Bush's "support" for immigration reform as secret plan to cement the conservative shift in America?

A great portrait as to where 'the Right' as conceived here seems to be at present -- start with this post in NRO world from yesterday and read upward (most Derbyshire v. Podhoretz, with later thoughts from McCarthy and Goldberg). The knives could well be out.

Bush supports cheap labor

I guess as a political strategy, whatever sense a pro-immigration policy might have over the long term for conservatives, it's just too lethal in the short term. Still, though, being at the end of his political career, Bush would have the luxury of considering those kinds of steps. (Although every time I try and picture him going through that kind of thought process, my imagination fails me.)

(I know, I know, too unrealistic to warrant discussion...)

although the cooperation of republican legislators seems out of the question.

Who's to say that it is? and why would Republicans be rewarded for overcoming nativists in their party to join the Dems when the Dems have always done that?

Republicans would be "rewarded" because they control Congress and the White House. I hardly foresee the Democrats getting credit for any changes to immigration policy made now. Perhaps credit for making a "principled stand" and stopping worse alteratives, but that's about it. (And even then...)

anyway, there are at best about 5 million illegal immigrants in America, and there are probably 15-20 million Republican voters who don't like Mexicans.

In a few decades journalists may not be able to write meaningless crap like this and get away with it. But I doubt it.

And I think the dynamic you outline would be near political suicide if he says/does that in Monday's speech, though I wouldn't be surprised to hear it anyway.

(Unless you mean talk of the National Guard deal, which I mentioned elsewhere. ;-) )

gabbneb, "from our own correspondent" is consistently great. usually it's reported from like, the ivory coast or the phillipines. the US has become just another exotic place in some ways over the past few years.

yes i DO think the left has cared about immigration FAR more than the right, if "caring" means spending hours, weeks and years working to organize immigrant poultry workers, farm workers etc, and linking up with lawyers to try and argue in the niches of the law about non-citizens' right to organize, among other things (like the seemingly tiny yet actually gargantuan issue of getting a driver's license). you just do not hear about these things because they are happening under the radar of what the media considers important: the "spotlight" is a consequence of group decision-making among coastal elites, and poultry workers are just not sexy to them

(plus the right-wing response is just "those people shouldn't even be here")

Also do the proposals for guest worker programmes strike you as something that would turn Latin Americans into our Palestinians? Not fair, not right, not all being created equal.

I'd say in 1992 the left ramrodded tax increases and absolutely controlled the economic debate (hilarious lies such as "worst economy since Hoover", alleging that Republicans want old people to eat dog food, starve people on the vine, etc.") And prior to that, when the Dems controlled the Senate and the House I'm sure there were some issues that were demogauged into legislation (or at very least, into trainwrecking Court nominees.) But honestly, I have to go make dinner for my tribe and don't have the time to seriously consider this. And also, I agree that the right is probably better at nationalizing issues, at least in the past decade.

Suzy, the vast majority of countries in the world deny you the "right" just to move into them, start working, go to school, etc. I understand your point, but it would be stronger if you used other lanugage, IMO.

if these are your goalposts, you're right, blount, but while the left is maybe at its lowest ebb in like forever in terms of quantifiable, visible effects on the D.C. establishment and the money spigots of congress, you are very out of the loop about grassroots efforts for immigrants' rights if you think many of the people involved are anything less than obsessed, or if you think concrete gains haven't been made TIME AND AGAIN in communities from california to tennessee. there is more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in the power corridors in washington, and if the atomized, busy left lacks identifiable national figures with heft and leverage to open those corridors for the people of america to use, they carry on doing what they're doing, despite the total lack of recognition from talkingpointsmemo or j blount

Mitya: That's not what I've said at all. PARSING LESSONS CALL 1-800-READING. I'm talking about people from an immigrant background that have so little awareness of history and migration patterns that they stupidly close the drawbridge to others down the line who are no different to their grandparents who were given free land if they could get to it. OH WAIT THEY'RE BROWN, NO SALE.

I'm perfectly happy with ANYONE moving to America - my principles wouldn't have it any other way - and what I want most is for those people to be able to join in and contribute to the society they want to join, by paying taxes and whatnot just like "good Americans" do. I was able to move to the country I wanted to, legally, but I have seen the way illegal immigrants are compromised by exploitative citizens on numerous occasions and it is that which must be stopped. Also this notion of there being some jobs too dirty/not good enough for US citizens is bollocks!

If you want to talk about exploitation of illegals, then certainly "rights" play into it. But I hardly think Irish (or Chinese) immigrants got much better treatment in the 19th century than Latinos do now. (Which is not to say either group were necessarily treated how they should have.)

just a week or so later, the workers voted for a union and got it - http://www.tnimc.org/newswire/display_any/7177

where was the nytimes followup on this story? oh yeah. nowhere. immigration wasn't "in the spotlight", apparently. really forward-thinking people, those timesmen. i mean, it's not like immigrants' work conditions are a hot-button issue now or anything.

The Equal Justice Center
and Southern Migrant Legal Services conducted workers' rights workshops, helped to
organize community forums and filed complaints with the Tennessee Occupational
Safety and Health Administration about the routine denial of bathroom breaks and
with the National Labor Relations Board for the illegal termination of two
maintenance workers who raised concerns about safety and health issues in the
plants.

The Knoxville Jobs with Justice Chapter and the Knoxville Interfaith Committee for
Worker Justice were also key players in mobilizing local support through area
congregations, community groups and the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.
Additionally, letters of support for the workers flooded into Koch Foods's offices
from across the country.

The success of U.S. English taught Tanton a crucial lesson. If the immigration restriction movement was to succeed, it would have to be rooted in an emotional appeal to those who felt that their country, their language, their very identity was under assault. “Feelings,” Tanton says in a tone reminiscent of Spock sharing some hard-won insight on human behavior, “trump facts.”

and there we go, troops to the border

The events of September 11, 2001 have forever changed the world, but especially in the United States. It was hoped that the federal government would take the initiative to strengthen the positive identification of our fellow citizens and lawful visitors. When it became obvious this was not going to happen, it became our responsibility to ensure that our citizens were properly identified and accounted.

http://www.tennessee.gov/safety/driverlicense/newdlpolicyfaq.htm

"especially in the united states"??? (and that paranoid quashing of that final "for" ..)

Stepping intoo NROWorld today is like dipping your foot into a shark tank after having first slathered fish guts over it.

Or maybe - just maybe - they like them so damn much that they want to see to it that legal, tax paying, law abiding Mexican Americans - as well as poor blacks and poor whites - are not squeezed out of their jobs.

Why am I not surprised to see this kind of foolishness coming from Tombot?

What if we applied this same defeatist attitude toward the Nazis?

There's simply no way a country can absorb such a high volume.

If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell ya buddy.

historically, immigration has never ruined a single country. ever.

-- Shakey Mo Collier, Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:11 PM (13 minutes ago)

Those 'hapless' guys are CRIMINALS. And not all of them are selfless, virtuous saints, either.

-- Manalishi, Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:35 PM (23 minutes ago)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Using your example, of course, of the benevolent illegal immigrant. Let's not even get into the drug cartels and gangs.

-- Manalishi, Thursday, May 17, 2007 2:39 PM (19 minutes ago)

Reform immigration policies so that the so-called honest, hardworking Mexican immigrants can become citizens legally, and learn English, and pay taxes, and make themselves available to the census bureau.

how do you count what you can't find?

Dan Neiwert wrote something on this that I thought was rather germane, on the insistence on referring to poor-ass families who have to head north just to surivine as "illegal aliens," and to harp over and over again about them being crimianls was pretty troubling. It completely ignores the reasons as to why these families would have to risk their lives to head north, and completely indulges in this full-on paranoid and authoritarian vibe. By dehumanizing these people and portraying them as an invasion of disease(dig all the talk about them bringing TB and leprosy), it's makes it a lot easier to justify rounding them up, sending them off to camps, etc:

One of the interesting aspects of the immigration debate is the way that authoritarianism is really the driving mindset underlying most of the nativist opposition to Latino immigration. It comes creeping out and reveals itself in odd moments, most typically when the nativists are challenged on the moral grounding of their crusade.

Probably the central example of this is the nativists' insistence on calling undocumented workers "illegal aliens", a phrase clearly intended to cast these immigrants both as The Other and, most especially, as lawbreakers. The phrase becomes a way of negating any recognition that perhaps the nation's dysfunctional immigration laws, which render millions of hardworking contributors to the national economy noncitizens, might actually be the problem.

The nativists are intent, of course, on the emphasis on the legal status of these immigrants because it becomes a club with which to bash them -- and moreover to justify all kinds of measures against them, most especially rounding them up, incarcerating and deporting them. So, for example, when someone points out the demonization and scapegoating inherent in this sort of approach to immigration -- a facet of their behavior that decidedly casts them as the ethical and moral reprobates they are -- they leap into full-fledged reflexive authoritarianism: intimidating, bullying, smearing, and generally shoving their opponents rhetorically to the ground.

[...]

One point of historical detail: The term "illegal aliens" was introduced as a "government term" in the 1920s, when it referred primarily to Asian immigrants, during the nakedly racist campaign to excluse immigrants from Asia, culminating in the Immigration Act of 1924.

Yeah, but one nice thing about the world is that we don't have to worry about that kind of rhetoric on any kind of practical policy level. We are not going to round up and deport any significant number of people who are here illegally. It's a flatly ridiculous proposition. So we can worry about the social implications of that kind of rhetoric, or how it skews what policy issues we do come up with, but in the end, anyone who stands around saying "they're illegal, they're criminals, lalala" is effectively backing himself out of any real debate on the issue -- becoming purely an obstacle.

The problem is that I think we can't rule the policy decisions out, not when you have guys like Tancredo as elected officials. I still hold that this shit begins as language first, then starts to percolate into candidates, and thru sheer numbers, they'll eventually get in some elected types who'll eagerly start fucking things up.

It's kinda like how we saw Reaganites in the 80s go on about how govt is bad, to candidates in the 90s who openly campaigned on how they hated these public functions, and when enough of them got into office, went about fucking things up for the last 10-12 years.

In other words, the ideology of some of these folks is strong enough to override any concerns about the difficulty of actually putting things into practice. I mean, christ, they dumped a billion into abst-only education, and cried for more even after it was shown not to work.

And I daresay that history has proved us wrong when we've said, "oh come on, these people can't be THAT crazy."

I mean, for example, we have american elected officials right now who are actively guided by the John Birch-melded-with-Rapture Left Behind shit. There's enough of this kind of zealous radicalism(a movement fully believing their own hype and righteousness) to REALLY fuck things up, even moreso that it has already.

One huge difference is that our sex-ed philosophy can be imagined as a point of principle, and there is no I Got Pregnant/Herpes lobby to back up its real-world effects -- whereas any hypothetical effort to round up and deport any significant portion of illegal immigrants would meet with a LONG list of major industries howling no, no, no. No matter how many far-right strawmen could possibly fill the legislative branch, there's more than enough business-and-industry money to keep them attuned to the practicalities of this stuff.

That being so, there's still enough of them mucking about to have granted Halliburton/KBR mondo cash to actually build detention camps in the U.S.

"We are not going to round up and deport any significant number of people who are here illegally. It's a flatly ridiculous proposition."

Why would you make such a blanket statement? Doesn't this kind of talk effectively cut off any possibility for a 'debate' of any kind? Or do you just enjoy preaching to the choir?

Am I to understand that I am an 'obstacle' for disagreeing with you and expecting a little more from my elected officials than "Welp, gee whiz, I guess we're fucked?"

Why would you make such a blanket statement?

Then how would you handle said rounding-up and deportation without it being an utter disaster, if you're so gung-ho for it? The reason why debate does not exist is because, as Nabisco implies, it just won't fly and those trying to make it a debate are already stuck. Over in NROville, Andy McCarthy said this from a far different political point of view than Nabisco's, but agreeing on the point:

I am not heartless, and I am not impractical. I am not in favor busting up families, harrassing hardworking people, or wasting sparse resources to round them all up and deport them — I'm content to target enforcement at employers who exploit illegals and illegals who violate our criminal laws. For the rest of the millions, I say leave them be — as we do now (which itself is a form of amnesty).

xpost

It's a statement of pure practicality. The idea just isn't feasible, and even if it were, it would require effort, chaos, and expenditures far beyond any gains that could be claimed to come from it. I'm not saying that as a political opinion, M, just a logistical one. We're talking about a population larger than that of New York City -- one that's providing tons of essential everyday labor in countless industries, one that's networked deep into families and communities, etc. Trying to round up and deport any significant portion of them would be ... well, just an insanely massive logistical endeavor, and one that would disrupt the hell out of half of everything happening in this country. I don't think of that as a political stance, just the bare facts of the matter.

So I think any public official who insists that these people are illegal and nothing should be done to reform their status is putting him- or herself in the position of an "obstacle," yes. So long as it's just plain not practical to deport millions of people, you can either go about making the best plan to deal with their presence, or you can stomp up and down saying they're illegal and not really accomplish much beyond obstructing other people's best plans for dealing with them, right? Again, I don't mean that as a political opinion. I mean that if you won't accept any plan apart from one that's a pipedream, your only power is to obstruct. And if that's what someone feels is right, then good on them.

"(which itself is a form of amnesty)."

I guess this is my problem with it, is all. I'm not advocating so-called 'round ups' by any means, but I think there's a lot of defeatism here

Fucked by A Mexican

But Rog, I think it's kinda the opposite of defeatism to say, you know, "They're here, they're involved in our economies and communities, and we can't round them up and send them anywhere ... but we can come up with smart reforms that help them be safe and productive, and help their families assimilate well into our society, and have them become a strong and helpful part of America just like previous waves of immigrants have" -- if anything that's rather optimistic!

It's only "defeatist" if your main goal is to get rid of them, not to actually arrange a system where their presence can be beneficial to most everyone involved.

ok well either you "give them amnesty" or you "round them up"

xpost

or "do nothing," if you like.

P.S. if I remember your location right, the biggest sources of illegal immigration in your region (and mine) are European, not Latin American and definitely not Mexican, so those day-laborers may well be bringing some kind of Polish beer.

so those day-laborers may well be bringing some kind of Polish beer.

this is perhaps the best possible result

i think it is fair to say that we are going to have to gear up for a large-scale reorganization of our educational system if we're going to make this work.

zyviec! (xp)

rogers gonna roll up his sleeves and sweep the brown flood out the way hercules cleaned the stables

also LOL at his idea that mexicans wiring money to mexico is going to depress our economy.

immigration is going to demand a reorganization of our educational system, health care system and other social services.

who among my fellow-citizens thinks this is a bad thing, hands up?

i don't

healthcare needs reorganizing, bigtimes

...not sure how, exactly, but something's gotta give

can we go back to manalishi claiming his grandfather was named "Big Chief Running Buffalo"? because i call bullshit on that

I think we all know the title of "Big Chief" was discontinued in the early 19th century and devolved into two independent offices (Medium Chief and Minister of That One Part of the Buffalo We Haven't Found Anything to Do with Yet).

i smell bufalloshit

</custos>

once you've opened that tag you can't close it, bro

That zing was hella burly.

"immigration is going to demand a reorganization of our educational system, health care system and other social services. who among my fellow-citizens thinks this is a bad thing, hands up?"

I guess I'd put my hand up here. Sure, the sytem as it is is plenty fucked, but you really think it'll get better before it gets worse by introducing tens of thousands of so-called anchor babies into our health care system? Where does having a good percentage of your average public school class being unable to speak English leave us? Where's 'No Child Left Behind' then? How does this make anything better? I fail to see the positive ramifications.

"can we go back to manalishi claiming his grandfather was named "Big Chief Running Buffalo"? because i call bullshit on that"

hey, Captain A.D.D, read the line directly below it.

OK you just referenced the NCLB act as if it were something other than an abysmal failure and a massive scam to siphon money from the most strapped of our schools into the offshore accounts of private test-prep snake-oil salesmen

demand a reorganization of our educational system, health care system and other social services

these are all things that are currently right up there with our passenger rail system as far as "massive, mind-bogglingly pathetic embarrassments for the richest country on earth" so if scorched earth is what it takes let's start pouring the gasoline

I suppose complaining about the status quo of domestic policy makes me "defeatist" though. Surely we can convince people to take out loans to go to the dentist and stay in thankless, underfunded teaching positions! We just need to TRY HARDER.

Now now, Tom, I don't know why'd you say that; everyone knows that standardized testing is the only true and valid and completely un-gameable method of objective worth, a method that can never be manipulated or practiced or even taught in classes by Princeton or Kaplan. How else are we to ensure that our meritocracy continues, and that we not coddle our children? If public schools can't keep up, the invisible hand of the market will solve things, and school choice will allow us to send our children to other venues, perhaps those that will instruct them in ways that God would have obviously wanted. It is only by denying funding to already troubled schools that we show the "tough love" required for them to gain some discipline and improve.

xp

Say what you will about standardized testing, but it's one of the last educational practices that doesn't put learning about Arbor Day over learning about the fucking Alamo.

As for our abysmal health care system - how many of you ever been to a dentist in Cuba?

Don't mean to get all 'love it or leave it' here, but I often wonder why those who hate 'the system' so vehemently continue to subscribe to it by living in the same United States that wrought said system, paying taxes, and constantly buying shit?

Do you know how many ILXors were swearing they'd move to Canada once Bush was re-elected? Do you know how many actually moved? Why do you think that is?

Yes, you could argue that teachers are underpaid - I wouldn't neccessarily, but that's another thread. But cops are underpaid too. How do you feel about cops?

Alamo = WHITE DUDES WANT SLAVERY

Cops are not underpaid in NYC.

Why do you think that is?

please, connect the dots for us

Say what you will about standardized testing, but it's one of the last educational practices that doesn't put learning about Arbor Day over learning about the fucking Alamo.

huh? so, standardized testing now determines cirriculum? Cirriculum beyond just teaching the test, that is.

You never took a Kaplan or Princeton Test Prep class, did you.

I don't know, goat brains, ever going to answer my question upthread about working in law enforcement, homeland security, or the military? cause I'm thinking that's going to be TOMBOT 3, ROGER 0. Worthless fuck.

Cops are massively underpaid in NYC Jon! That's why they all want to go work in the 'burbs and do fuck-all for 2x the money as soon as they grow up!

See also DC police + 5 years = Arlington/Fairfax county police

Cops are underpaid everywhere including New York City. Do you know what you're talking about?

kingfish - I didn't say it determined the cirriculum, though, did I? I'm just saying it's one of the last places where a kid has to learn how to do fractions rather than how to paint wind chimes and 'appreciate himself.'

Catsupp - Connect the dots to what? What are you talking about?

Let me just save you the trouble:
'lol roger's crazy'
'ban manalishi'
'dude wtf'
(insert some sarcastic remark)

manalishi has also never been to a school

Cops are not underpaid at ALL in most suburban counties, btw

TOMBOT - Not that it's really any of your business, nor do I see how it's relevant at all, but I'll indulge you because I'm bored. I come from three generations of law enforcement (NYC cops - bomb squad, DEA, and emergency service, to be exact) and military, and if it weren't for psych records, dope and pussy, such a fate would have been mine as well. As you might well imagine, Christmas at my house is a hoot and a half.

As for homeland security, well...MY homeland is secure.

man if only I had done more dope and pussy I could have stayed the fuck away from serving my country too, dang

What's the score now, incidentally, Tombot?

well you got all the dope and pussy so I guess I lose

you should be in charge of the country

you obviously give a shit while I just sit here in washington dc surrounded by know-nothing lib'ruls and furrners

Now, now, don't sell yourself short - with that quick wit you'd make a great comedian. One of those 'white people be drivin' like THIS" types, maybe.

What exactly is it that you fill your days with in Washington, Tombot old friend? You seem like you're dying to tell me.

kingfish - I didn't say it determined the cirriculum, though, did I?

That's your assertion, tho; that NCLB/standardized testing somehow is the determining factor between indoctrinating our innocent children in the tree-hugging and amur'ka-hating paganistic/druidic Arbor Day, and the bold tale of strong, moral, muscle-bound and leather-clad mens, so sweaty under in their buckskins that hot texan sun, with no one to turn to but each other and their long rifles for comfort, banding together to kill mexicans and keep their imported africans.

I'm just saying it's one of the last places where a kid has to learn how to do fractions rather than how to paint wind chimes and 'appreciate himself.'

lol teachers r hippiez, and only teach dirty fucking hippie skills rather than harsh discipline that'll allow them to go out and raise themselves by their own bootstraps in the unregulated free market.

Also,

T/S: Which improves the lot of humanity better-- unregulated free markets vs unregular free marmots

http://kungfuramone.rackm0unt.org/blogs/pics/marmot.jpg

also, either unregulated or unregular free marmots, your choice

http://www.wavelengthtoronto.com/back_issues/graphics/jan01_pics/marmots.jpg

"NCLB/standardized testing somehow is the determining factor between indoctrinating our innocent children in the tree-hugging and amur'ka-hating paganistic/druidic Arbor Day, and the bold tale of strong, moral, muscle-bound and leather-clad mens, so sweaty under in their buckskins that hot texan sun, with no one to turn to but each other and their long rifles for comfort, banding together to kill mexicans and keep their imported africans."

You say tomato...

BZZZT wrong i'm sorry the answer is marmots

http://www.mrfs.net/trips/2003/Northern_Rockies/Grand_Teton/marmots.jpg

I often wonder why those who hate 'the system' so vehemently continue to subscribe to it by living in the same United States

What a thread to suggest American reformers should, like, emigrate!

Can we back up, though, and dissect what kind of "burden" illegal immigration is supposed to be posting here? It seems to me that illegal immigrants are nowhere near posing any kind of apocalyptic threat to our school or healthcare systems in any widespread way -- this only even starts to present itself as an issue because of specific locations where large clusters of immigrants can challenge a specific hospital or school district.

And as it happens, if you're concerned about that, it's reasonable to think that immigration reform could actually solve some of those problems. To start with one obvious thing, working out legal status for a lot of immigrants means they wouldn't have to cluster in their own communities, speaking their own languages, relying on their own economic networks -- with legal status, they'd be able to spread out wherever the job market called them and actually assimilate into our society. And instead of showing up at hospitals only in emergency situations, they'd be more able to enter the healthcare system in a way that allows for what little preventive care our healthcare system offers.

"Criminals" have to hide together, because they aren't allowed to join society. Sort out legal status for these people, and apart from needing some ESL instruction in your schools, they don't present many challenges beyond that of ordinary poor people. And like I said up above a few times, we ALL of us depend on their cheap labor to keep the price of our lettuce low, to make our restaurant industry work, to build anything anywhere -- it's either very sneaky or very ignorant to depend on cheap laborers to get shit done without accepting that it means low-income people needing housing, health care, and education. You can either pay for it by sorting that stuff out, or you can pay for it when you buy a tomato: your call.

(P.S. I'm a little wary of how we talk about "illegal immigration" largely in terms of Mexicans coming here and doing menial labor, generally leaving out even Central Americans doing similar, or Chinese people doing similar, or the good portion of Eastern Europeans who come here; we're very ready to think of Mexicans as border-jumpers, but it hardly crosses anyone's mind about Poles or Ukranians. Just because someone came on a plane or skipped a visa instead of jumping a wall doesn't exempt them from this category in the least.)

And instead of showing up at hospitals only in emergency situations, they'd be more able to enter the healthcare system in a way that allows for what little preventive care our healthcare system offers.

...this is huge, btw. especially since "emergency situations" typically aren't actually emergent in most situations. they're usually non-life-or-function threatening situations that have gotten to the point of severe discomfort. they still need medical attention, but not from an emergency physician that has, like, traumas and ODs and whatever to attend to.

A well reasoned argument, nabisco. Certainly food for thought. But the idea that providing amnesty for the illegals (read: criminals) would somehow help them seamlessly conform to society's standards, all the while expecting the problem of illegals coming through the open border at alraming rates even while this is going on to just disappear...not so sure about that. I might be less opposed to blanket amnesty if something was done about the open borders immediately, so we're not involved in a 'one step forward, two steps back' kind of situation.

Sort out legal status for these people, and apart from needing some ESL instruction in your schools, they don't present many challenges beyond that of ordinary poor people

in any case, they are almost always segregated into certain schools / certain districts.

you could argue that "white flight" has worse effects on the school system (as whites rush towards the wealthier, whiter suburban schools those schools become extremely crowded).

a similar thing is happening in san diego: white flight from neighborhoods in southeast san diego which are highly - get this - filipino.

the filipinos (and other pacific islanders) get jobs with the navy (there's a huge recruitment apparatus out there) and legally emigrate to san diego (navy town). ironically, they are generally high-achieveing and college bound (schools like UC Irvine, UCSD, UCLA etc)

Yup. Huge Filipino student population at UCI, and 9/10ths of them are Navy kids from San Diego.

which is WRONG. america was built BY and FOR 3rd generation law enforcement WHITE PEOPLE

I know. I'm sorry.

i guess the real issue with ESL instruction is that it's tremendously hard to teach a student ESL english and then expect them to do well in math or science or english class. you have to teach a different way to somebody who didn't come up through your own educational system.

think of how terribly hard it would be for any of us to transfer into a japanese grad school, even if we learned japanese to near-fluency through 4 years of college. this is what kids who graduate through ELL (english language learner) system in junior high will have to do.

the drawback is that you have to re-educate all of your teachers (except new new ones like me who are learning it from the beginning) - the benefit perhaps is that you're basically teaching to a particular learning disability, and the insights you gain from understanding the process as a teacher can be used to help other LD kids who don't have 2nd language problems (for example, a born-and-raised white american suburban kid with language processing deficiencies ... manalishi??)

haha

but yeah, americans get to pick - do you want cheap labor + a permanent hopeless barely educated underclass, or do you want cheap labor + paying for your teachers.

But the idea that providing amnesty for the illegals (read: criminals) would somehow help them seamlessly conform to society's standards, all the while expecting the problem of illegals coming through the open border at alraming rates even while this is going on to just disappear

Few quick things:

(a) The only thing necessarily "criminal" about these people is that they've entered the country illegally. It's sneaky and wrong to imply that they are therefore antisocial criminal types -- the bulk of them engage in no extraordinary criminal activity beyond just being and working here. (In fact, they have very good reasons to try and remain unnoticed.)

(b) There's inevitably some crime among low-income people, especially transient ones; note once again how sorting out a path to legal status would make it so fewer people would have to take part in the kind of fraud, crime, or gray-market economies they wind up in when they don't have papers.

(c) If you think their lack of assimilation is causing huge problems, it just makes sense to give them the tools to assimilate -- a way to officially engage with society -- and set up incentives for doing it: you become a productive part of this country, take XYZ steps, and you can work toward full citizenship. In a funny way, these are the people in this country who can most easily be led to do things by the government -- because the government controls the citizenship most of them really genuinely desire!

(d) Dealing with those already here and dealing with our borders are almost completely separate issues. I have zero objection to investing in controlling the border, so long as government and business can arrange fair and sensible legal systems for people to come through them.

(e) Haha there aren't a whole lot of areas where I respect Bush's thinking more than most Republicans, but this seems to be at least one area where he's learned practical stuff from Texas -- that you can't kick these people out, that we rely on them economically, and that we need to sort out an organized system that accomodates that, not a black market of marginalized illegal labor.

P.S. I think we all know that in this debate, the word "amnesty" is one of those terms that just obscures and lumps together and attacks, rather than helping us talk about stuff truthfully and specifically -- could we try to get away from it, M? It's actually fine by me if you want to think of this stuff as "amnesty," but we also have to acknowledge the difference between a lot of separate things -- say, the difference between (a) just declaring everyone legal and (b) setting up a system/path and putting conditions on people's applying into it. And since no one is advocating the former of those things, I'm not sure "amnesty" is a helpful word.

Is this the thread I swore I wouldn't look at? It may as well be.

"It's sneaky and wrong to imply that they are therefore antisocial criminal types -- "

Again, not my words, yours. I'm not calling them 'antisocial criminal types' - i'm calling them criminals. Just like your objection to the word 'amnesty,' at some point you gotta stop getting hung up on semantics and call a spade a spade.

"(c) If you think their lack of assimilation is causing huge problems, it just makes sense to give them the tools to assimilate -- a way to officially engage with society -- and set up incentives for doing it:"

Don't you think this kind of coddling and patronizing pretty much insults, upsets, and alienates everyone across the board?

"because the government controls the citizenship most of them really genuinely desire!"

So they become free to watch King of Queens, buy KFC crispy strips and vote Democrat!

OK, I'm just kidding about that last part.

Again, not my words, yours. I'm not calling them 'antisocial criminal types' - i'm calling them criminals

You are offensively dim-witted, carpetbagger.

Whao, let me mull that over. Talk about food for thought! I was pretty sure of myself and fairly secure in my beliefs, but now I better lie down and think it all over. Thanks, milo z. You may have saved my life.

ZING ZANG ZONG

http://www.jeannieshouse.com/gift_shop/products/Stuffed%20Animal%20House/marmots_w.jpg

M, you referred to --

the idea that providing amnesty for the illegals (read: criminals) would somehow help them seamlessly conform to society's standards

-- so if you weren't trying to suggest that, as "criminals," they're somehow less likely to conform to society's standards, then ... you'll just have to forgive me and explain yourself better. Yes, coming here illegally makes a person a criminal; duh; how exactly is that relevant to this discussion? You admitted upthread to being a criminal yourself (dope!), but if we were talking about reforming our criminal-justice system to stop imprisoning people for minor marijuana possession, I seriously doubt you'd be clinging to principle and saying "b-b-but they're criminals."

As for the coddling/patronizing/insulting stuff, I want to respond, but I can't really sort out why you'd say that in the first place. Who's being insulted or patronized here?

And just to jump upthread again: you object to any system that fixes a legal status for these people. You seem to acknowledge that it's not feasible to round them all up and deport them. So what DO you suggest? Like I said, you're putting yourself in the position of just being an obstacle -- opposing any rational solution, but not advocating the one irrational plan you seem to approve of.

meanwhile:

The guest workers program is, more or less, the creation of an official servant class, one that'll serve to undercut the unionization of working class Americans and legal immigrants. By the way, the whole "guest workers" thing sound like we're gonna provide them with fresh towels and scones every morning. Why not just call them "shit detail workers"? The bill's filled with bizarre rules like if Jorge from Guatemala is a guest worker for two years, he's gotta go back to Guatemala for a year before he can come back here for another two years, for a total of six years. 'Cause no one's gonna break that law and stay, you know, illegally.

SLAVERY REINTRODUCED VIA THE BACK DOOR shock horror Earth revolves around Sun probe.

Did you know that everyday, Mexican gays sneak in thru our back door and unplug our brain dead ladies?!

Bush to base -- drop dead:

President Bush attacked opponents of an immigration deal Tuesday, suggesting they "don't want to do what's right for America."

"The fundamental question is, will elected officials have the courage necessary to put a comprehensive immigration plan in place," Bush said against a backdrop of a huge American flag.

He described his proposal—which has been agreed to by a bipartisan group of senators—as one that "makes it more likely we can enforce our border—and at the same time uphold the great immigrant tradition of the United States of America."

...

"A lot of Americans are skeptical about immigration reform, primarily because they don't think the government can fix the problems," Bush said.

"And my answer to the skeptics is: give us a chance to fix the problems in a comprehensive way that enforces our border and treats people with decency and respect. Give us a chance to fix this problem. Don't try to kill this bill before it gets moving," Bush told students and instructors at the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center.

Bush repeatedly cast the matter as one of political courage.

"Those determined to find fault with this bill will always be able to look at a narrow slice of it and find something they don't like," the president said. "If you want to kill the bill, if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of it.

"You can use it to frighten people," Bush said. "Or you can show leadership and solve this problem once and for all."

I like how he uses the exact same empty rhetorical argument for every single piece of legislation/policy he ever proposes - ie, if you don't agree with me, its because you don't want to do what's right for America.

shakey mo otm, though I really wish that leftists in general would make a big point of saying publically "wow, it looks like the President's kinda in the general neighborhood on this question" instead of just pointing fingers and goin' "lol winguts r mad, our enemies are fighting, now the glorious party can reassume its mantle"

J0hn when did you stop hating America

can you imagine the eating-own-tail frenzy of the right-leaning blogosphere if all the lefty blogs were like "we're pretty much with GWB on the immigration question"

I mean don't get me wrong, I do hate America in that I favor general amnesty (it sure as fuck didn't hurt California's economy last time; in fact it helped make us filthy fucking rich back then) but Bush does seem to have a more nuanced grasp of this issue than he does of pretty much anything else, and it'd be more becoming of leftists to give him credit for that as often as they can

"A lot of Americans are skeptical about immigration reform, primarily because they don't think the government can fix the problems"

i wonder why that is, oh yeah you and your cronies have spent decades convincing them that government is the source of all society's problems

So anyway.

I must say that I do get tired of politicians who frame the immigration debate purely as a criminal issue or national security issue, as in "these people broke the law in coming here illegally", or "we must secure our borders to guard against the terrorists".

Immigration is an economic issue, end of story. That doesn't mean it is a small or unimportant issue, but it has nothing to do with criminals or terrorists pouring into the USA. Generally, all that these 'criminals' do is just work at menial jobs, eat, sleep, pay rent and keep their heads down. If they only spent money here instead of earning it, who would be complaining?

its not even an economic issue its fucking racist scapegoating pure and simple. no economy has ever been "destroyed" or even adversely affected by cheap immigrant labor, and I defy anyone to point me to a historical example demonstrating otherwise (refugees fleeing a war are a different story, btw)

the people who are most negativey impacted by the economics of illegal immigration are the illegal immigrants!

Ladies and gentleman, the most powerful man in the world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KH2QB7p7drQ

he looks depressed

good. I hope the fucker cries himself to sleep every night.

I drove by some people protesting illegal immigrants downtown last weekend and was half-tempted to yell, "DON'T YOU REALIZE YOU'RE SUCH A CLICHE?" at them. All white people, in their 30s/40s, only one woman out of seven or eight people, all wearing either american flag shirts or plain white tees and jeans.

I don't think it's racism so much as resentment. When conservative talk-radio was at its most heated the other day I caught a Cuban-American woman who called into Schnitz's show. From the way she described her background it could be someone in my family, or any of the thousands of Cubans in South Florida: her family fled penniless when Fidel takes over, father and mother work menial jobs, put kids through school, etc. Her voice was shaking with anger; you could hear the spittle hit her cellphone. "IF MY FATHER HAD TO WORK HIS BUTT OFF WHY DO THESE DEADBEATS HAVE TO CUT IN LINE?" This attitude is very common down here – "we suffered, therefore every other group of immigrants must too."

immigrants who have "made it" can really be some of the most xenophobic people out there

Exploiting this resentment for political gain is exactly why conservative radio is so successful. Did Air America host any campaign last fall to force McCain, et al to pass the anti-torture amendment?

old immigrants be hatin on new immigrants shocker

lets revive the Know Nothing Party while we're at it

lol @ idea that illegal immigrants aren't suffering, working etc

(also lolz at "deadbeats" characterization - yeah, get my sheets whiter you lazy wetback)

Whenever Mom alludes to other immigrants, I ask her to change the subject – she's got no business talkign about it, I say.

But but but they broke the laaaaaaaaaaw! if we don't have respect for the rule of law, our civilization will be no better than that of the terrist middle east!

oh yeah, and pardon Scooter Libby.

This thread is not insanely biased and tail-spinning downward into group-think.

the people who are most negativey impacted by the economics of illegal immigration are the illegal immigrants!

Sorry, Shakey, I can't entirely agree with this. Most illegals in the USA come here to experience an economic benefit. The appropriate comparison is with their economic position in their country of origin, where they earn less and are not likely to have any greater protections from exploitation than they have here as illegals. The average impsct for them is positive, not negative.

The people who are most negatively impacted are US residents with marginal skill levels - meaning most high school graduates and dropouts - who must compete in a much larger labor pool for low-skilled jobs. Many of these people can recall a time (or have credibly heard about it) when there were unionized jobs on assembly lines, in construction, in meat-packing, or other employments where a high school diploma was plenty of qualification.

These workers have been hurt very badly by the busting of unions, the flight of manufacturing to Asia, and by the swelling of the cheap labor pool by immigrants. Because the official immigration policy has always been based on appearing to protect these people from immigrant competition, they resent the fact that the actual policy has been totally worthless in this regard.

It is an open question whether the official policy was ever workable, and whether illegal immigration has actually been much of a factor in their plight, compared to the flight of manufacturing and the loss of unions, but these folks do understand how the official policy was supposed to work, and how it has dismally failed them, and they are very angry.

This makes illegal immigration WAY more explosive as an issue than the WTO or NAFTA or globalization. The targets for the anger live in the same town, speak differently, look differently and are always there in front of their eyes. This makes them a much bigger target than those other, more nebulous enemies, like global finance, economic diplomacy or stockholders. The psychology is just too obvious and racism is often just a small piece of it.

This is also why the immigration debate is so touchy for politicians - because this constituency is easily big enough to count in elections, but they are also poor, not powerful, unpredictable, hard to win over and much easier to handle with cheap demagoguery than with giving them solutions to their problems. Trouble is, they are restive, and have been put off with demagoguery and no constituent service for a long time, so they need to be handled with kid gloves and this could quickly blow up in a politician's face if they mishandle this.

The targets for the anger live in the same town, speak differently, look differently and are always there in front of their eyes. This makes them a much bigger target than those other, more nebulous enemies, like global finance, economic diplomacy or stockholders. = racist scapegoating

The driving down of wages is a result of capitalism devaluing manual labor, no hapless immigrants are to blame - after all, since its inception capitalism has traditionally functioned using slave labor for these tasks, and the market is essentially continually trying to reassert this as the dominant economic model (cf. China). Blaming some poor Salvadoran dishwasher because the only job he's qualified to do isn't worth JACKSHIT because a) nobody wants to do it, and b) nobody thinks its worth paying for, is not the dishwasher's fault.

don't get me wrong, "high school graduates and dropouts who must compete in a much larger labor pool for low-skilled jobs" have been completely fucked by global capitalism. They can either blame their fellow workers, or they can blame people at the top who perpetuate this system for their own gain and actually call the shots (ie, the people who determine "hmmm, yes yr 8 hours of backbreaking labor are only worth $1.50 to me. And I wouldn't even pay you that if I could get away with it")

sorry to get all Marxist

1) Just because "we" were immigrants first doesn't entail anything about what our laws should be. So, this country was taken by force. So what? We're a country now, and we have to make laws based on being a country. We can't spend all of our time being guilty for things in the past and just saying, O, do whatever, we don't really belong here.

2) The argument that illegal immigrants don't cause economic negatives is far too simplistic. Why else would governments want to encourage high-skilled people? Because they pay more into the system than they take out. If we can bring immigrants into who perform cheap labor I have no problem with that at all, but it's not like a free flow across the border is without disadvantage. I may be wrong, of course, but to paint this reasoning as 'racist' is counterproductive.

Why else would governments want to encourage high-skilled people? Because they pay more into the system than they take out.

This is highly, highly debatable, particularly in America.

Well, then debate it. But this issue is too mired in platitudes on both sides that are completely unproductive toward coming up with a reasoned solution.

x-post

I don't understand your first point really - so you're okay with blatant hypocrisy? You're against advocating for the equal treatment of people in directly analogous and similar situations? You don't understand how treating others as you were treated is simple fairness?

As far as the highest paid people paying the most back into the system, um, you ARE aware of who pays the bulk of the taxes in this country?? (hint: its not the wealthiest 1%)

and frankly I don't think there IS a reasoned solution - you either accept that global capitalism requires near-slave-labor conditions to function and you're okay with that, or you think that's deeply fucked up and would like to see the system drastically restructured. I don't really see any logical in-between position.

Shakey, these straw-man statements are a waste of time. I'm not going here if it's going to get all pissy. Rather discuss marmots.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/dayart/movies/38497/38497_ab.jpg

what strawman where?

so you're okay with blatant hypocrisy?

You're against advocating for the equal treatment of people in directly analogous and similar situations?

You don't understand how treating others as you were treated is simple fairness?

MARMOTS

1) Just because "we" were immigrants first doesn't entail anything about what our laws should be. So, this country was taken by force. So what? We're a country now, and we have to make laws based on being a country. We can't spend all of our time being guilty for things in the past and just saying, O, do whatever, we don't really belong here.

seriously I have no idea what you're saying here. Why shouldn't past immigration policy inform current policy? Are we not supposed to learn from history, or treat others as we wished to be (and in fact were) treated? No one mentioned this country being taken by force (is that what you mean by a strawman argument?) When was the US not a country... who brought up pre-Declaration of Independence immigration policy (you couldn't even call it a policy, it was a free for-all...?) No one mentioned Native Americans or slavery or the colonists or whatever... Alfred's references to old immigrants hatin on new immigrants was in reference to his parents' coming here in the 20th century, which is totally relevant...?

I'm not trying to be pissy, it just seems we're at total cross-purposes here, I can't make heads or tails of your point.

OK. I am back again.

= racist scapegoating

This is too pat. Scapegoating implies that there is no logical connection between the presence of immigrants working in low-skill jobs and the economic problems being experienced by the low-skilled native born segment of the population. There is a connection and it is a connection that is obvious to the people who are saying they have a problem with so many illegal immigrants being here.

Next, I will quickly acknowledge that there can be a racist component to this. It is more evident in some people than in others, but it is there. But, again, the presence of racism does not imply the absence of a legitimate complaint. They coexist.

Next, the people who are rallying against immigrants might better spend their time pushing for greater regulation of capital, or other measures that would improve their situation more rapidly or more fundamentally. But, again, because there are bigger fish to fry doesn't imply they do not have any reason to fry this particular fish. They have a reason.

Next, just because the immigrants are the source of the problem doesn't mean the immigrants are to blame in some sense of their being immoral or criminal. Their desire to better themselves is not perverse or criminal and they show no signs of depravity, but on the contrary are hard working and law-abiding in general. What they have done is to act contrary to the stated policy of the US government regarding who may live here and who may not. As crimes go, this is non-existant.

In view of all this, the political debate now going on is mostly a smokescreen and filled with red herrings and distractions from the fundamental facts, but those facts are indeed being stated by some participants in this debate. If they were not, then there would be no good reason to pump out so much smoke.

The facts are that the US government repeatedly promised this segment of the population that it would act in a particular way (limiting immigration) and then has deliberately failed to act that way. The reason it failed to act was that it never intended to fullfill its publically-stated policy. It has failed to act in order to serve the interests of another segment of the population (employers), covertly and in collusion with them, as the real policy of the government.

This is obvious enough to anyone who looks at the facts. Twelve million 'illegal' immigrants do not live and work here because the government has taken effective action to enforce its intentions. They are glaring proof that not only did the government fail, not only did it not care to succeed, but it intende to fail. What other conclusion is possible?

So the low-skilled segment of the population is hopping mad about this. They were lied to. They know it. They are being lied to again. They know it. They want blood. The politicians will do whatever they can to offer them the blood of the immigrants rather than their own.

That is what the smokescreen and scapegoating is all about. Not everyone is buying it. But it won't help at all to dismiss the low-skilled working class as a bunch of racists for being mad and wanting action over this. They deserve some respect and they deserve the truth being stated to them and about them. The truth is the best way to defuse the anger and lead them to think more clearly about what to do.

Give them that much, Shakey. They've got a legitimate beef here.

While I agree with your model about how it affects the lower classes here, what is missing is how it also could potentially affect other classes (all classes). Now, this is open to debate, but without proper reference knee-jerk reactions are useless as responses, so get your research hats on.

Here is a new component to the model. Employers want workers, and since politicians respond most to employers, you are right that the intended policy is indeed in place (and is contrary to the stated policy). However, these workers, being low-skilled, are given wages that does not cover things like medical costs, etc., and as a result they take more from the social welfare system than they put in. This is particularly true if they are paid in cash and therefore are not taxed. Moreover, not only do healthy workers cross the border, but other people do as well, some with significant health problems (tuberculosis is a frequent example).

Do the employers care? No, because this is a pure externality to them. But it does affect the larger society as a whole.

Now you can debate whether this is wrong. Perhaps on balance immigrant workers provide more benefit to society than harm. In point of fact, illegal immigrants can still be taxed without declaring their status, and so they are funding the social security system in that way (a benefit).

The point? It is very reasonable to try to implement a system that allows the benefits whilst trying to reduce some of the costs. And therefore there is room in the middle somewhere - which is why I regret this bill not being passed.

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?threadID=6722&sortBy=1&edition=1&ttl=20070629032048

Yeah. This whole "no Amnesty deal" (like second comment down) is pissing me off. It's not feasible to throw everyone out. But if it can't be their way, it's no way. Fuckers.

It's depressing reading the BBC HYS page pretty much all the time, but now every nutjob who has ever posted is on that topic.

I'm just surprised the Daily Mail reading uk types aren't on it.

They are just doing what political entities do, which is try to leverage their power to the max and broker the best deal for themselves. Because they are a voting bloc with very little power aside from their votes, they can't apply pressure in back rooms or out of public view, so they come off as petulent and demanding, when making petulent demands is what employers do constantly, but with less publicity.

True, but the reality is that as long as "they" are so adamant about not allowing any amnesty, nothing at all will get done, which defeats "their" very purpose.

Spontaneous grassroots movments from the working class are not often very sophisticated. This yet another reason why politicians hate dealing with this sort of thing. They want a few leader-types they can sequester in a backroom and cut a deal with. There aren't any. This is more of a quasi-revolutionary uprising (though pretty reactionary - which genuine revolutions oftentimes are).