As if he didn’t have enough on his plate, President Obama now wants to tackle immigration reform. Obama plans to speak on the issue next month and then convene working groups to discuss possible legislation. The United States certainly needs a more orderly system and needs to figure out what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants already here. But isn’t there a limit to the number of difficult challenges that Congress and the administration can tackle at the same time?
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- writerdog on Let immigrants run
- Regular on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- SolDevVB on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Regular on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- writerdog on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Austrian_Economist on Goldman Sachs ‘apology’ hollow
145 Comments
There certainly is a limit of how much any legislative body can tackle at one time and give it the due process the issue requires. That has not really happened thus far in the Obama administration. We haven’t gone “line by line” nor have we seen the “five days before signing” period of bills being available to the public. Instead we get the media hyping these things and no legislators doing their jobs to the fullest. Slow down, Barry. Slow down.
It’s called “open and transparent”. Yeah right.
You always know what the dims are up to. It’s 180 degrees from what they say they will do.
“The United States certainly needs a more orderly system and needs to figure out what to do with the millions of illegal immigrants already here.”
_______________________
How about we send them ALL back to where they came from? Starting out as lawbreakers isn’t a good sign.
Time to put his ‘big boy pants’ on. O’Bama is the Prez now and has all of the responsibility to take care of the problems of the U.S.
Send em’ packing!
Americans need the jobs.
“ANTI
Posted April 9, 2009 at 1:49 pm | Permalink
Send em’ packing!
Americans need the jobs.”
Any Americans needing a job… my lawn needs mowed. I will pay the federal minimum wage.
Let me know if any American’s needing a job are interested.
“How about we send them ALL back to where they came from? Starting out as lawbreakers isn’t a good sign.”
What about the ones who came over when they were 5 and are completely assimilated into American culture? Rip them from their senior year of high school and send them back across the border to a country their utterly unfamiliar with?
What about the illegal parents of the “anchor babies”? Should we revoke citizenship for the “anchor babies” or just break apart these families?
their=they’re
Any Americans needing a job… my lawn needs mowed. I will pay the federal minimum wage.
—————–
I’ll pay $2 over min. wage.
If you break the law there are consequences.
If there are no consequences there is no law, Wahine_Tara.
What about the ones who came over when they were 5 and are completely assimilated into American culture? Rip them from their senior year of high school and send them back across the border to a country their utterly unfamiliar with?
What about the illegal parents of the “anchor babies”? Should we revoke citizenship for the “anchor babies” or just break apart these families?
=================
Tara, their parents put them in that situation, not the American Citizen.
Should you prosecute a child molester after 10 years have passed?
That’s the official line?
It’s okay to take a thriving, college bound teenager who can’t speak Spanish that well and send her back to a s-hole in Mexico, because it’s her parents fault?
Is that American? (sigh)?
Still haven’t answered the citizenship question. Should we revoke anchor baby citizenship or just place them in the foster care system?
I was born here, but had my parents brought me here from India at 2, I would be just as American as I am now. I still wouldn’t speak a lick of Tamil or know any of the customs. I can’t believe you’d be perfectly fine sending a 17-year old me to such an unfamiliar, foreign and scary environment.
You do realize there’s an in-between position, don’t you?
Maybe give illegal immigrants who arrived here under the age of 16-18 a path towards citizenship?
Dunno what you’d do about revoking citizenship though…I can’t see any court reconciling our constitution and a idea based in xenophobia.
Or! How about illegals who graduated from a Kansas high school can have a path towards citizenship?
Oh wait, you guys hate that idea.
Unbelieveable.
Maybe give illegal immigrants who arrived here under the age of 16-18 a path towards citizenship?
Their parents had (in your scenario) over a decade to do so. Why didn’t they?
“Their parents had (in your scenario) over a decade to do so. Why didn’t they?”
It’s impossible to legally immigrate from Mexico unless you’re highly skilled. Thousands of visas are denied each day. For most, it’s a matter of crossing illegally or living in dire conditions. Not saying it’s right, but explaining why getting their kids visas in those 10 years didn’t happen.
But you keep focusing on the parents, and you’re ignorning the very real situation of the child.
Should children be punished for their parents’ mistakes?
Somewhere, at some point, following the letter of the law needs to take a backseat to common sense.
Promoting anchor babies will make the situation worse, Tara.
Why have laws about it at all then? Just open up the borders.
Good Luck, Mr. President.
If you think a slick speech will help here, you’re wrong; there is no simple answer. We cannot, even if we wanted to, just “send em [all] packing.” It’s simply not realistically possible. Neither can we hope to successfully seal the southern border; smugglers will poke holes in it, over it, under it, and around it faster than we can build any “seal.”
And the problem cannot be dealt with without enforcing our own laws and cracking down on employers who employ illegals, with associated costs to businesses, consumers, and workers.
There must be economic development in Mexico as part of any solution; after all, jobs are why illegals come here in the first place. But unless Mexico can begin to become less of a kleptocracy, that is going to be difficult to fix. It’s hard to send economic aid and be responsible in its use to a nation where bribery, kickbacks, and payoffs are an accepted and normal part of public life, and much of the aid is simply skimmed off by the powerful and connected.
A solution, if there is one, must include all of the above, and more. And we have to do it without making being Hispanic a shorthand for illegal; we must do so in a way that protects the civil rights of all our citizens, including those of Hispanic heritage.
This is a huge job, Mr. President, and one with relatively little political payoff and potentially huge costs. I know you believe you’re the smartest guy in the room, but there is a limit to the issues one can deal with at a time. There is plenty to deal with now; this one may have to wait.
—
One more thing. Drop this irresponsible and dishonest administration line that gun owners and gun dealers in the US are supplying the Mexican cartels with their weapons. We both know that it is blatently and provably false; the vast majority of the cartel’s weapons come from an international black market in arms readily available to those willing to traffic in same illegally – and from Mexican police and military personnel who are paid off or desert their duties, taking their weapons with them.
We have seen millions of Americans in recent months buy up firearms and ammunition in record amounts, stoked by their distrust (a distrust you have thoroughly earned) of your administration on 2nd amendment issues. Every statement by your administration blaming Americans for the violence and hinting at new weapons bans on this issue just stokes those flames. There is no doubt to me that any attempt to use this issue as a backdoor attack on the 2nd Amendment by instituting a new weapons ban, such as the previous “assault weapons” ban, will fail, and will carry a heavy political price. Bill Clinton’s ban accomplished nothing except make the AR-15 platform the most popular rifle platform in the country, and you are rapidly eclipsing Clinton as a gun salesman – a distinction I doubt you seek. You cannot deal with the Mexican cartels and their tendancy toward violence by disarming Americans; nor will millions of Americans tolerate same.
You want to be a uniter? Let it go; state right now that while you will do all you can to intercept any guns moving south to Mexico, there will be no new restrictions on firearms rights in the US. And MEAN IT.
Okay, in that case you guys better work on amending the Constitution before you start hollering about anchor babies.
How many votes and how long would it take for ours to look like, say, Greece’s?
http://www.immigrationcitizenship.eu/2005/12/greek-citizenship.html
Do you honestly see this happening, or do you condone unconstitutionally revoking citizenship of anchor babies?
“Come to America illegally, have a baby, and we’ll let you stay!”
Yeah, that will solve the problem, Tara.
Our policy should be,
“You come here illegally, we catch you, we will send you home. You have already proven you can not play by the rules of this country.”
That’s it.
“GMC70″ –
This is an oldie but a goodie.
http://www.cerbslair.com/ltcc/lawsuit.html
But I think you’ll like it.
““Come to America illegally, have a baby, and we’ll let you stay!”
Yeah, that will solve the problem, Tara.”
You are refusing to address my questions.
1. Do you support unconstitutionally revoking/denying citizenship to anchor babies?
2. If no, what is the first step in changing the Constitution to avoid “anchor baby citizenship”? How long will this take?
3. Meanwhile, do you prefer that anchor babies are placed into foster care or unconstitutionally booted from the country based on their parents status?
You guys are always full of hot air and opinions, but no meat.
“You come here illegally, we catch you, we will send you home. You have already proven you can not play by the rules of this country.”
Also, is a 2 year old capable of “not playing by the rules of this country” when it’s hauled over here by its parents?
Also, is a 2 year old capable of “not playing by the rules of this country” when it’s hauled over here by its parents?
——————
They go home with their parents.
Wahine_Tara
Posted April 9, 2009 at 3:46 pm | Permalink
““Come to America illegally, have a baby, and we’ll let you stay!”
Yeah, that will solve the problem, Tara.”
You are refusing to address my questions.
1. Do you support unconstitutionally revoking/denying citizenship to anchor babies?
2. If no, what is the first step in changing the Constitution to avoid “anchor baby citizenship”? How long will this take?
3. Meanwhile, do you prefer that anchor babies are placed into foster care or unconstitutionally booted from the country based on their parents status?
——————-
Make the parents decide, they are responsible for their children.
X,
“How about we send them ALL back to where they came from? Starting out as lawbreakers isn’t a good sign.”
That plan had a 96% approval rating among Native Americans. Start packing!
That plan had a 96% approval rating among Native Americans. Start packing!
=======================
Good thing I’ve got Injine blood in me!
“They go home with their parents.”
Take a young adult completely assimilated into American culture with a bright future ahead of her and send her back to the dumps? How very Christian of you. How very loving.
There is no difference between a child born here and a child arriving here at age 2, except for the actions of the parents. Why do you punish one so severely enough to deny her entire future?
This is just a difference in philosophy and there’s no need to argue it further. I believe our courts need to employ compassion and common sense and evaluate situations like this on a case-by-case basis.
Luckily, the courts agree with me, which is why you very rarely have situations that I’m describing. Kids who have been here all of their life and are productive in society often can gain citizenship.
“Make the parents decide, they are responsible for their children.”
This, absolutely, does not answer any of the questions.
Let’s try this one at a time:
1. Do you support unconstitutionally revoking/denying citizenship to anchor babies?
“Make the parents decide, they are responsible for their children.”
This, absolutely, does not answer any of the questions.
====================
I thought it answered it perfectly.
I stand by it.
Ant,
“Good thing I’ve got Injine blood in me!”
But do you have enough to meet whatever standards they’d set?
But do you have enough to meet whatever standards they’d set?
===============
Dunno, what are the standards in place now?
BTW, I don’t own a Casino….don’t know if that helps.
You support illegally deporting American citizens based on their parents’ status?
You know that won’t happen, right? It’s just a wet dream inside your head–kick out the brown Americans!
American citizens have rights, I’m sorry you dislike that fact.
And an anchor baby citizen is no different than you or me.
In which case I’ve been wasting my time. All that really was needed here was a “HA HA!”
You know that won’t happen, right? It’s just a wet dream inside your head–kick out the brown Americans!
=====================
I said nothing of Brown people except that I have Indian (feather) blood.
Don’t get so emotional.
This isn’t a ‘Woman’s Day’ blog.
;-)
Jed,
I do own a bow and can ride the schitt out of a horse. I was also born in America.
I guess technically my older sister is an anchor baby since she was born while my dad still had his HB1 visa.
Clearly she should deported back to India right this second! Rip her out of medical school. Her husband and kids can stay, though, they’re not brown-looking at all.
Without spinning off into one-world idealism, doesn’t this issue have a lot to say about the silliness of borders in the first place?
I think the Simpsons did a bit about the utter idiocy of standing at the Four Corners border between Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico.
There was a horrific case in Kansas City a few years ago. Some guy was caught in a speed trap on State Line Road and pursued by a KCMO cop. The genius figured if he drove on the left side of the center line the Missouri cops couldn’t ticket him because he was out of their jurisdiction.
So he sped on in the wrong lane hit a mini-van head-on and killed a mother and five children… and himself.
Okay….
Darwin’s theory at work with the speeder. But six other fatal consequences because of an idiot’s misunderstanding the concept of borders, jurisdiction….
I said that to say this:
There are unintended consequences to every “easy” answer. And immigration is one of ‘em.
And that, bottom line, is evidence why CONs are facing such desperate problems these days.
They used to be able to compartmentalize specific issues into bumper-sticker slogans.
“Drill Here! Drill Now!” comes to mind.
Clearly she should deported back to India right this second! Rip her out of medical school. Her husband and kids can stay, though, they’re not brown-looking at all.
=====================
Oh the drama!
Without spinning off into one-world idealism, doesn’t this issue have a lot to say about the silliness of borders in the first place?
=====================
You just did.
Who gets to decide which American citizens can stay in America and which cannot?
I’d like to volunteer myself for the position.
“They used to be able to compartmentalize specific issues into bumper-sticker slogans.”
Seriously true.
That’s why when you’re geared up for a satisfying, full-on debate and demand well thought-out answers to specific issues–you end up disappointed and left with meaningless, empty, but patriotic-sounding snippets like
“Make the parents decide, they are responsible for their children”
Happens every time (sad).
Wahine_Tara,
I don’t know what you’re so worried about, the damn laws aren’t really being enforced anyway.
Obama will probably open the gates to more criminals to enter our country.
Tara, as with most dems, I doubt you really care about the people as much as the potential new voting block.
Quit covering it up with false emotion.
Anti-
I realize that common sense will prevail and your battle is a losing one. But all I want is the logical consequences of this mindset:
“How about we send them ALL back to where they came from? Starting out as lawbreakers isn’t a good sign.”
explained to me.
I’d like to hear your guys’s side beyond this parroting “it’s the LAW” and “anchor babies rewards LAWbreaking and should be BANNED!”
Consider it a sign of respect that I’m working to actually try and understand your position and all it entails. How far are you willing to go to enforce your one-line ideals?
Something I actually agree with MH on:
There are unintended consequences to every “easy” answer. And immigration is one of ‘em.
Yup.
Though usually liberals don’t think so. They generally believe they can simply legislate a fix to any problem; there’a a solution to every problem, and gov’t has it (and it usually requires picking someone’s pocket). And as a general rule, they ignore the realities of unintended consequences, because they ignore the realities of human nature.
Here, however, MH is right. There are no easy answers, and each answer (or part of any answer) is loaded with consequences we are unwilling to accept. Tara’s exactly right, the “anchor baby” problem is a constitutional one, and is not subject to a “send em back” fix; nor are we going to separate families willy-nilly.
However, MH, this issue does not fit your usual (entirely arbitrary and blatantly partisan self-serving) “con = bad” mantra. Some, if not most, issues do not divide neatly into conservative/liberal answers; this one more than most. The neat easy boxes MH seeks to put people in aren’t nearly that neat or easy in the real world, but it makes it easer for MH to simply assign those he disagrees with in the “con = bad” box, demonize his opponent, and fire away. A tactic he’s dutifully learned from his masters at DU and DailyKos.
It don’t fit here, if it really ever fit anywhere.
Tara,
You and I will always disagree on this matter, that is just the way it is.
As far as explaining my position, I think I have done that as simply as I know how. It isn’t complicated to understand.
Monk,
I was recently thinking of what Pablo Casals, the world-famous cellist once said; “If patriotism is such a wonderful thing, why should it stop at the border?”
As a child of (legal) immigrants, perhaps I can sympathize with children of ALL immigrants born here.
I look different, I look Indian. But if you sent me back to India 8 years ago I would have been completely, utterly lost. Incapable of working or being productive or contributing to my new “home”. All my hopes for college, gone! I am culturally no different than a 2 year old brought here by illegal parents. That “illegal” now-17 year old is not at fault and should not be punished. He or she should be allowed a path to citizenship.
I am really thinking of the children here.
And I get worked up over the anchor baby thing because I have a hard-on for the Constitution. I know, how silly of me.
“ANTI” –
Your problem is it IS complicated.
Even “GMC70″ agrees with me on this one! (A miracle on the order of the Loaves and Fishes.)
But you choose tidy little bumper-sticker slogans and opt to not figure out the real-world consequences.
I have a hard-on for the Constitution.
===========================
All this time I thought you were a foxy lady from Hawaii…not a dude.
But seriously, I respect your position and I do agree with some of your points.
Monk,
“Drill Here! Drill Now!”
Isn’t that the slogan of the ADA?
Monkeyhawk
Posted April 9, 2009 at 4:41 pm | Permalink
“ANTI” –
Your problem is it IS complicated.
=========================
Monkeyhawk,
I’m not a cold hearted b@stard, but I do play one sometimes on this blog.
Ick, I should not be so vulgar especially during Great Lent.
I meant, I have a profound respect for the Constitution.
Also, of course I believe in exceptions to the rule.
However in general, if you break the law you need to face the consequences.
Our current set of immigration laws were founded in racism and can’t be meaningfully reformed. They need to be rewritten from the ground up.
In today’s world of computerized records and instant gun checks, there is no reason an application for legal immigration should take more than 90 days to be approved. And since the cons are so enamored of free markets, there’s no need for quotas. Let the market decide!
I think bush solved the illegal problem when he wrecked the economy, the illegals were last seen heading towards the border.
Jed
Posted April 9, 2009 at 4:50 pm | Permalink
Our current set of immigration laws were founded in racism
====================
Bull Schitt!
Well, as long as you can agree there must be room for exceptions and case-by-case analysis then we have no beef.
Clearly the first things (almost) all of us can agree on is tightening border security and harshly punishing employers of illegal immigrants.
Or we could annex Mexico! Then we’d have Cozumel!
#
Do you support unconstitutionally revoking/denying citizenship to anchor babies?
#
I’m sorry, truly. But yes.
Mexico desperately needs revolution. That cannot happen when those who would be the revolutionaries are here.
We should have penalties for hiring illegals similar to those for possessing drugs. If you are caught employing an illegal in anything including contract labor, you lose everything. Is that a Mexican mowing your yard? You lose your house. Dragging our own people down to the the work standards and compensation of what Mexicans are willing to accept will not help Mexico get better.
Wahine_Tara,
So you are a chick, right?
;)
Ant,
Our current set of immigration laws was passed specifically to keep out Chinese laborers. They’ve been revised a few times since, but the racism is so endemic to it that it hasn’t and can’t be completely eliminated. We have to start over from scratch or simply eliminate our immigration laws altogether. Or we can stay racist, as some here obviously would prefer.
What is more racist?
Expecting people to fix their own country?
Or exploiting their desperation?
Mexico desperately needs revolution. That cannot happen when those who would be the revolutionaries are here.
Revolution is a very dangerous thing. We were quite lucky; we were blessed with exceptional leadership at the right moment, and had a history and tradition that arose out of the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights that we could adapt to fit our needs.
And, to say it again, we were quite lucky.
Most revolutions aren’t nearly so lucky; in most cases, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss” is the norm. Or worse.
So, JR, be careful what you wish for.
BTW – here’s a classic example of where the usual left/right distinctions do not fit on this issue. JR is a self-described liberal, though by his rantings here he would be hard to peg as anything but self-absorbed and full of hate.
“#
“How about we send them ALL back to where they came from? Starting out as lawbreakers isn’t a good sign.”
That plan had a 96% approval rating among Native Americans. Start packing!
#
Actually, this is a misconception that I can use to better illustrate the problem.
The early settlers cooperated with the native Americans and actually compensated them for their land.
But the settlers kept coming.
If Mexico is not repaired, their people will continue to come here.
“Revolution is a very dangerous thing.”
Only for those who stand to lose from it.
And that IS the other shoe here isn’t it?
If Mexico falls into Revolution, the most likely outcome is a Government more accountable to the people. GASP! Why they might even try socialism!
There are powerful forces in America that do not want a successful Mexico ESPECIALLY if it means a socialist neighbor.
“ANTI
Posted April 9, 2009 at 4:59 pm | Permalink
Wahine_Tara,
So you are a chick, right?
;)”
No, (s)he is a guy. Are you rethinking your choice to be heterosexual?
““Meet the new boss, same as the old boss” is the norm. Or worse.”
I doubt you can argue that the Mexican people could end up with much worse than what they have now.
#
ANTI
Posted April 9, 2009 at 4:59 pm | Permalink
Wahine_Tara,
So you are a chick, right?
;)
————————
Wahine_Tara is a chick babe. She make you go sizzle mon.
I’m a chick…I might even be called a lady in some circles.
I’m not much of a lady on this blog, I know :D
If Mexico falls into Revolution, the most likely outcome is a Government more accountable to the people.
Sorry, no.
Learn some history, JR. If Mexico falls into revolution, the most likely outcome is a dictatorial strongman, propped up by those with power, money, and connections, and backed by a military which seeks order – and the status quo – above all else. It will be accompanied by millions of people fleeing over the borders on a scale far surpassing what we have seen.
Most revolutions, as genuine forces of social change, are abject failures. We were lucky, and our revolution was in a real sense more evolution than revolution. It did not seek genuine social change (though that has come, and it has been quite revolutionary, over some 200 years of evolutionary – and sometimes violent – change) as much as a change in those who would lead the society.
And revolutionary socialism, BTW, has killed more human beings over the last century than anything else. Ask the millions of victims of Lenin, Stalin, Castro, etc. how that revolution turned out. Ask the millions of victims of Pol Pot how their revolution turned out.
Be VERY careful what you wish for.
And, BTW, the fact that you invariably ascribe nefarious motives to others, that they take the positions they take because they must profit from those policies speaks volumes about you, JR. It’s called projection. Learn all about it.
JR’s comment shows that this issue is not red and blue, right and left, religious or secular.
It’s deeply divisive, so much that people here are actually condoning depriving American citizens of their rights to the point where they cannot live here anymore.
Why? For a reason completely beyond their control.
I can’t think of anything more scary than that.
JR, weren’t you one of the most vocal opponents of wiretapping because you believe in the rights of American citizens?
Also, weren’t you one of the ones (rightfully) accusing Bush of p-ssing on the Constitution?
It’s okay to p-ss on the Constitution when it pleases you?
I doubt you can argue that the Mexican people could end up with much worse than what they have now.
Oh yes, it could. They could end up with a Marxist-Leninist; a fascist dressed in the cloth of “equality” and “socialism.” We know how that turns out.
No matter how bad the frying pan is, there is a fire underneath it. Things can always get worse.
GMC70
Posted April 9, 2009 at 4:29 pm | Permalink
Something I actually agree with MH on:
There are unintended consequences to every “easy” answer. And immigration is one of ‘em.
Yup.
Though usually liberals don’t think so. They generally believe they can simply legislate a fix to any problem; there’a a solution to every problem, and gov’t has it (and it usually requires picking someone’s pocket). And as a general rule, they ignore the realities of unintended consequences, because they ignore the realities of human nature.
======================================
GMC you had some outstanding posts on this topic.
I disagree with this last statement though.
I think the Liberal Leadership is very aware of the realities of human nature. They are not ignoring those realities, they are taking advantage of those realities and playing the US like a giant fiddle.
As an example, SURELY Obama & Co knowS that their Multi-Trillion Dollar bailouts and trek toward Socialism are going to fail – at least in terms of economic recovery.
They know human nature, when faced with Socialism, results in LESS productivity and economic failure.
Economic failure, followed by more economic failure is exactly what they need to justify more Government interventions (and controls) which will nearly guarantee the continued Power of their party.
Their goal is control and power for themselves – founded on the basic human nature elements of GREED & SUPEREGO.
They are NOT ignoring human nature, they are using it.
And they are not overlooking unintended consequences, they are COUNTING on them.
Hard to believe that things could be worse then they are now, unless you’ve learned just a little bit about HISTORY.
That’s why CHANGE for CHANGE SAKE is usually a bad thing.
MY concern is first for the American people.
My secondary concern is the continued failed nation of Mexico and the generational exploitation of its people.
Hey? I can take care of my worries. But I have to be a racist to do it.
Legalize everybody. Make them all citizens tomorrow.
The folks who speak English will win that race to the bottom.
No, Jim, I don’t think so. I do not ascribe to the administration any evil, nefarious plotting to install a socialist dictatorship. I believe he is doing, as did his predecessor, what he believes is the right thing to do, at least as far as the political system will permit.
That you – and I, so a significant degree – disagree as to what the right thing to do is does not change that. I think that the Obama administration THINKS they understand human nature, I just think that they are wrong.
But I will not ascribe evil intent. I simply disagree.
“I doubt you can argue that the Mexican people could end up with much worse than what they have now.
Oh yes, it could. They could end up with a Marxist-Leninist; a fascist dressed in the cloth of “equality” and “socialism.” We know how that turns out.”
Why are you opposed to letting them try?
The Government that they have is such that they have been fleeing their own country for half a century.
MY concern is first for the American people.
No, JR, your first concern is for yourself. And your image here.
To a certain extent, that is the first concern of all of us; that is indeed human nature. But the fact that you ascribe said motives to others, to a degree that implies that our motives on complex issues are shaped entirely by our self-serving interests, speaks to your drives far more than to others. We tend to assume others are like us.
In other words, you’re projecting again. And lying to yourself.
I can tell that a lot of folks here on this blog haven’t spent much time on/around the Laredo Highway areas in Texas that has a direct shot to Mexico. :)
Socialism isn’t inherently evil?
Forcefully taking property from one group and giving to another (because they care and/or that’s how they buy their votes) is not evil?
Forcefully taking over corporations is not evil?
GMC70
Posted April 9, 2009 at 6:01 pm | Permalink
In other words, you’re projecting again. And lying to yourself.
=========================================
The enemy you seek to hate may be the man in the mirror.
The Social Engineers actually BELIEVE they can make economic choices better then Free People in a Free Market?
And then taking away the Freedom of People is NOT evil?
“JimJohnson
Posted April 9, 2009 at 6:03 pm | Permalink
Socialism isn’t inherently evil?
Forcefully taking property from one group and giving to another (because they care and/or that’s how they buy their votes) is not evil?
Forcefully taking over corporations is not evil?”
Both of those happen under capitalism (as it has been practiced in the United States of America since our country’s founding).
And neither is a principal part of socialism.
I’m not personalizing my criticism of the state of affairs to you GMC.
I can.
All that cheap labor with NO bothersome Government regulated wages and working conditions, what party and way of thinking does that lend a hand?
Why that helps out the “free” market doesn’t it. THE high church of the Republican party? Never mind broken Mexico and its exploited people. Those people are USEFUL. They depress wages and working conditions. Why be satisfied with one country that has been broken by unrestricted capitalism when you can get two at the same price?
“JimJohnson
Posted April 9, 2009 at 6:08 pm | Permalink
The Social Engineers actually BELIEVE they can make economic choices better then Free People in a Free Market?
And then taking away the Freedom of People is NOT evil?”
There is no such thing as a truly free market in the world today. Your utopian view does not account for reality.
Why are you opposed to letting them try?
Because history tells us, over and over again, the results of the kind of revolution you appear to advocate. And it’s not pretty. It’s led to the death of hundreds of millions over the last century, in nation after nation, all justified for the greater good. Those who lead such revolutions are generally not interested in the greater good, of course, they’re interested in power for its own sake, and use the language of equality and justice as justification for their acts.
In the name of liberty, equality, and fraternity, the French Revolution sent tens of thousands to the guillotine, and condemned hundreds of thousands to death in the counterrevolutions and wars which followed. And that’s not the historical exception, that’s the rule. It’s happened time and again.
WE were the historical exception. And we were blessed with history, exceptional talent in leadership, and a great deal of luck.
We often speak, among the circles I tread, that America is built on 4 boxes: the soapbox, the ballot box, the jury box, and the ammo box. There’s a lot of truth in that. But we also understand that one should be very careful to not open the 4th unless the other three are absolutely beyond operation or salvage. Because once you do, all bets are off.
Most revolutions are bloody, nasty affairs which rarely end in the ostensible goals of the revolutionaries being reached. Why would you wish that on Mexico?
The enemy you seek to hate may be the man in the mirror.
I do not ascribe nefarious intentions to others. You do. Heal thyself, sir.
I believe I have already stated why it is you want Mexico to remain broken GMC. And you may rest well assured that absent revolution, it will remain broken. You may get to witness it pull down your own country too.
But from your lofty perch, you probably won’t realize it until it is too late.
I believe I have already stated why it is you want Mexico to remain broken GMC.
Why, pray tell, is that?
In its revolution, the United States was “blessed” mainly in geography.
Have you not stopped to think that now, it may be geography that curses us?
“they’re interested in power for its own sake, and use the language of equality and justice as justification for their acts.”
Spare me the nobility and good intentions of the balance of the founding fathers. THEY wrote their pretty words (most of them) with just as much eye toward taking care of themselves and their own. It was only time and death changed that.
My preference in choosing between socialism and feudalism goes in favor of socialism. Mexico shows us a form of feudalism derivative of plutocracy. You might reconsider what it is YOU wish for. Revolutions postponed are often bigger and nastier than they need have been. Drag the working people of the United States down to the status of the Mexican people and you may get a revolution closer to home.
BlueJay
Posted April 9, 2009 at 5:51 pm | Permalink
MY concern is first for the American people.
My secondary concern is the continued failed nation of Mexico and the generational exploitation of its people.
Hey? I can take care of my worries. But I have to be a racist to do it.
Legalize everybody. Make them all citizens tomorrow.
The folks who speak English will win that race to the bottom.
———————-
As BJ says his concern is for the American people and that there aren’t enough paying taxes to keep him up in the style to which he want to become accustomed. Bring in all of those new tax payers. As Margaret Thacher said ‘the problem with socialism is that eventually you will run out of other peoples money’.
On one of the blogs I visit one of the posters hit the nail on the head. “In today’s world all Socialistic nations need a Capitalistic engine to pull them along. Our Government is messing with our engine.”
I still like the idea of a wall. Technology of today can make a huge difference with an entire border protected.
Discussion of what to do with those already in, reminds of being on a rowboat, frantically bailing out water with cups – while the water continues to flood in the hole in the bottom.
I make my own way and OFTEN against people who exploit illegal aliens there okie.
YOU of course exploit and intimidate prisoners to
“keep you up in the style to which he want to become accustomed.”
As made many times clear, my preference is that the Mexican people fix their own country. Failing that, measures must be taken to prevent them participating willingly or otherwise in the destruction of this one.
BlueJay
Posted April 9, 2009 at 6:34 pm | Permalink
Drag the working people of the United States down to the status of the Mexican people and you may get a revolution closer to home.
=======================================
That is our present direction.
BJ, you make your own way?
Who pays for your son’s health insurance?
GMC70
Posted April 9, 2009 at 6:17 pm | Permalink
The enemy you seek to hate may be the man in the mirror.
I do not ascribe nefarious intentions to others. You do. Heal thyself, sir.
=========================
I guess you never deal with motives in your line of work.
It takes a village “Jim”.
This is not at odds with my beliefs now or in the recent past. I was for national health care when I had insurance.
There is ONE thing I find particularly troubling about this decades long wave of desperate people.
While they apparently don’t have the pride or at least the means to fix their own country, they seem to retain a pride and a nationalism for it. That’s not unprecedented in history and the results for the host country have never been good. The irony of refugees as conquering invaders?
MY ancestors, well some of them anyway, had to renounce their former country and swear fealty to the King. These people present in one country with ties to another and not particularly invested in either, that may be something new.
they seem to retain a pride and a nationalism for it,
a lot like the Irish.
BlueJay
Posted April 9, 2009 at 7:27 pm | Permalink
It takes a village “Jim”.
This is not at odds with my beliefs now or in the recent past. I was for national health care when I had insurance.
————————————–
It takes the ENTIRE VILLAGE with ALL INDIVIDUALS working hard to support themselves.
Otherwise, the bottom feeders become lazy and suck off the teet of their benevolent provider Government who steals from those who work, and gives to those who don’t.
It takes the ENTIRE VILLAGE with ALL INDIVIDUALS working hard to support themselves.
Divide and exploit? Yeah 12 million more pairs of hands helps that. Here is where I imagine it gets tricky if you are a con in thinking about the illegals.
The sense of nationalism bumps up against the religion of the free market. The TRULY soulless, like GMC defer to the market. But it has to be one big dilemma for the flag waving crowd.
You might reconsider what it is YOU wish for. Revolutions postponed are often bigger and nastier than they need have been. Drag the working people of the United States down to the status of the Mexican people and you may get a revolution closer to home.
—–
It’s apparant, JR, you don’t have a clue what I wish for; the fact is, you don’t know me at all. You project onto me what you perceive to be your “enemy,” and then pour your emnity and bitterness out on it. That is your problem, not mine.
What you wish for, it appears, is a false choice between “between socialism and feudalism,” and only shows you are blinded by your ideological hatred. And you’re willing to justify the deaths of perhaps thousands (or, God forbid, more) of Mexicans to satisfy your ideological perceptions. How convenient for you. And too bad for the poor souls you so easily wish violence upon.
Your particular brand of colored glasses are tinged, if you get your way, not with roses but with blood.
Be VERY careful what you wish for; you just might get it. And remember that most revolutions very quickly spin out of control. We were blessed in many ways; Mexico is unlikely to be so lucky.
But you don’t give a damn. As long as you get your revolution.
And you have the audacity to refer to ME as “soulless.”
Sir, heal thyself. And drag that railroad tie out of your own eye.
And YOU “sir” are content to see a broken nation remain broken and an exploited people made into a generational commodity. Same as it ever was. That is so inexplicable that it requires me to go looking for an explanation and I think I’m close enough to have made you uncomfortable.
There are less violent forms of revolution. America could look very much like Mexico if not for them. Labor unions and a discontented people can bring change. IF the people don’t have another country to run away to. IF they do continue to come here, the progress won by American workers can be lost.
And that is about right where you must live. There can be no other reason for defending such a lamentable status quo.
The charge of soulless stands. Unlike many on the right, you don’t even care enough about your own country to care that it is effectively being invaded. I guess because that invasion does not touch you. Yet. What in the world DO you care about?
It CLEARLY is not the Mexican people. Your protests to the contrary that they will perish or suffer in revolution? A fate to be avoided I suppose for something far worse.
HERE is where you pretend to hide. This is where many of my liberal friends are at but their concern is honest. You would “spare’ the Mexican people revolution and my more liberal friends would welcome them here to escape their suffering.
But this does the refugee no kindness. You for your reasons and liberals for more charitable ones would condemn the Mexican people to a perpetually failed homeland and status as a caste of workers with rights little more than those of a slave. Condemned from generation to generation to continue to support the same government that ruins their country WHILE they toil to undermine their own rights and compensation in this one.
Mexico is not broken.
You’re caught up in a false choice, JR, limited by your own ideological blinders and your endless hatred for anyone who dares disagree with you.
And now carefully moving the goalposts, I note.
You’re not worth the trouble, JR. I’ll save discussion for one with the ability to see beyond his own blinders.
Again, you have no idea who I am. I don’t think you know who you are, either. You only know what you hate, and your hate defines you. You’re to be pitied, JR.
“Again, you have no idea who I am.”
You’re someone who drives a crappy pickup.
Your position GMC, DOES have the interesting but disgusting quality of being new.
In a sick sort of way.
I grant you, land mines on the border or total amnesty are EXTREME measures.
You are the first person I seem to find that advocates NO measures. Oh you said something about economic development in Mexico. But thing is we let folks like you try that with NAFTA. It helped the Mexicans only until you found yourself some REAL slave labor over in China. There was no enforcement of the promised environmental and worker protections. And the American jobs went, just like they were supposed to. But the lot of the Mexican people did not improve a bit.
Doing nothing treats the Mexican people and their nation as if they ARE nothing. Either we send them home to fix their country or we nationalize them here, force them to accept it, maintain the fruits of their labor and so kill from afar their corrupt and broken government.
On a lighter note, JR, something just for you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvKIWjnEPNY
See anyone who reminds you of you?
“But the lot of the Mexican people did not improve a bit.” — Blue Jay
Most of them have a better lot than we do. GAWD: the dumbness.
“Mexico is not broken.”
Well no, in a way it isn’t.
Mexico at least as far as the people in charge have found themselves one helluva scam.
The Mexican government can live off the fruits of its people’s labor and not only owe them nothing back at all but actually outsource all obligation to them to some happy similar folks next door.
It’s creeping plutocracy and we have enough of that.
You are the first person I seem to find that advocates NO measures.
And you, sir, are either illiterate or an idiot (I know, I know, readers. Tough call . . . ).
I’ve made no such statement. I wrote extensively above; you simply choose to ignore it, and instead project what you hate onto someone else.
That is your problem, not mine. I have no problem sleeping at night. And I don’t nurture hatred, and trot it out here like a prize. That, sir, is your gig.
“I have no problem sleeping at night.”
In that, I have every confidence.
Doing nothing treats the Mexican people and their nation as if they ARE nothing. Either we send them home to fix their country or we nationalize them here, force them to accept it, maintain the fruits of their labor and so kill from afar their corrupt and broken government. JR aka BJ
======================================
I see BJ is very concerned about the Mexican people.
FORCE them to accept Nationalism here (after Obama completes HIS plan) OR force the Mexicans to go back to Mexican Nationalism.
Either way, they and we are all sc rewed.
JR, you for or against Mexicans coming to America for opportunity?
BlueJay
Posted April 9, 2009 at 9:35 pm | Permalink
maintain the fruits of their labor
======================================
I missed this! JR would have Obama maintain the fruits of Mexican labor? Confiscate their income?
Ahhh, a true Socialist!
Mexicans are welcome here as long as ‘WE’ can spend THEIR money.
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”
That’s one of your favorite lines isn’t it GMC?
Beats thinking I guess.
You made this personal before I did. But I can play there.
I think your problem comes from the fact that you ARE in some form, “the boss”.
You have the certainty that comes from the letter of the law. It spares you from imagination or empathy. THAT’S how you can see people that suffer and those who exploit them and conclude, ‘That’s just the way it is”.
Don’t read what isn’t there “Jim”.
The Mexicans who come here because of their failed and corrupt government are the number one source of income for it. I advocate we get their money working here for them here or we send them home and deny their government each according to his gifts for each according to his needs.
BJ, that’s an amazing twist on Marx.
Your colors are truly Red.
‘The Mexicans who come here because of their failed and corrupt government are the number one source of income for it. I advocate we get their money working here for them here or we send them home and deny their government each according to his gifts for each according to his needs.’
In other words BJ says stop the money going south. Never mind that their families are living in abject poverty with starving children. HE needs their money to support the socialist govn Obama is building. When the Mexicans run out of money who will we go after next. Afterall we can’t expect BJ to take care of his own now can we?
“In other words BJ says stop the money going south”
Good for YOU okie!
You got ONE thing right.
“Never mind that their families are living in abject poverty with starving children.”
That’s GMC’s position okie. I know the discussion is complicated. Try and keep up.
“Never mind that their families are living in abject poverty with starving children.”
That’s GMC’s position okie. I know the discussion is complicated. Try and keep up.
—–
Actually, Jim, that’s JR’s projection of GMC’s position; he isn’t bright enough, or brave enough, to actually read anything about GMC’s position. It upsets his neat little hateful world.
Until he deals with my position honestly, I’ve no use for him. And honesty is not JR’s strong suit.
Reading comprehension would not appear to be one of YOUR strengths GMC.
You quote me addressing okie and then defend yourself to “Jim”?
Absent revolution GMC, what option DO you see to improve the lot of the Mexican people? Bring them all here? I can do that if they have the rights and compensation of every other American citizen.
It’s better for their country AND ours if they fix their own.
Excuse me. Okie.
Read above, JR. Try to keep up. You want a simple solution (your imagined “revolution”) to “fix” it all. It’s every bit as simplistic as your prior proposition to land mine the border.
I’ve already wrote, at some length. You figure it out.
Hard to find the truth nowadays, but I heard on the radio this morning a report about Billions form the Stimulus going to I-35 construction from MN to TX.
Is this NAFTA SuperHighway for real or not?
And why is Obama funding all these highway projects, and encouraging more and more cars and trucks to use more oil, add CO2 to the air, and cause Global Warming?
I thought Obama was the GREEN President?
I read what you wrote GMC.
I was not sure what was more important to you. You conflate the immigration problem with your ever present need for firearms?
YOU told the President to fix Mexico and wished him a lot of disingenuous good luck.
He can’t do that and it is not his job. Too, there are no small number of folks in America (I say you are among them) that do not want Mexico fixed.
Only Mexicans can fix Mexico. They can’t do it and only make the problems worse while they are here.
1. Who are you to say my wish for luck for the President on this subject is disingenuous? You can’t even figure yourself out. Moreover, you are the king of disingenuous. Most of what you write here on this blog about what others “think” is distorted, a series of strawmen, without substance because you are without substance, propped up to take your pathetic hateful barbs.
2. While the President can’t “fix” Mexico, the reality is that we can’t fix our immigration problem unless we also help Mexico deal with its economic and social problems – they are intertwined.
Your solution is to hope they begin shooting each other. Great idea . . . .(rolls eyes)
3. Most, if not all of us, want the immigration problem fixed. But you are so self-absorbed and arrogant that you cannot conceive that reasonable persons could possibly disagree with you; thus you conclude (entirely wrongly) that persons who dare to disagree with you must be unreasonable. Thus your unwillingness to deal with issues without ascribing nefarious motives to your “enemies.” (that you refer to those who dare to disagree with you as your “enemies” speaks volumes).
That’s not uncommon; many liberals suffer from the same problem.
What you say about what I think is of no import whatsoever. You haven’t a clue what I think, aside from what I write. What you write of what I think is nothing more than your projection, and you assign to me whatever you like. You create a convenient strawman of me, because the real me is quite beyond your comprehension.
You’re a sad little man, JR.
You conflate the immigration problem with your ever present need for firearms?
No, I don’t. You really are nearly illiterate, aren’t you?
I wrote that the problems of Mexico cannot be solved, and will not be helped, by lying about US gunowners and gundealers supplying the cartels. It simply false, and is a backdoor attempt to gut the 2nd amendment.
Many “gunnies” would support – wholeheartedly – serious immigration reform. But he’ll burn enormous amounts of political capital, and needlessly, by going after new domestic gun limitations. He won’t be successful in getting those controls, and he’ll lose the support of many who could be his allies on this issue.
I get you, I’ve got you and I’ve met you to confirm it GMC.
Your responses here are little more than the harumph you answered to me in person.
Not much different from the Rush Limbaugh reair on Cspan I am watching now.
There was a time when I hoped better for you than the usual con bloggers here. I was advised I was wrong but I gave you too much credit.
And you called me a little man.
Well, in girth I am littler than you.
But if I am so little here in the realm of rhetoric and ideas?
How is it I so often make you and your small and narrow minded party and partisans spend so much time on me?
You see? That is what I hope for for the disaffected Mexican people. That they rebel against people like you who tell them to accept what is and not think.
I wish better for them than you.
Wahine_Tara
Posted April 9, 2009 at 2:48 pm
“What about the ones who came over when they were 5 and are completely assimilated into American culture? Rip them from their senior year of high school and send them back across the border to a country their utterly unfamiliar with?”
I wonder if Wahine_Tara relize that the illegal immigrants already left their homes to live in an utterly unfamiliar place?
Blue,
“I doubt you can argue that the Mexican people could end up with much worse than what they have now.”
Actually there is a revolution going on in Mexico, and the drug lords have fair odds of winning it.
I wrote that the problems of Mexico cannot be solved, and will not be helped, by lying about US gunowners and gundealers supplying the cartels. It simply false, and is a backdoor attempt to gut the 2nd amendment.
Uhm, right. The US has been the largest arms dealer to the world for years. This is documented. We arm the world, we arm the children (no, not directly, but it’s our hardware).
And you’re trying to tell me reports of the US-made arms winding up in the cartels shooting up Sonora are part of a plot to crack down on US firearms?
Phewww. . .you might want to adjust your tinfoil hat, GMC.
P.S. Tara–good posts.
I wish better for them than you.
It appears, JR, you wish them dead. In your world, that may be better, I suppose . . . . .
And aside from what I write, here, you have no idea what I “wish for them.” You’re projecting your strawman again.
Little man.
And you’re trying to tell me reports of the US-made arms winding up in the cartels shooting up Sonora are part of a plot to crack down on US firearms?
Are they US made arms? Probably. Are they coming from US gun dealers, who smuggle them to Mexico. No. That’s the story, and it has another rationale for it’s propogation. If you tink it’s “tinfoil,” you’re lying only to yourself.
Read above again. And learn something this time.
I hate to see our laws ignored and made a mockery of, but at the same time if 30 million people quit existing in the US all at once, I do think it would have a bad impact on our economy. They pay sales tax, house payments, in some cases income tax to both state and federal.
But they also cost us a ton in public services, and many don’t contribute to the economy. How much, where, when, and why… WHO KNOWS! I say this because BOTH SIDES facts and figures can’t be trusted, because BOTH SIDES are setting out with an agenda to push forward.
I will say this, they should NOT, nor should their children be allowed (even if they are anchor babies born here) to take or receive any benefits or entitlements. Other countries have very strick requiremtnts for legal immigration that benefits their economies greatly, and expecting the illegals to at least not be a burden is NOT NOT NOT NOT asking too much!
I happen to like the good immigrants. They are more “real Americans” in spirit and attitude than the worthless white trash segment of our population that is exploding each year. Immigration may be the saving grace for the U.S. The well educated intelligent “achievers” who are born here do not produce enough offspring to replace themselves, but those 30-50 IQ non skilled, non contributing folks breed like cockroaches. It’s a matter of simple math.
WE DO NEED MORE BOOTS ON THE GROUND AT THE BORDER! It’s a matter of national security, and G.D. principle as well. But ICE needs to be tasked with going after the criminal illegals who are commiting violent crimes and bring dangerous poisen for our kids to ingest. Hey, once they make a big dent in that, THEN start raiding the meat packing plants and contruction sights. But until then, do not insult me by spending my hard earned tax dollars when the Mexican mafia is flooding my local gradeschools with high quality meth amphetamine.
by the way, I’m not supportive of amnesty in any way shape or form. To grant people full rights and priveleges who have violated our laws is a hard painful rub on those who have gone through the process of coming here legally. I just feel that we have a good decade of more important stuff to get done before we go attacking the hard working illegal immigrants who are actually contributing something to our country
Barack Obama is loud, can make you feel good for a short while, but it’s only hot air.
Kind of like a fart!
I wish he’d spend less time spreading the wealth, and more time spreading my good work ethic.