A Smart Obama Immigration Policy In The Face Of Political Cowardice
Clearly comprehensive immigration reform is not achievable in light of the refusal of either party to meaningfully address the subject, especially in an election year consumed with the rabid doings of the Arizona State Legislature (memo to everyone: the Arizona Legislature has always been the province of loony nutjobs). Against that backdrop, would be refreshing to see the Obama Administration actually thinking creatively about affirmative policy steps that could be taken to improve the situation and reduce racial tension. Believe it or not, that is exactly what is being done. From Dan Nowicki at the Arizona Republic:
The Obama administration is exploring a broad range of options that potentially could let thousands of illegal immigrants remain in the United States legally or apply for permanent residency if Congress continues to stall on passage of comprehensive immigration reform, according to an internal government memo obtained by The Arizona Republic.
The draft memo, from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency in charge of processing immigration benefits, outlines administrative options that would “promote family unity, foster economic growth and achieve significant process improvements and reduce the threat of removal for certain individuals present in the United States without authorization.”
Perhaps the most controversial part of the memo suggests increasing the use of deferred action, which the government uses to let certain illegal immigrants who haven’t committed crimes to remain in the United States without fear of being deported. Once an illegal immigrant is granted deferred action, they are eligible for work permits. Currently, deferred action is rarely granted.
Here is the actual memo from DHS Citizen and Immigration Services.
What a refreshing thought.
In the absence of Comprehensive Immigration Reform,
……
USSIS can extend benefits and/or protections to many individuals and groups by issuing new guidance and regulations, exercising discretion with regard to parole-in-place, deferred action and the issuance of Notices to Appear (NTA), and adopting significant process improvements.
Now this is the type of intelligent thought and leadership that Barack Obama ran and got elected on. Is it perfect or ideal? No. But it is positive action in the face of an intractable problem Congress is too cowardly to address.
On the other hand, floating this out with little fanfare, almost in a stand off treatment, does not bode well for the confidence of the Administration or its willingness to invest any effort or perceived capital oh so precious to them.
Prediction: The brown haters and conservative shriekers will let fly causing the White House and Administration to run away and disavow their own department and officials who put their necks out on the line to try to make a difference in such a critically important area of domestic policy. Oh, and John “the Maverick” McCain will rhetorically inflate like cynical nihilistic puffer fish furious about even the thought of such intelligent administration of government.
This has been out there for a few days. It’s only getting attention know because Republicans are flipping out about it.
Thanks; did not know that. I saw it today for the first time and the Az Republic (including a columnist I kind of know) acted like it was freshly out today. Good to know. Although that militates even more in favor of the thought the Administration has nothing for the effort. Depressing. I can tell you, it would make a positive difference here, as I think it would everywhere, and really would chill some of the tensions between the races. Although it would obviously only further froth the howlers.
First I’ve heard of this and credit where due – this shows that the admin DOES understand it’s power and can use that power for good when it wants to – it just needs some self interest reason like votes.
@7 shows they understand their power as well, not so much for good. Obama has been VICIOUS to the people who created the chorus for change – who let everyone know how bad things really were. It’s not just that he hasn’t embraced the whistleblowers and vindicated them and used them to make things better – he’s punishing them and their families with a meanspirited nastiness that is revolting.
Torturers and torture killings? Look forward, give the guys a promotion, keep on truckin.
Whistleblowers who expose government torture programs? Bankrupt and crucify their families and torture them with years of litigation and then send them to jail. No government defense for them – not like the Yoos and Bybees.
Wouldn’t it be a refreshing change, David, if a number of “affirmative” actions would (regularly) cause some out-flipping?
That would be “change” to take glee in.
DW
Minor point.
Perhaps an “it” inserted in the first paragraph between, “Against that backdrop,” (and) “would…”?
Otherwise, damn, bmaz, yes “it” would be refreshing.
Thank you for this heads-up on possible good news,
DW
I’m guessing that the DHS staffers who wrote the memo are about to find themselves “Sherroded”.
Yep
If Obama would actually follow-through on some of these recommendations, you’d hear a rare huzzah of praise for the president. Unfortunately, this does seem to be going nowhere, a trial balloon to placate some people, ending in ignominious capitulation to the right. But if something is really brewing around this, I’d be all for it.
He could also start by telling DHS to stop appealing almost every asylum claim these days to the Board of Immigration Appeals, and also add more personnel to the latter, not to mention speeding up asylum appeals in any number of other ways. Asylum ajudications are not rocket science. Having to wait two, four, and in many cases (as with a client I have now) five or more years is just ridiculous.
If Obama doesn’t get that cause and effect paradigm, then what sort of parent must he be? But for the grace of Michelle, it would be cat’s in the cradle.
And btw, an OT 5 page piece to read by Shane Harris in the Washingtonian that demands a bmaz comment or two:
Yea, this administration should watch the director’s cut of Stand By Me or something. It understands Menschlichkeit about as well as Keifer Sutherland’s character.
Then again, imagine Rahm at a post-viewing session telling his cohort that all stand-up guys get is a dead body, whereas Sutherland’s character grew up to the be the star of 24, which would take missing the point to new heights. It makes it a pity that it was the future writer’s character who found a leech where he most wished it wasn’t.
This immigration “crisis” is a manufactured lot of campaign hooey by Arizona Republicans who need an issue to rally their base. The objective facts are that illegal immigration is *less* a problem than it was during the Bush administration. The reason Congress is all tied up in knots about this has more to do with opposition to citizenship for scary brown people, so we make the path to citizenship for them so difficult and takes so much time that it is almost impossible to stay legal for the length of time it takes to become a citizen. But any attempt to rationalize the path to citizenship is met with outcries from Republicans that it would “reward” criminals.
But no one wants to talk about the path to citizenship, because then the racism of the process would be exposed.
Obama could expedite this process administratively, but he’s dealing with a bureaucracy appointed by Bush’s administration. What he could do is to change the criteria for promotion and pay increases by rewarding bureaucrats for the number of applications processed, with penalties for applications carelessly approved that allow the wrong people to skate through the process. It would be interesting to see what the criteria for promotion and pay increases currently are. It would also be interesting to see the statistics on how many pending applications for citizenship there are, and how long they have been in process.
Bob in AZ
Do you suppose racism plays a part in how strenuously this administration and the last has avoided releasing its innocent Gitmo prisoners into the America that so harmed them?
Is that a rhetorical question? Of course, racism plays a part.
Speaking of which, does Cenk Uygur’s last name refer to the same ethnic group as the Gitmo Uighurs from China? I’m not trying to draw any dark conclusions from that, just wondering.
Also, why doesn’t the US treat the innocent Gitmo prisoners under a program like the FBI does elsewhere– give’em a new identity, find a community around Detroit or L.A. that’s willing to take’em in, one at a time, and quietly release them? Why make such a fuss about it?
Bob in AZ
Well, snarky as well as rhetorical.
You raise a better question: Why don’t we provide, as part of just compensation owed to them, the innocents we abused for years in our prisons confirmed, new identities; a bank account; and travel papers, to the US as a default, or elsewhere as they and the new host country might agree? It would seem the least we could do, having deprived them of life, liberty, happiness, a country, civilization and hope for more than half a decade.
Come to think of it, there are several million people here, out of work, in bankruptcy and without access to medical care, who might ask that such empathy also be directed homeward, too.
Less a matter racism and more a matter of Christian bigotry.
This just in:
Does this deprive her of the campaign issue she wanted?
Bob in AZ
New Trouble for Terrorist Who Helped Prosecutors
“Nine years ago, an Algerian man charged in the failed “millennium plot” to blow up Los Angeles International Airport took an unusual step: he pleaded guilty in Federal District Court in Manhattan and became the rare convicted Islamic terrorist to cooperate with the United States government.
“With the government endorsing leniency, Mr. Meskini received a short sentence, and in 2005 he was released. He moved to Georgia, got a job, paid thousands of dollars in restitution and tried to build a new life.
But Mr. Meskini, 42, was recently rearrested, accused of violating the terms of his release by committing new offenses.
. . .
“The United States attorney’s office in Manhattan would not comment on Mr. Meskini’s case. On Thursday, prosecutors notified the judge that they intended to introduce evidence against him that was obtained in a search authorized by the nation’s secret foreign intelligence court.”
LINK.
bmaz, Is having an Arizona governor in charge of DHS helping on this issue? Not a rhetorical question.
I’m not bmaz, and I didn’t even stay at a Holiday Inn last night, but here’s my 2 cents: Napolitano has been most helpful in reading the Arizona politics of the situation. This has nothing to do with DHS, which is already doing its job in Arizona. Brewer has whipped this up into a frenzy primarily for political reasons, not security reasons. That’s my read, anyway.
Bob in AZ
Agreed with that.
It is a good question. I don’t really know for sure; I think it probably is in some ways; how much I don’t know.
Sadly, yes.
Puffer fish. I’ve been trying to decide what animal McCain reminds me of. THAT is it.
More revealed by wikileaks. Including the ____th (I’ve lost count) reason for why the war in Afghanistan.
CIA Document Calls For Using Afghan Women as Messengers to Humanize the War
“The August 9th issue of Time Magazine, with a cover picture of an Afghan woman, horribly disfigured last year because of the Taliban, is meant to pull at American heartstrings as it asks what will happen to Afghan women if the U.S. withdraws from the country. It has caused considerable comment in numerous publications and blogs (see below for links), including on the Feminist Peace Network blog.”
LINK.
On this issue, as with damn near every other issue facing this nation, to varying degrees, often not enough for my liking, this Administration’s position is better than the Republican alternative.
Bitch, fume, complain and work to move the Administation’s positions leftward, but don’t forget the menacing nightmare that looms on this nation’s horizon to our right.
Well, this is actually a pretty damn good idea from the Obama Administration; my only fear is that they won’t really do any of it. You will get no complaints from me on the proposal though, it is a very good one; especially considering that Congress obviously has no guts for the fight.
After a year and one half of broken promises, half-measures, sell-outs and mediocrity I can only be bothered to appraise Obamarahma’s actions, not their pretty words. I am not the slightest bit interested in anything they say or announce, in trial balloons or promises. They have used up their credulity. That said, why not a policy of guaranteeing the wages and working conditions of those who come over here, say a guaranteed $8 an hour plus benefits, enough to live a decent life? I can tell you from experience that is not the rule. Any job worth doing is entitled to that minimum standard of living.
So, I see once again that anyone who opposes illegal immigration is a “brown hater” or a “conservative shrieker”. This reinforces the position of many on the left that there is no conceivable reason anyone would oppose illegal immigration except racism or an attempt to gain political advantage.
As I have noted on FDL before, there is an interesting circular contradiction at work in the pro-illegal immigration camp. It goes something like this:
a) Fences, the one thing that has proven in effectively limiting illegal immigration in the areas where they are erected and adequately patrolled, is wrong because it “sends the wrong message” or is “not a proper symbol for America”. What we need instead is workplace enforcement and employer sanctions.
b) OTOH, we can’t have workplace enforcement because that throws illegals out of work and even — horrors! — deports those who are here illegally.
c) Therefore, we need to throw the employers who hire illegals in jail. We need to get those rat-bastard CEOs. Except, of course, that we’ll never the rat-bastard CEOs because they are too far removed from the scene of the crime, too insulated by intermediate layers of management, and are too smart to put “hire illegals” in writing. Instead they just institute productivity and cost control targets that can only be met by hiring illegals. And, of course, while “send the CEO’s to jail” is a great but distracting rallying cry, it misses the point that for every CEO of a meat packing giant like Hormel, there are thousands of small construction companies, Mom-and-Pop restaurants, and other tiny businesses where if you put the employer in jail all you’re doing is making a criminal out of your next door neighbor. (Or yourself, if you happen to have a gardener, part-time.one day a week housekeeper, etc.)
d) If we shut down the hiring of illegals, lots of illegals will be unable to work. If we deport them, it will break up families. Solution: we give them new legal status. That way they can’t be exploited for low wages. Except that they’re still here as part of the labor pool where there are more potential workers than jobs. Absent effective and near-universal unionization of the workforce, guess what happens next? That’s right; the former illegals still work for low wages and undercut everybody else.
e) But since, as noted in (a) we can’t build a full, coast-to-coast fence and patrol it, we’ll still have more illegals flooding over the border. But this is a good thing, you understand, because every person in the world who wants to live and work here must be allowed to do so. Anything else is — you guessed it — racist and oppressive. No country has the responsibility to provide a decent living for its citizens because it is America’s duty to provide for everyone!
So are you going to be working on the fence between the US and Canada? After all, undocumented immigrants cross over from Canada most every day.
And I’d be willing to wager that if the CEOs of a couple of large scale meat-packing plants or large construction firm were sent to jail, there just might suddenly be a lot more compliance with the laws.
But you do have a nice straw man there on how all your neighbors would be going to jail. But I thought that was the point, to punish the lawbreakers, no matter who they are.
Well, punish them as long as they wear dungarees and not Armani.
Talk about strawmen!
Yes, there are illegals coming over from Canada, but you and I both know that they are a trickle compared to the flood from the south. And yes, if we have to fence and patrol the northern border, so be it. But let’s fix the biggest leak in the ship first.
Second, I already explained why CEOs of big meat packing plants and other industries won’t go to jail. They’re effectively distanced from the actual crime. But you know what? I’m all for it, if it can be done. Let’s just make sure we get the fence built first.
As for my neighbors going to jail? Fine. Own a home in CA, AZ, NV? Need a new roof? Try to find a licensed bonded reputable roofing contractor who doesn’t use illegal aliens. I submit it’s impossible. Hell, I had to look high and low to finally find a landscape maintenance guy for a piece of rental property that was a legal resident with a green card and a Fed Tax ID number in his own name.
Lucy2009 is right.
We were told that the 1986 immigration reform act would solve all of our problems, lead to a shutdown of the border, and result in one million illegals already here getting amnesty and a path to citizenship. Instead three million illegals got amnesty, workplace enforcement only happened on an itsy-bitsy tiny scale (mostly when a PR photo op was needed) and our problems only got worse because the border remained wide open.
Now we’ve got 12-20 million more illegals than we had in 1986 and the problems are exponentially worse, but the administration and pro-illegal immigration supporters like many here on this board want us to buy the 1986 solution again because it’s all wrapped up in a pretty bow. Sorry. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
The best data indicates that there are only 12-14 million illegal immigrants in the country currently total; so your figures, just like so much of your isolationist rhetoric, are wildly off the mark.
First, I said 12-20 million, so my floor estimate is the same as yours, it’s only on the top side where we disagree.
Second, in 1986 we were told that a million illegals would gain amnesty; the final figure turned out to be three million. Hence I think it’s only fair to be skeptical about the high-end limits of projections made by people who don’t think there is an immigration problem but only a problem in that we don’t let everyone come here legally.
Yeah, the “trickle” becuz they’re mostly of European appearance.
They’re the ones ultimately in charge aren’t they. Put a few of them in jail, the hiring stops and we don’t need to build a fence that won’t really stop anything. Build a ten foot fence, folks bring an eleven foot ladder.
Now are you going to put out claymore mines and boobytraps along the fence? Concertina wire? Armed guards at 100 foot intervals? Welcome to what was Eastern Europe.
But you found him. It just took some work. Is that why you are complaining? It wasn’t as easy as you wanted it to be?
Repeating a BS argument does not make it truer. I object to your implication that FDL is a “pro-illegal immigration camp.” I don’t know of anyone here who is actually *in favor* of illegal immigration. What I object to is an irrational, racist immigration policy that sets up bureaucratic obstacles to becoming a citizen and has the effect of driving people into undocumented (your so-called “illegal”) status, and forcing applicants for citizenship into impossible situations. We don’t have an *official* policy of denying citizenship to people of color, but the maze that we require them to navigate has the effect of denying citizenship, or forcing the applicant into undocumented status.
If we had a more reasonable pathway to citizenship, and a more reasonable policy for granting and renewing work visas, economic refugees would not have to risk illegal border crossing. For example, if Latinos who want to enter the US were able to apply for a visa in Mexico, and get it within a month or two, it would put most of the coyotes out of business.
So don’t give me any of that crap about being in favor of illegal immigration. What I want is a reasonable process for foreigners to get work visas and apply for permanent residency, if that is what they want to do, so that they can come here legally, and be appropriately documented.
Bob in AZ
Exactly.
Thanks. You just proved my point. You’re in favor of a streamlined legal immigration policy so that everyone who wants to live here can. Theoretically, not only every citizen of Mexico or Ireland but every citizen of the world.
No country in the world permits unlimited immigration, but we should! Because we’re exceptional, we’re great, we can do anything, we have unlimited resources. Guess you’re not out of work. (Neither am I, but I know people who are.)
And why should any other country fix its economy or education system or health care system? It’s America’s job to take care of those folks!
So, you think it’s time to put the tablet on the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty with the poem by Emma Lazarus in a museum, and replace it with a tablet that reads, “Welcome! Spend your money here, then GO BACK HOME!”?
Actually, I did not argue for unlimited open-door immigration, as you claim. I just think we should make our criteria for citizenship (or work visas, or whatever) clear and transparent, and then process visa applications on that basis quickly.
If immigration must be limited, we need to have a rational and open discussion about what those limits should be. But we’re not having that discussion now. Meanwhile, no one really knows what those limits are. And that’s not fair.
Bob in AZ
Book Salon up at the Mothership with Mark Sumner’s (aka Devilstower) The Evolution of Everything: How Selection Shapes Culture, Commerce, and Nature hosted by Janet Stemwedel
This is bullshit. I am as liberal as they come for the most part. Immigration is not a Party issue, it’s a national, human, healthcare, education, wage, job availability, securtiy issue. That effects people of both Parties.
If we start making it “OK” and giving “benefits” to some illegals without putting the military on the border and throwing employers in prison for 10 yrs for hiring illegals, guess what we’ll get……..a new flood of millions of illegals pouring over our borders.
Unless I misunderstood the article, and I hope I did!!!! I can’t see any sensibility to this at all. If we are going to push for incremental change that will make the American public happy as opposed to the Mexican public, how about putting the military on the border??? Or, how about imprisoning employers for 10 yrs who continue to hire illegals??? Now that would be a great place to start. It would cool down the fever raging through over 60% of Americans on this topic and maybe in a yr or two we could actually look at legalizing the folks that are already here.
There is no “fever” in “60% of Americans”; it is ginned up bullshit fueled mostly (but not exclusively) by racists and political opportunists. The meme of “putting the military on the border” is asinine; there is little they can legally do but run some communications and get coffee and donuts for the civilian authorities who have jurisdiction.
Yup, what an enormous waste of resources, designed, apparently, to normalize the federalization and militarization of local law enforcment, not to mention to keep increasing the slice of the pie given over to intel and defense contractors.
Wrong….
Most folks in the country don’t want unfettered illegal immigration into this country. Look at the polls….that’s not just me spouting-off.
Then the military should be allowed to do more. That’s the whole point isn’t it. To change the laws/rules so that we can be EFFECTIVE at keeping uninvtied people OUT of the country. If not the military, then some other method. We are a sovereign nation….we are able to and should stop illegal invasions. Bottom line. The U.S. Govt needs to figure it out.
Most folks don’t want people shipped back to wherever they came from…I agree the rascists and politico opportunists are the ones that would promote such an inhumane and unworkable idea. The rest of us simply want the current flow STOPPED. Employers put in prison for extended periods so they stop hiring illegals….and for the folks here to be made legal. Fining them and forcing them to pay back taxes seems ridiulous to me. Most of them don’t have the money to pay their rent much less penalties and fees.
But it is a HOT button for a majority of folks in the country….re-check your polls their bud. It would cool down those who are heated-up if the flow were checked effectively and completely. Republicans and liberals, such as myself….and there are alot of us, aren’t going to agree or back up political ideas that engage in offering “benefits” or making it legal for people to be here until that border is shut-down water tight.
Sorry.
Sorry, that straw dog won’t hunt. No one advocates “unfettered illegal immigration”. It might pay to stop and ask why immigration is such an emotional hot button.
We do have tens of millions of immigrants, who are extremely productive, law-abiding and socially responsible, who keep American companies profitable by accepting the low wages they deem the price of profitability, but who lack a reasonable path to regularizing their role in American society. Many have worked hard for years and deserve a legitimate, respectful path toward citizenship, one not strewn with every legal IED the right can invent.
Immigration is a complex issue; it most often comes up in polite society as a wedge issue, designed to distract and alienate voters away from much more important issues, and away from the predatory economic policies of the wealthy. Immigrants most often come up as political scapegoats for economic policies that harm tens of millions of Americans.
That the conversation so often carries racist undertones, or worse, ought to be a good sign that one’s emotions are being manipulated by political and economic actors not interested in rational solutions that recognize or respect civil rights or workers’ interests.
Lucy,
Please see my comment to victortruex above @42.
Bob in AZ
Agree with you on some…..
Immigration is fine, and I suppose sometimes necessary. However, I think we should do it in a controlled and measured manner. Just because someone wants to live here, doesn’t mean that they should be allowed to! That’s just not the way the world works.
I believe in some family unification, but part of the deal when you move to another country is you leave behind alot that is near and dear to you.
It is all in the gradient. People inevitably flow from low-wage jobless countries to higher-paying job abundant countries. This is the primary cause of the immigration “problem”. Dealing merely with the symptoms of this issue must fail because the gradient remains. The racist aspect is convenient but misleading since the same loathing was leveled at the Irish immigrants of 170 years ago, and they were white.
Since we don’t seem to understand the fundamental nature of our problem, the solutions are bound to fail, leaving social wreckage and anger.
True; one could say the same about Italian immigration during its peak (1880-1914), as well. Most of us have forgotten how potent ethnic slurs such as “Dago” and “Wop” were, as well as the stereotypes that they were associated with. The Italians were the “scary brown people” of 100 years ago, even though, racially, they are now classified as “White.” But then, all racial classification is a scam.
Bob in AZ
Italian immigrants were also despised because they were Catholic, as were other immigrants from the Mediterranean and the great influx of nationalities from the decrepit Austro-Hungarian empire in the thirty years before its demise after World World I. It’s one reason the Irish before them were hated and the Poles after them.
Race and religion are never far apart in American politics; they were and remain great wedge issues, manipulated to keep down the new lot of immigrants as well as the old so that owners of companies could pay as little as possible for their labor.
I think we are just going to have to disagree on this one. :)
I dated an illegal alien. He wasn’t able to go home for 9 yrs. His father and his grandmother died while he was here. He couldn’t go home to see them! If he’d left, then we would have been effectively over unless I moved to New Zealand to be with him. It’s a horrible situation. It needs to be resolved. We need comprehensive immigration enacted NOW!!! I know we weren’t alone in this sort of predicament.
However, I still dispute that we can have a million or more people a year coming from any part of the world uninvited. They do take construction, roofing, and low wage jobs from poor Americans and they do depress wages for all. They also have lots of babies which are born on the dimes of hardworking Americans (of European, Hispanic, African, Asian descent)that pay taxes. They use the E.R.’s for medical care, they get foodstamps for the American born children….the kids go to our schools and don’t speak English and 50% of them don’t graduate in So Cal. This is not a sustainable way to run our immigration policies in this country. It’s not fair to Americans (of all colors shapes sizes and genetic backgrounds)…..who overall don’t dig it. It’s also not fair to the illegals who are stuck in the shadows to a greater or lesser degree. I’m all for making them legal and getting them integrated in full. But NOT until the border is shut down.
I think you’ll find most feel the way I do. We should push Obama and Congress to do realistic steps, with the ultimate goal being that in the next yr or so we can then move to push for legalizing everyone.
Civil rights, rascists, all that is just hooey detracting from the real issue which is we have TOO much illegal immigration into our country and it needs to be handled. It’s unfortunate that some talke about “dropping babies” and other disgusting things like that, but that’s not the norm. Most people are like me, they just want it handled and have nothing against Mexicans, Kiwis, Europeans, or Africans….or anyone else~!
I do speak from the perspective of a white, many generations American. I’m not illegal, and I’m not a person of color. I see that those factors could change my point of view. However, my guy, who I married and is no longer illegal and I, both see eye to eye on this.
With all of this said……I LOVE the diversity of So Cal. I love having people from all over the world, the languages, the food, the cultures, the different way people look, talk, and life experiences. It is incredibly interesting and enriching to us as a country. Our AT&T repair guy is from the Congo. My neighbors are from Russia. My doc is from Iran. The folks down the hall from us are Korean. How boring would life be if everyone were white and spoke English!! I am pro-immigration….in moderation and legally. When it behooves Americans and their pocketbooks….not because it behooves corporations pocketbooks.
Anywho, maybe we agree on some! Maybe not! Maybe you have a very different background that is more sympathetic and understanding than I???
In any case….we can agree, I’m sure, that we want immigration reform enacted ASAP, and we do want people to be treated in a humane manner, and we want things as fair as possible for all involved. Yes? :)
Were the Mayflower pilgrims invited? Were your ancestors invited? Were the Italians who emigrated from 1880-1914 invited? Were the Irish invited?
BTW, I appreciate the point you made about the illegal alien that you dated. What was it that prevented him from becoming a citizen, or at least from getting a work visa?
Bob in AZ
The U.S. isn’t interested in importing Kiwi’s. It’s virtually impossible to get into this country legally if you aren’t some poor bastard from a hideous country, or have a major educational degree.
My ancestors on my fathers side include American Indians….so I guess you could say I do have a right to be here! :) The rest of the lot are of European descent and arrived in the 1500-1600’s. No, they weren’t invited, and frankly, I think what we did to the indigenous populations were disgusting, heart-wrenching, and criminal beyond belief. With that said…it’s done now. Just because we invaded, doesn’t mean it’s OK for some other country to do it to us, eh?
Re the Irish/Italians/etc/etc….we’ve got enough people in this country now. We don’t need to be importing folks from any country. We need to take care of the one’s we have. We need to handle our schools, our economy, our healthcare system, etc. We need to integrate the immigrants that are here effectively. We need to raise the standard of living for huge swaths or our current population centers, and create a higher level of hope for those folks who are here. We don’t need to compound our problems with more people who are overwhelmingly poor, uneducated and love to have babies. We don’t have the resources to accomodate that. In fact, neither do any other ocuntries on earth. Folks need to stop having so many damn kids. I love kids, I have two. I’m not anti-children! But to be popping em out left right and center when you can’t feed them or take care of them is bullshit. If we really want to help the Mexicans, then lets get rid of NAFTA, and start spreading the good word of birth control, abortions, etc.
Yes!
Bob in AZ
This is my 2nd reply to this e-mail, not sure what happened to the first!
In a nutshell this time….it’s virtually impossible to get into the U.S. legally if you’re a Kiwi!
We have plenty of people here now….we don’t need anymore. This country is packed with folks, and broke. We can barely take care of what we have right now, it doesn’t make sense to import more.
The statement that “civil rights, racists, all that is just hooey” is a considerable success for the propaganda of the wealthy.
Who is it you imagine controls immigration policy and for what purposes? Ask the Chinese. who built the railroads and whose bones still litter its tracks and bridge abutments. As the Poles and Hungarians who used to work in auto plants and steel mills. Ask the Irish cops and firemen in New York, the Vietnamese fishermen in the Gulf Coast, the Jews in Baltimore, the German farmers in Iowa, the Swedes, Norwegians and German timber cutters in the NW, the Chinese and Indian s/w and h/w engineers in California and Massachusetts.
Immigration flows inward like Niagara when railroads are needed, when factories or design centers operate at three shifts. It stops like a smashed clock when railroad lines are built, when factories are idle, the army lists are full, the jobs formerly done by immigrants are done by machines or done offshore.
Remember that “civil rights, racists” is just “hooey” when your race, religion, nationality, minority, job, privacy, age cohort, health care or education are targeted for discrimination. It could be by an employer or a government that needs to cut costs or mountaintops near your home, to surveil more deeply, to pollute near you more freely, or to get at your neighbor through you.
Remember, too, the words of Martin Niemoeller, “They came first for the Communists….the trade unionist….the Jews…., then they came for me and by that time, there was no one left to speak up.”
Sorry, I miss your point.
We have plenty of people here. We don’t need anymore. We have a huge unemployment problem in this country. If we ever decide that infrastructure is important, there are plenty of folks here to do the building. We don’t need to import any more humans from anywhere.
Corp America runs the show. That’s why I likely will not be voting for Dems in 2010, nor Obama in 2012. They had a beautiful opportunity to take back control and represent the people and decided not to.
Propaganda my ass….it’s my bloody thoughts. Has nothing to do with you, the wealthy or the man on the moon. There is absolutely nothing reasonable about letting people illegally into a country. NOTHING. It’s not a political issue a wealth issue, or any other issue, other than it doesn’t make any sense!!
Understand?
The best propaganda so ingrains its message, it’s not regarded as propaganda.
You do miss the point. You also miss the interests driving the immigration issue as portrayed in the media and in real life.
From what some here have witen you think that we would have any problems if we built a super-duper border wall and if deported all the people here illegally. Horse-pucky.
There is so much racist’s BS in that attitude that it flows through the streets like an overflowing sewer.
Impacts hospital’s and schools? If they are working they are paying taxes and most likely social security so they are supporting your mother in her retirement. They are paying for citys services.
Every generation has a group that it despises because no one wants to be on the bottom. Mexican people are an easy target because of their culture, language, and mostly because of their skin color. No one is screaming that we need to learn French because of folks sneaking over from Quebec.
Most of this is political divide and conquer so the people on Wall Street who screwed the country over can keep doing so. Our economic problems aren’t due to illegal aliens but due greed. Enron screwed California over big time. Goldman Sachs has done the same to the rest of the country. A Mexican laborer in a lettuce field in Yuma is theleast of your worries.
I love people who justify massive immigration today because we tolerated or encouraged and even exploited it in the past. Times change and so do situations. Just as reminder of how we did things in the past, let’s go back to the way things were when:
a) Senators were selected by state legislatures instead of direct public vote;
b) Women could not vote;
c) Blacks could be owned as slaves.
d) Segregation in housing, education, transportation, etc., by law was A-okay and the military was segregated by race.
I also have a few simple questions for those who advocate easy work visas for anyone who wants to come here:
1) If America can provide jobs for everyone who wants to come here, why do we have an official unemployment rate hovering around 10% and a real rate more like 17%?
2) Why were so many people upset when Congress delayed in extending unemployment benefits to people who have already received them for 99 weeks?
3) Why are there articles describing a “jobless recovery” and why are prominent economists like Paul Krugman predicting that we may go a decade before employment returns to previous levels?
4) Why are people worried about outsourcing and off-shoring of jobs? I mean, come on, if anybody who wants to work here should be allowed to come here, then we obviously have plenty of work for everyone, right?
A number of commenters on FDL have noted the employer abuses of the H1B legal worker visa program often found in the high-tech industry. So aren’t those advocating easy work visas for Mexicans just advocating the equivalent of an H1B visa program for low-skilled and blue collar jobs?
America accepts a million legal immigrants a year, far more than any other country. Why must we accept everyone else who wants to come here?
Oh, I know, because advocating putting American citizens first is racist and isolationist, pure and simple. Logic and facts have nothing to do with it. If you don’t want all the people in the world, regardless of color, to come here you’re a racist.
If you believe that illegals are just here to work hard (which most are) and we have room for them, then welcome them. Right into your own home. Go down, find an illegal immigrant, and let them move into your house. Next week find another one. (Not to replace the first one, in addition to the first one). Keep adding one more to your home every week. We’ve got the room, so you’ve got the room, right? Or is it when it’s abstract, when it’s not your job that’s being taken, then things are okay, but when you have to bear the direct price, then it’s not okay. Gee, what’s the word I’m looking for…oh, yeah, hypocrisy.
Okay, I think we have had enough of your repetitive ranting. We get the point; move along now. Your banter at this point is not responsive to the post or the proposal made by the Administration and it is tiring.
So, to disagree with the orthodoxy is not responsive to the post. As I recall, the post was about an Obama administration plan:
In other words, a plan to circumvent Congress and grant legal status and a path to citizenship for lots of future Democratic voters. (Legal status is normally the first qualification for the citizenship process.)
But I get it; move along. Don’t disagree with the party ideology. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been a lifelong Dem, have voluntered in Dem campaigns since 1960, decried the policies and abuses of the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush administrations. If you’re not in favor of legalizing all those people who are here illegally and if you post arguments or ask uncomfortable questions, you gotta shut up or be banned?
Just to prove I’m against brown people:
I’ve never had kids, so when I die the person who inherits the bulk of my modest estate (my house and a rental unit, a couple of cars, some furniture, a little cash) is…
A Puerto Rican woman friend. (Not gf or lover, just a friend.)
Yessiree, damn those brown people!
Ah, the old faithful, “Some of my best friends are [fill-in-the-blank]!
Ah, the old faithful, “If you’re not for illegal immigration, you’re a racist.” You can’t be in favor a real immigration reform and limitation for any reason except racism. Because if we talk about aspects of illegal immigration that don’t revolve around racism, why then we might have to accept some inconvenient truths.
Once again you seem to have missed that folks here are NOT all in favor of unrestricted immigration nor are we believing that everyone who wants change is a racist.
But most of the options you seem to prefer DO reek of racism.
And are pretty much unworkable.
You excuse the folks doing the hiring with “but all the good small business owners would go to jail.” You excuse the larger businesses because “well, the really guilty ones won’t go to jail.” You think that building a wall will actually solve the problem.
So your only option is to blame the folks who have been driven here trying to find employment (which is readily provided by those you excuse).
Sure seems that you want to excuse everyone except those who don’t look the same.
This is more of the disengenuous “well, we did it before so we should always do it” argument. Yes, we welcomed immigrants…at a time when the country was expanding, needed or could accomodate more people, etc. This goes back to my previous list of the good ‘ol ways things used to be. Up for slavery, are you? You married? Think your wife shouldn’t have the right to vote? What about your mother or your daughter? Times change; so do conditions.
You said later in your comment “If immigration must be limited”. So you do not even buy the idea that it should be or needs to be. Then, please sir, answer my previously posted questions about our unemployment problem. And explain me why and how we can accomodate everyone who wants to live and work here.
And “No one knows what those limits are”. Are you serious? You think the only part of the problem is that millions are here illegally, and not that maybe too many people are here competing for too few jobs? Really?
Sympathy for individual illegal immigrants is easy. Most of them are honest, hard-working people. But as collective demographic group, they have a detrimental effect on the country. Sure, SS gets contributions — from those who use phony SS numbers. But states and local communities are pillaged by the uninreimbursed costs, for emergency room medical treatment and delivering babies, from the costs of school overcrowding, of police protection, etc.
And us taking in all the poor and disadvantaged from other countries doesn’t solve the fundamental problem of fixing those countries. Mexico is a poor country? The CIA puts out an annual Fact Book covering every country in the world, everything from form of government and political system to annual weather patterns, investment climate, natural resources, religious makeup, number of TV networks, etc. Last time I looked, which was about three years ago, Mexico was ranked as the world’s eleventh richest country. And the oligarchs who run it like it that way. It’s never going to improve until the internal pressure for change becomes insurmountable. That’s why Mexico legitimately fears the US closing it’s border; then the pressure would have no relief valve.