies the reason we will have more or less the same Congress next year. I for one think the border needs more organization, not more militarization. I could care less if another 12 million come in the next 10 years. Better for the economy, better for American values, even if spoken in a spanish accent. Adam Smith never saw unskilled labor as a cultural value. Peter Bauer never saw population control or government regulation a means to economic prosperity. He looked at huddled masses and saw ingenuity waiting to happen. Indeed, today’s mexican immigrants come more educated than yesterdays Irish immiigrants, with greater skills, and stronger roots with the American people. Open the border and let free will and free markets reign.
Ironically, with more open, yet organized, borders the immigration flow may even slow down. Since the harsh immigration laws since 1965 have only served to provide incentive to stay put once they get across.
Oh, and titles like Amenesty don’t do anything for the debate Jeff. This is the one issue I have disagreed with you on, but I agree with you generally that these issues shouldn’t be framed in such simplistic terms, as the Iraq war has by the left, “NO WMD!” “BUSH LIED!”, etc. etc. There is no intrinsic moral question here, since I’m sure we all mowed our neighbors lawn when we were kids or babysat when we needed the extra money. And I’m sure none of you claimed that on your taxes. Anyone here speed on the freeway? Breaking misdemeanor laws isn’t some moral abomination. And interesting how the immigration code is like the 11th commendment, but somehow the 14th amendment that declares every person born in the United States a US citizen is cast as some bullshit punchline for ramming anchor babies down the country’s throat. These are american citizens, thats the law. I suggest we treat the parents of our citizens with more respect than hunting them down in churches or at the military funerals of their dead husband who served in Iraq.
The whole nasty taste of the procedures and the substance of the bill have some similarities–both will reward the blatant flouting of the rules. The immigration bill, amnest bill, will reward the illegal immigrants to ignored our laws an invaded our country–giving them amnesty because some members of the Senate want to be viewed as “good guys.” At the same time, the backroom deal and bypassing of the committee process in the Senate means that the sponsors of this monstrosity will be rewarded for ignoring the very rules of procedure they claim in other instances to cherish.
Rules, immigration and Senate are there for a reason and shouldn’t be ingorned for economic or polical expendience.
am·nes·ty (mn-st) KEY
NOUN:
pl. am·nes·ties
A general pardon granted by a government, especially for political offenses.
From my read of the bill, amnesty is a bad description. General pardon’s dont include fines, or any other penalties. Again, lets stop with the histrionics. Nobody is invading the country. Congress sucks, but tell me something we didn’t already know. If you want to make real change in this country, argue for proportional distribution of electoral votes for presidential elections. Argue for a third party to do the reapportionment. But then, that would be too difficult, given that we like our districts the way they are.
Hearings could have been cool cause there’s a lot I don’t know about immigration. It sure seems controversial, huh?
Everyone hates Congress, but nobody hates their own Congressman.
I do!
Friend,
From my read of the bill, amnesty is a bad description. General pardon’s dont include fines, or any other penalties. Again, lets stop with the histrionics.
You are joking, right? Fine – it’s not a total amnesty, they may (very unlikely based on my read of the bill) have to do something and pay some really, really meager amount for breaking the law before being given MORE benefits than any other legal alien. But it is not amnesty.
Nobody is invading the country. Congress sucks, but tell me something we didn’t already know. If you want to make real change in this country, argue for proportional distribution of electoral votes for presidential elections.
What do you mean by this? the electoral college is already proportional to population by state. Or, do you want each congressional district’s popular vote winner to get that electoral vote? What will that accomplish, do you think? It would not likely have changed the outcome of any of the previous elections. Nor will it change the fact that the congress, NOT the president, is the institution currently passing the legislation that the VAST MAJORITY of americans do not want.
Argue for a third party to do the reapportionment. But then, that would be too difficult, given that we like our districts the way they are.
do you really believe in the fairy tale of a neutral, unbiased third party out there that we can find to do reapportionment? Where do you think you will find them? No matter who you pick to do it, it will be politicized.
As to your “facts” that mexicans are more educated than past immigration waves, that is simply and completely untrue. Moreover, there are way, way more than in any past immigration period. Not to mention that in the past, we did not have an entitlement society such that immigrants did not cost the taxpayer the amounts of money that current immigrants do. So, your arguments make no sense.
And the dig about a “spanish” accent, which is an implication that being against massive, unchecked illegal immigration is somehow racist, belies your claim to want to move beyond histrionics.
To add to the last, the Senate is not apportioned. Each state gets 2 Senators regardless of population. It’s in the constitution, look it up. So, I’m not sure why you would throw this argument out there when we are talking about a Senate Vote.
My congressman is Rahm Emanuel. “Hate” is too soft a word for my feelings.
Well, the message to anyone wanting to come to America? Ignore the law – everyone else does. Anyone who tries to come in through standard channels is a sucker.
Now, what other laws would everyone here like to ignore? It’s pushing 90 degrees outside today, so I’m for ignoring laws on public nudity.
(On the bright side, I can make separate paragraphs now. Thanks for the tinkering, Jeff!)
Great Banana..
You are joking, right? Fine – it’s not a total amnesty, they may (very unlikely based on my read of the bill) have to do something and pay some really, really meager amount for breaking the law before being given MORE benefits than any other legal alien. But it is not amnesty.
No, read section 601 of the bill. It outlays fines ($4,000) and taxes.
What do you mean by this? the electoral college is already proportional to population by state. Or, do you want each congressional district’s popular vote winner to get that electoral vote? What will that accomplish, do you think? It would not likely have changed the outcome of any of the previous elections. Nor will it change the fact that the congress, NOT the president, is the institution currently passing the legislation that the VAST MAJORITY of americans do not want.
The electoral college is not proportional. If you win 50.1% of the vote in California, you get 100% of California’s 54 electoral votes. Sucks if you are a Republican in a Democratic state or vice versa. Besides, Orange County, CA has more population than North Dakota, yet Orange County doesn’t have as many electoral votes as North Dakota. That seem proportional to you?
I don’t know where you get your facts from, but most Mexican immigrants can read Spanish, which is much more than you can say for Irish immigrant literacy rates at the time. As someone pointed out, Pew’s Hispanic Research just found that most immigrants from Mexico already have jobs in Mexico. Again, more than you can say for the Irish immigrants. The reason for that is families in mexico send the family member with the most job skills to the US. They have the best shot as getting work and sending money back home. So I stand by my assertion.
If immigrants cost us so much money, fix the welfare system, which I am in favor of doing. I don’t see why we complain that only American citizens should be wards of the state. Get them all off the payroll. But that won’t keep them from coming. They already use medical and welfare benefits are far lower rates than other groups do in the US.
Amnesty would apply to any illegal Irish immigrants too, idiot.
Friend,
Your assertions are simply untrue. Mexicans are, on average, more educated, more skilled, use social welfare programs less than previous waves of immgrants? Or use social welfare programs less than americans. And you think that won’t change when they are suddenly legalized (not an amnesty b/c they might, might – but highly unlikly that they ever will – be required to pay some paltry amount of money for their illegality).
Your argument are specious and nonpersuasive. You would have more credibility if you did not throw so much b.s. around.
Moreover, You did not answer my question. So, you want every congressional district’s popular vote winner to get that district’s electoral vote? Fine, that is more proportional than the what the Constitution calls for. What do you think that would do? It would not have changed the previous 20 elections. It would not change how the Senate (which is not a proportional institution whatsoever) is currently voting. What is your point? Do you have a point?
I don’t understand people who think that we should not have any limit whatsoever on people moving to America. At what point would you agree to some limit? When 1 billion chinese moved here? Is everyone in the World a de facto american resident in waiting? Do we have no rights to control our own country?
That kind of thinking literally strikes me as insane.
happyfeet, I don’t understand why you have to call people idiot. By Irish immigrant, I thought it was clear I meant Irish immigrants of past, since I said “at the time”. As in, at the time we had massive Irish immigration. I have been civil with everyone here, and historically, I have agreed with this board and Jeff on almost every issue except this one. So please keep it civil. I think I have.
I don’t agree with some of his points but it sure got me thinking. I am curious to see what others think.
Dick Lamm and his 8 step proccess to commit national suicide;
“First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.
The historical scholar, Seymour Lipset, put it this way: ‘The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy.’ Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy, if not independence. Pakistan and Cyprus have divided. Nigeria suppressed an ethnic rebellion. France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, and Corsicans.”
“Second, to destroy America, invent ‘multiculturalism’ and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture. Make it an article of belief that all cultures are equal; that there are no cultural differences. Make it an article of faith that the Black and Hispanic dropout rates are due solely to prejudice and discrimination by the majority. Every other explanation is out of bounds.”
“Third, we could make the United States an ‘Hispanic Quebec’ without much effort. The key is to celebrate diversity rather than unity. As Benjamin Schwarz said in the Atlantic Monthly recently: ‘The apparent success of our own multi-ethnic and multicultural experiment might have been achieved not by tolerance but by hegemony. Without the dominance that once dictated ethnocentricity and what it meant to be an American, we are left with only tolerance and pluralism to hold us together.’ Lamm said, “I would encourage all immigrants to keep their own language and culture. I would replace the melting pot metaphor with the salad bowl metaphor. It is important to ensure that we have various cultural subgroups living in America enforcing their differences rather than as Americans, emphasizing their similarities.”
“Fourth, I would make our fastest growing demographic group the least educated. I would add a second underclass, unassimilated, undereducated, and antagonistic to our population. I would have this second underclass have a 50% dropout rate from high school.”
“My fifth point for destroying America would be to get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money. I would invest in ethnic identity, and I would establish the cult of ‘Victimology.’ I would get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority. I would start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority population.”
“My sixth plan for America’s downfall would include dual citizenship, and promote divided loyalties. I would celebrate diversity over unity. I would stress differences rather than similarities. Diverse people worldwide are mostly engaged in hating each other – that is, when they are not killing each other. A diverse, peaceful, or stable society is against most historical precedent. People undervalue the unity it takes to keep a nation together.
Look at the ancient Greeks. The Greeks believed that they belonged to the same race; they possessed a common language and literature; and they worshipped the same gods. All Greece took part in the Olympic games. A common enemy, Persia, threatened their liberty. Yet all these bonds were not strong enough to overcome two factors: local patriotism and geographical conditions that nurtured political divisions. Greece fell. “E. Pluribus Unum” — From many, one. In that historical reality, if we put the emphasis on the ‘pluribus’ instead of the ‘Unum,’ we will balkanize America as surely as Kosovo.”
“Next to last, I would place all subjects off limits. Make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of ‘diversity.’ I would find a word similar to ‘heretic’ in the 16th century – that stopped discussion and paralyzed thinking. Words like ‘racist’ or ‘xenophobe’ halt discussion and debate.
Having made America a bilingual/bicultural country, having established multi-culturism, having the large foundations fund the doctrine of ‘Victimology,’ I would next make it impossible to enforce our immigration laws. I would develop a mantra: That because immigration has been good for America, it must always be good. I would make every individual immigrant symmetric and ignore the cumulative impact of millions of them.”
“Lastly, I would censor Victor Hanson Davis’s book ‘Mexifornia.’ His book is dangerous. It exposes the plan to destroy America. If you feel America deserves to be destroyed, don’t read that book.”
And also I don’t care if they can read. Question is, can they cook?
Why do we expect people, who have not shown any respect for the laws already in place, to show any respect for the news ones?
Great Banana,
Mexicans are, on average, more educated, more skilled, use social welfare programs less than previous waves of immgrants?
Half true. Mexican immigrants of today have a higher literacy rate and have more job skills than mass immigrant movements of the past, ie. Irish, Italian, Polish, etc. Mexican immigrants use less government services that they are qualified to use than most people do in general today. Thats why the Hispanic groups are always forming huge drives to help Mexican immigrants apply for food aid and welfare. Mexicans come from a country in which you don’t eat if you don’t work. They don’t really come here thinking its any different. Its the multicultural groups (multiculturalism being a, hiss hiss, western invention based on a German philosopher). I disagree with those groups who try to make Mexican immigrants wards of the state. I think the welfare system needs to be changed to make it available to those who need it because of some tragedy (death, sickness, sudden loss of work, etc.).
My point in proportionality is that you guys keep griping about how this congress is not representative of its constituents. So I said, fine, make it more representative by making Presidential elections based on proportional electoral votes, so if 49% of Californians vote for Bush, then Bush gets 49% of California’s electoral votes. As for Congress, reapportionment should be done by a third party, not the parties themselves. Will that third-party by entirely neutral? Of course not, but they will be more neutral than having the parties in power draw the lines, which is the way it is done now in most states. More than 95% of Congressmen incumbants are re-elected. If I told you that Iraq’s parliamnent had a 95% incumbancy rate, most people wouldn’t really call that a democracy. So lets change that. Its doable.
That is stupid. If there was a close election, we would have the whole florida thing done nationwide, your way. What’s say we just don’t pass the stupid immigration bill, and maybe next time have hearings and stuff? Let’s give that a try.
Besides, Orange County, CA has more population than North Dakota, yet Orange County doesn’t have as many electoral votes as North Dakota. That seem proportional to you?
There’s a reason for that, you know. If you want to make a real difference, how about giving control of the Senate back to the state legislatures?
Oh. Just saw your comment. I was just calling you idiot to draw attention to the fact that my comment was totally specious. It was irony. Idiot.
Jim in KC. Now we’re talking. And while we are at it, lets get rid of propositions and other referendums. Referendums have been a disaster in my book. They effectively give our representatives political cover because when something goes wrong all they have to say is “don’t look at me, you guys voted for the 20 billion dollar bond, not me”. By getting rid of referenda then we put political decisions in the hands of our representatives. As well, as with Senate elections. State legislatures should be the ones choosing our Senators. Less democracy I say! I don’t know why people inherently think that just because we vote on shit means its going to be better. Lets get back to basics. Of course, this congress doesn’t exactly inspire a lot of confidence, but the more these fools spend time haggling over this stuff, the less time they have to actually pass legislation. Thats a good thing.
State legislatures are elected, so it would just mean Senators would have to pander second-hand. It’s a republic, after all.
Referenda can be weird. We had one here to build a light rail system. It was put on the ballot by some yahoo who doesn’t even live in KC. Somehow it passed, so now the taxpayers of KC are potentially on the hook for several billion dollars for a light rail system that no one will ride that was designed and put on the ballot by a non-resident. Usually you follow the money on something like that, but I think this guy’s just a kook exploiting the process for notoriety.
In California we just had a referendum to jack up the tax on cigarettes and it… failed. You think you know people…
friend
I don’t know about you but it is creepy to me knowing that my government has been aiding a corrupt socialist government of a country drowning in a wealth of natural resources drive its poor, starving citzens across a desolate, barren desert to slave in the shadows earning money to support their corrupt socialist government which sent them there.
With all the skills, knowledge, morals, abilities why then are so many Mexican people risking their lives crossing a desert to earn money to send back home to a corrupt socialist government?
Your insult is not well taken. At least the Irish, Italians, Polish and my own Danish/Finnish grandparents actively sought out America to become themsleves Americans. In California, my own grandparents picked lemons and walnuts and never considered for one moment of asking the government for anything, let alone food aid and welfare. They didn’t come here to be taken care of, they came here to become Americans.
A heritage of which I am proud is mine.
friend —
I have been clear that my only problem with illegal immigration is the “illegal” part. Rule of law. Respect sovereignty.
I have no fear of Mexicans. I don’t dislike brown people or tequila or spanish omelets. In fact, I lived for 8 years in the most concentrated Mexican community in Denver — and never once did I commit a hate crime.
I even left my door open sometimes.
None of which is the point. The point is, Americans are concerned about security, and they are willing to support increased guest worker programs, increasing the numbers of LEGAL immigrants, etc., IN EXCHANGE for some real reform.
For some people, that reform is more intense border security. For me, I’d like to see a return to “Naturalization” — a project to assimilate immigrants to the US, rather than pretending that the decision not to assimilate is a heroic attempt to “maintain cultural identity.”
Thing is, once you come here, you join an intact culture. By pushing us to accept balkanization, this is an attempt to change the culture. In my opinion, for the worse.
Which his why I tie my support of immigration reform to a move away from the welfare state and identity politics, and a return to melting pot nationalism.
“The immigration issue is far more prominent now, and it will only grow in importance. Demographics, and the problems of assimilation in a globalized world of satellite dishes and easy travel will see to that. ”
Nothing to do with sombreros or pinatas at all.
“Thing is, once you come here, you join an intact culture. By pushing us to accept balkanization, this is an attempt to change the culture. In my opinion, for the worse.”
So no more Chinatowns? How about Chinatown buses? What about Thai restaurants in Chinatown? Irish pubs? I’m afraid I’m not familiar with your terminology here in terms of “balkanization” and “assimilation.”
Frankly, what I don’t like about illegal immigration is that those who come to our country illegally are self-selecting for law-breaking people who are willing to live underground and more willing to have a criminal lifestyle.
Shine – did you bother to read ANYTHING that Jeff has written on this subject for, say, the last year or so?
Assimilation is a fairly simple concept. An example: Is there still a large and active German-American Bund? Are there large areas or parts of cities (ie Milwaukee) where you simply do not find the English language, but German only? Large amounts of people thinking of themselves as Germans in America, instead of Americans of German heritage? Despite at one time 1 in 4 Americans being of German or Austrian decent, they became Americans first and foremost. The Federal government (and any no State government I am aware of either) did not make efforts to keep German speakers in German only schools and classes, make all official documents out to be in German and tar anyone opposed to such as a “Know Nothing” or the like?
Some weird 1917-1918 reactions to the US entering WWI by the German community were to change anything “German” to “Liberty” [a small village near my hometown later quietly changed its name back to German Valley, heh]. Can you imagine such a thing even remotely happening now? True, we wouldn’t want the silliness of name changes, but what about even caring what American citizens think?
“The Federal government (and any no State government I am aware of either) did not make efforts to keep German speakers in German only schools and classes, make all official documents out to be in German and tar anyone opposed to such as a “Know Nothing†or the like?
Some state government tried to ban German speakers. But were those German speakers citizens? I’d say that the government has some responsibility to do some of its official business in a language that citizens understand, at least in a liberal society where the government depends on the consent of the governed. Specially for something as on point to that consent as, say, an election.
So what we’re talking about is in 100 years no more Univision? That would be a shame.
I thought the bill that michelle malkin posted today had some elements on teaching immigrants english and american culture.
“Can you imagine such a thing even remotely happening now? ”
Like changing the names of belgian-originated foods because of perceived French policies? Yes. I can.
You expect broadcast-network television to still be around in 2107?
Me too. As I was just telling my colleagues at the buggy whip factory the other day, that newfangled horseless carriage thing will never catch on.
And I rather thought you’d try to address the larger point, shine. Guess I’ll have to remain a bit disappointed, eh? I’ll get over it someday I’m sure.
Jeff,
I understand the illegal part. It burns me up too that our country has been fully complicit in allowing people to come here illegally. But thats just what it is. We have been complicit in this too. The weight of the responsibility falls not only on poverty stricken individuals looking to make a better life for themselves, but on our government for not doing anything about it, on our business class for encouraging it, for our own culture in accepting and relying on it through all the services we pay for using illegal labor. And lets face it, our economy has had unprecedented growth the last 5 years, the last 15 years. Unemployment is at an all time low. These people, in my mind, represent real stories, with real families. The majority of which are really and truly just trying to make it work. What morality allows us to place the brunt of the penalty for our own complicity in this on these people is beyond me and thats why I think it does become a racial issue in the minds of hispanics. We don’t view this problem as a human problem in which we are looking for ways in which both parties can equally pay/benefit from the symbiotic relationship that has developed over the last 45 years. We view this problem like we view a pest and vermin problem. I for one resent those who do see it in those terms. Lets face it, if this were really a security issue, all these illegals should have been given a social security number and amnesty right away. If we had done that 5 years ago we’d have a better idea of where everyone is. We’d have a better idea on what security issues there really are with immigrants who came here illegally. Instead we have these fantastic notions of mystery on what these people are doing. Make them legal and give them incentives to integrate themselves into the system so that they can all be tracked just like you and I are monitored by NSA, FBI, etc., So that they can all be able to get bank accounts so that their transactions could be integrated into the system, just like you and me. But we care more that these mexicans got one over on us (our sovereignty!) by sneaking in without filling out the proper forms than we do about actual security. How many Mexicans can really come here even if we had a fully open border? Not many more than are already here, since we all agree the border is damn pourous anyways. Like I said before, if the system were more integrative then more Mexicans would go back home because they would know it would be easier to come back if they needed to. Those that come here to send money back would rather be with their families. A more integrative immigration policy would produce that. The problem is that people like Buchanan have turned the issue into a racial one by explicitly castigating the Mexican culture as anenthema to the White culture. Thats preposterous to me. Mexicans are culturally strongly catholic, are part of the fastest growing segment of Protestants in the US. By the third-fourth generation they all but have forgotten spanish.
I don’t understand this whole divine respect there is for the Westphalian notions of sovereignty when most of those countries that existed then dont even exist now in the same form. Its entirely unconservative to just start building walls to preserve sovereignty at all costs. People like Burke and Smith saw a much more diverse and fluid notion of culture and values and freedom of movement. These ideas were not defined as such, but defined by the realities on the ground. To be conservative was to change, and to do so in way that reflected the basic tenents of a liberal society. And filling out form 543-brc (making it up) isn’t exactly a basic tenent of society. Its the law, sure, but its clear from a moral issue, as you are framing it. Just like many of us speed, or some of us have mowed lawns or babysit or waited tables for money under the table. We don’t argue that these people should be hunted down. Cheap shotting this issue with “AMNESTY! scare headlines does nothing to deal with the problem. It simplifies the problem into a clarity that really makes the issue unrecognizable.
sorry for the bold…didnt mean that. And it should read, “…but its not clear from a moral issue…” Again, sorry. I hit send before I was ready.
“And I rather thought you’d try to address the larger point, shine. Guess I’ll have to remain a bit disappointed, eh? I’ll get over it someday I’m sure.”
I think I’ve got it. We’ve moved on from the ugly nativism of the past, and our culture is now one that is built out of others. As well as our own. In a new way, and in a more modern world. Even in idyllic days of nativism past, there was a lot of provincionalism and regionalism and even identity politics. And in some ways that’s still around. But still, 100 years from now won’t be much like today. Just like today isn’t much like 100 years ago.
“You expect broadcast-network television to still be around in 2107?”
I think you get the point. But you do raise another good point as well: I expect there to be way more languages and cultures coming into our information space in this country in the future. I also expect — and kind of hope too — that we will be more conversant in those languages and cultures. I think both of those are plusses.
And this further addresses major john: due to technology, its much easier to keep contact with your ancestral language and culture today. So its hard to compare it with the past when the only other cultural brethren you have are your neighbors, who time would say, would intermarry with the others. Nowadays, you can live in the burbs and choose to immerse yourself in gangsta rap or RAI-uno. But you still have to find someone to make a family with.
And this further addresses major john: due to technology, its much easier to keep contact with your ancestral language and culture today. So its hard to compare it with the past when the only other cultural brethren you have are your neighbors, who time would say, would intermarry with the others.
Isn’t this also why English is so important? The world language of commerce, science and urk, “culture” (ie. Hollywood) Why patronizingly shield anyone from Mexico from, gasp, having to learn it? Some shabby exhortation in the proposed legislation – ain’t gonna do it. If we need/should embrace the world, the world sure as heck is trying to wrap two arms around us as hard as they can…
Your point about reaching out and intermarrying, etc., argues for assimilation. Why are people lauded/encouraged to ghettoize themselves in the frickin’ 21st Century?! La Raza needs to stay pure? WTF?
Ironically, I think we are not too far apart on this – you see assimilation as something naturally occurring – and in both directions, and I see sassimilation as something being unnaturally interfered with.
And I also see being tired, having a cold and sipping some Two Buck Chuck all at the same time isn’t helping my spelling or typing skillz either.
“Your point about reaching out and intermarrying, etc., argues for assimilation. Why are people lauded/encouraged to ghettoize themselves in the frickin’ 21st Century?! La Raza needs to stay pure? WTF?”
I don’t think this sort of think is as big of deal as you think it is. Not in people’s personal lives. But I suppose there were some girls in my school that were looking for a good Kosher guy.
“Ironically, I think we are not too far apart on this – you see assimilation as something naturally occurring – and in both directions, and I see sassimilation as something being unnaturally interfered with.”
I don’t see it as “assimilation” because I don’t see it as newcomers becoming like what is already here. I see them as an addition that makes the whole into something new and unlike what either were before.
Plus there is also the added complication that McGehee pointed out of technological change. Which will also create new dynamics in cultural change and understanding.
“I don’t see it as “assimilation†because I don’t see it as newcomers becoming like what is already here. I see them as an addition that makes the whole into something new and unlike what either were before.”
That is assimilation, shine. They don’t have to lose their entire identity to assimilate, they just have to adapt and blend it to what is already here. Of course, what is here will be tinted by what it absorbs, that is why we call it a melting pot. But you can’t do this if you don’t blend in.
Goddamn, how fucking shallow can you be?
Keep them isolated and illiterate,
FOR THE GENERAL TSAO’S CHICKEN!
The best Chinese food I ever had was in China. So, an argument for them staying at home, and us going over the border for carry-out?
I am not in favor, but say this immigration thingy passes. We’re all going to do our part to make our new American friends feel welcome right?
As long as they keep making those burritos to my satisfaction, I guess so.
“The best Chinese food I ever had was in China. So, an argument for them staying at home, and us going over the border for carry-out?”
That sounds annoying. It was hard enough getting to this establishment. It did seem right at home in a suburban strip mall.
But its still unclear what this “blend†is. The best Chinese food I ever had was good because it was made for Chinese people, not gringos.
I’m confused. Does this mean that the best Chinese food you ever had was in a restaurant in Mexico City’s Chinatown?
“I understand the illegal part. It burns me up too that our country has been fully complicit in allowing people to come here illegally. But thats just what it is. We have been complicit in this too.” — friend @ 8:15pm above
If only you understood the concept of paragraphs. That would be nice.
Our country? What, exactly, is our country in your mind? Is that the 70% of people who want to see illegal immigration curbed or even stopped? That 70% has been ignored through the political process, an ignorance that continues today and that you encourage, and are now demanding that enough is truly enough. And you’re arguing that “We, the people” just need to get over ourselves because “our country” (which somehow lies without the body politic/the people) has been complicit in this mass breaking of laws!?! Do you own an irony meter?
“These people, in my mind, represent real stories, with real families.” — ibid.
Who gives a flying f*ck? That’s true of every criminal — most of whom won’t be given amnesty.
And you can argue all you want that this isn’t amnesty because they have to pay back taxes. But paying taxes and breaking other laws are separable events. To argue that paying less in taxes for similar earning, while being forgiven for breaking immigration laws, is comparable in any way to a legal immigrant paying full taxes and having to comply with American laws is facially absurd.
Oh, and learn to hit the return key for new paragraphs. That at least will make revealing your convoluted nonsense as such much easier.
“Who gives a flying f*ck? That’s true of every criminal  most of whom won’t be given amnesty.”
Nobody will ever give me amnesty for how I get to work illegally: running red lights and most stop signs. As often as I can.
ANARCHY!
You are a fucking REBEL! Aren’t you, shine?
Anarchist? I wish. Just usually late for work and on a bicycle. Sanctuary city!
I’m sure the judge will be swayed by your testimony that you’re a real person, with a real story, when you appear at traffic court.
Or, possibly more likely, the coroner.
Non de Blog
I guess you’ve never sped on the freeway, mowed a friends lawn, or babysat for a friend for money under the table?
Polls have shown that a majority favor a path to citizenship for illegals so long as they pay a fine and are required to take steps to assimilate. Those numbers drop when you start dropping AMENSTY! buzzwords into the survey. Go pick up a dictionary and read what the word amnesty means.
For the record, I don’t think “enough is enough”. I hope more people come to this country and I hope the rules are changed to make it easier to come here, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be done in an organized way.
I just don’t see these people as criminals in the same sense you do. They are not the same as murderers or robbers. Look up the terms malum in se and malum prohibitum. Changing the laws to manage the integration of these people is fine with me and fine with the American people so long as AMNESTY! isn’t part of it. I actually prefer blanket amnesty to the fines and fees, but will settle for this bill even if its far from perfect.
This is what happens when you lose 32 seats in the house. Speaking as a Republican, if the GOP led House didn’t suck balls the entire time they held power, the immigration bill may have been more to your liking.
Hope I used enough spaces for you.
hi visit my site about incest! incest porn and other porn! incest porn
incest porn all aboutincest porn
nice incest porn Thanks who visit!
I disagree
Can you give more info?