May 31 2007
WSJ On Immigration
Watch this from WSJ and see how much damage the far right has done in Immigration. I agree with the WSJ, the Reps are screwed now by losing on the issue and losing the Latino vote. Purity will be achieved and the end of conservative governing majority will the result.
What Latino vote? Even the Pew Hispanic Research center says that Latinos vote 49% Democrat and 20% Republican. Tell us, AJ, how do you lose that which you have never had? If you are one of the people who are foolish enough to think that because most Latinos are Catholic they would vote for the pro-life crowd, you are only kidding yourself. If that is the case, and you are counting on their Catholic morals, why is the Latino out 0f wedlock birth rate so high? Most Latino nations are socialist and they will vote for the party that promises them the most free stuff.
And as you have told us (so many times before) the conservatives are no longer in power and are now the minority.
Well these folks think that every Latino in America is an illegal alien I guess. I am not sure if they realize some of them are citizens who actually pay taxes and vote and go to war and all sorts of things that regular people do. I heard an hispanic man say not long ago that he got the impression that Republicans did not want him around, not in the country or their party or anything else. And he was not an illegal alien.
I think we need to secure the borders, but I also know that half of the illegals in the country did not enter that way. And that half will only continue to grow if we do not adopt a broader based approach. And the terrorists who flew those planes into those buildings were not illegal border crossers. The only way to find those people is to keep better track of who is in the country and that requires more than building a wall.
I also think that wanting the laws we have to enforced is a valid point, but when the backlog of deportees in the system is in the hundreds of thousands, obviously we need to revise and improve these laws and give law enforcement more resources. To simply state we want the laws enforced without doing what is necessary to make that possible is not enough.
Dafydd at Big Lizards has an interesting post up in response to Hugh Hewitt’s questions concerning the technology behind the Z visas. But then again, people like Hugh really don’t care about the facts, they have their talking points and their agenda and they are sticking to them and anyone who disagrees is a traitor or a fool or something very very bad. They are beginning to resemble the Borg, resistance is futile. Group think in the extreme. They refuse to listen and are certain that people like Kyl and McCain who spent years in a POW camp in Viet Nam are trying to ruin the country and the rest of us are just idiots for not seeing it. That is how they see it and nothing will change that.
Reminds me of being a kid in the Southwest when the subject of civil rights would come up and people would say that giving blacks the vote was part of a conspiracy to wreck America. It never occurred to the people who felt that way that they might be paranoid. And Goldwater refused to support the Civil Rights Act too, and to this day the black vote is lost to the GOP. Eisenhower got 44% of the vote, but Goldwater only got 6%, people don’t always forget that kind of slur.
the only circular argument was around their round table. lets see, firsst we prop up and frame the debate then we shoot it down. i’ve been seeing that somewhere else of late. anyway i think this is the way to go: from National Review
The Editors’ Challenge
By The Editors
This should be an offer that the Wall Street Journal can’t refuse — debate the editors of National Review on the immigration bill.
We hereby challenge the Journal’s editors to debate the immigration bill in a neutral venue with a moderator of their choosing — two or three of us versus any two or three of them. We propose to do it in Washington next week so it will have the maximum impact on the Senate’s consideration of the most sweeping immigration reform in decades (time and place to be worked out in a mutually satisfactory fashion).
It shouldn’t be a problem for the Journal’s editors to take up this challenge, since opponents of the bill aren’t “rational†on the question, have no arguments, and are “foaming at the mouth,†as they explained in a videotaped session of one of their editorial meetings last week. Click here to watch — you have to see it to believe it.
We urge them to come out of the shadows, and hope defending the bill in this forum is not another one of those jobs that no American will do. (We would challenge President Bush himself to a debate on behalf of the conservatives he has maligned, but we fear he hasn’t read the bill.)
So who at the Journal is willing to debate the merits of the legislation rather than cast aspersions from afar? We await the answer. To keep us posted in the meantime, we hope they videotape their consideration of this challenge.
So who at the Journal is willing to debate the merits of the legislation rather than cast aspersions from afar?
Probably about the same number of the proponents that are willing to do that here. 0
National Review has challenged the WSJ to a debate on this bill. the link is here:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmVjZDBiM2MwMTk0MjNlMDdjMDI2ZDM2MzE4ZGViOGU=
I hope they actually do have this debate. I noticed that during the WSJ discussion, they did not really discuss any of the merits of the actual bill itself, they pretty much just went after the HARD right for opposing it. I did like John Funds idea of canning this bill and writing two new ones. One with Border Security in capitol letters and another for the guest worker bill. But the border has to come first, without that being done, nothing else means anything. If we are going to make it easy for people to get here and give them essentially all of the rights of a legal resident, we have no border or sovereignty. We will lose our life style and become a caste society.
Terrye, It was the GOP who helped pass the civil rights act, 18 democrats filibustered it. Look at the record, almost all of the southern Dems were against it, so I don’t know how you think that would have hurt the GOP. Below is an except from the link:
http://www.congresslink.org/print_basics_histmats_civilrights64text.htm
Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11.
I watched the video AJ. Thanks for the link.
Did you catch the part where they were talking about immigrants with green cards VOTING and forcing the Republican party to minority status?
No, Terrye, it is you who don’t care about facts. Like the fact that 49% of Latinos vote Democrat. Like the fact that people will always vote for the one who promises them the most free “stuff”. Like the fact that the WSJ’s editorial board is, and always has been, left leaning. I know. I put 10 years in with the WSJ and Dow Jones. Sure the WSJ’s business editors are conservative, but they are also pandering to the crowd that benefits from a steady stream of cheap labor.
I love you little cliches: “I heard a Hispanic man say” or “reminds me of being a kid in the Southwest”. Did it ever occur to you that if you tell people long enough that they are being oppressed they will begin to believe it? Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton understand that philosophy. How do you know he was not an illegal? Did he show you his birth certificate? And how old a kid were you in the “southwest” that you would have been aware of how people felt about civil rights? Or was that just your left leaning upbringing?
Now you have been quoting another blog. Wow! I am impressed with your research abilities. Do you garner your opinions from other blogs? It would seem that way.
The National Review has issued a challange to the WSJ to debate the immigration bill. I doubt the WSJ will accept the challange. The editors at the WSJ are much like the New York Times, eager to throw their opinions out in media land by slow to defend them.
Alas Patrick, I’m afraid the people at the WSJ haven’t read the bill either. If they have, they use no part of it to make a valid argument.
Only wild speculations and accusations, I’m afraid they’re flailing in the wind.
Terrye said:
I also think that wanting the laws we have to enforced is a valid point, but when the backlog of deportees in the system is in the hundreds of thousands, obviously we need to revise and improve these laws and give law enforcement more resources.
Valid point? backlog of deportees in the system? and how does this bill deal with that backlog of deportees? Declares them legal so they no longer are on the backlog. Law enforcement more resources? How and what resources, none in the bill that will have any effect. Besides, why do we need more resources, this bill makes all of them legal, so we don’t have to deal with them.
Does anyone on the Hard Left have a clue? If so, please display a little. what about you Softliners? any of you have a clue?
READ THE BILL.
Tomorrow morning, on Bill Bennett’s show, Mark Krikorian of National Review and the Center for Immigration Studies, the toughest and most knowledgable illegal immigration proponent out there, will be debating Steve Moore, from the Club for Growth and the Wall Street Journal’s Editorial Board, for an hour. Steve’s one of the best supply-side capitalists out there, and very pro-comprehensive immigration reform. No one is shrinking from this kind of confrontation, it will happen tomorrow.
I meant “opponent”, not “proponent”
I loved this peek inside the shirt-sleeved WSJ board meeting. Highlights for me included John Fund’s summary of Pence’s remarks — a warning that made my hair stand up. Also, Henninger (one of my all-time favorite columnists/thinkers and yes, fantasy men) describing “the thing which cannot be spoken” — although Dan pulled his punch in a gentlemanly fashion… still, the point about “culture” (read: white bigots) was made — disturbingly so.
But afterward, the more I think about it, the more depressed I’m getting. I fear as A.J. does, that we are screwed. The pitchforkers have pitched too long and too deep to successfully backtrack or mitigate the damage. They’ve lined their pockets and racked up ratings, while creating a monster which they now must serve, or risk virtual assassination. (Hello? Is this not the MoveOn/Daily Kos model which the Purity Cons continually rails against?) I know, because I was one of the Right Wing Pod People for a long time. It’s hard and quite painful to step out of the echo chamber. But it also saves lots of $$ on stupid, repetitive, half-baked books, online subscriptions, crappy newsletters, and donations to slimy outfits peddling fear & loathing. Ann C & Rush might be chagrined to know that their books are sitting in a crate in my garage — the only thing I can’t decide is whether to sell them for $2 to an innocent civilian (perhaps with a warning on the cover), throw them into a landfill, or donate them to other innocents via the Salvation Army.
The good thing about being on all those online and snail mailing lists though, is that I can still keep tabs on the demagogues and fear peddlers. A year and a half after reclaiming my brain, I wonder how I could ever have tolerated so much blathering and reactionary hysteria.
God bless the Wall St. Journal. The editors have never lost their moorings or taken up with the media HOs. Why is it, btw, that FoxNews practically disowns its WSJ Roundtable show? Most people I know don’t even know it exists… and I’d never see it if I didn’t have TIVO to record it automatically.
The End (mercifully).
Thanks for listening A.J.
Please try to think up something to cheer me up. Go ahead and lie to me if you have to… permission granted.
— begin direct quote —
Green card holders are entitled to a number of benefits. As a green card holder, you can work in both the private and public sectors. You can start a business or join the armed forces. You can attend school in the United States and may even be eligible for lower study fees, simply due to your green card status. You can qualify for retirement or Social Security benefits, and finally, many social welfare benefits also accompany residency, like health insurance.
Just like every other American over 18, you have the right to vote. The only difference between you and a naturalized citizen is that you can only vote in local and state elections that don’t require you to be a U.S. citizen. Unfortunately, green card holders are prohibited from voting in federal elections. In other words, you have no say in who will become the next U.S. President in 2008.
With the permanent visa, you are protected by all the laws of the United States, your state of residence and any local jurisdiction. On top of that, if your rights are violated, you have access to the court system.
— end direct quote —
source for above –
http://www.legalzoom.com/articles/article_content/article14087.html
SEC. 706. Funding for the Office of
Citizenship and Integration.
(a) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated
to the Secretary of Homeland Security the sum of [$100] million to carry
out the mission and operations of the Office of Citizenship and Integration in
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, including the patriotic integration
of prospective citizens into–
(1) American common values and traditions, including an
understanding of American history and the principles of the
Constitution of the United States; and
(2) civic traditions of the United States, including the Pledge of
Allegiance, respect for the flag of the United States, and voting in
public elections.
source for the above –
page 322, section 706 of the proposed immigration draft
I believe it obvious to anyone with a shred of integrity, that my interpretation of that section is correct.
They will be allowed to vote. Even those who hate this country and have no intention whatsoever of becoming a citizen of the United States.
That seems like a really bad idea to me.
I am still waiting to have a civil and polite debate with any proponent of this bill who has read the bill.
Sincerely,
ApacheIP
It was a fascinating video. I find Henniger’s approach to the cultural question disingenuous – it’s not nativist or racist to believe that there is a unique culture in the United States – originally based on that of Protestant England, Scotland and Wales but now much broadened – without which our political institutions and ordered liberty cannot survive. Nor is it nativist or racist to believe that we should require all immigrants from whatever source to become assimilated into our American amalgam before we offer them citizenship.
Unlike some in this debate, I think that many of the proponents and many of the opponents of the proposed immigration bill are people of good will who believe sincerely, for sound reasons, their position is correct. I oppose the bill, but I don’t say all of its supporters want to destroy the country. I resent it when people at the WSJ, or you, AJ, use ad hominum attacks on all of us who oppose the bill.
I can understand the view that something has to be done and this is possible the least-bad bill that can be had over the next 4-5 years. That’s not a stupid view. It reflects judgment calls about what’s going to happen if we do nothing, what other bills might be passed after the next election, and so on. None of those judgment calls individually are certain, and collectively, there is no compelling reason to accept the conclusion the bill’s Republican proponents have reached.
Others of us believe, equally sincerely, that the Democratic proponents of the bill will never be serious about enforcement of any border controls and in fact are seeking through mass immigration to change the character of the country. Why else would LaRaza be involved – I’ve known them and MeChA since the early 1970s in California; and I mean have known them personally at the University of California and have talked with leaders one-on-one or in small groups at length, in the cafeteria, around cam0pus and drinking beer at parties, as well as heard them at rallies. Their goal is nothing less than the detachment of the Southwest from the US and the destruction of the US as we know it. Sorry, if they’re involved, they are up to no good.
I appreciate AJ’s argument that we have to get the illegals out of the shadow, but I’m not convinced that the benefits of getting most of them out into the open (because the ones we really want to get rid of – criminals, potential terrorists, etc. – won’t come out anyway) outweigh the costs, because the bureaucratic mess of dealing with them by registration would be huge and expensive – perhaps as expensive or more expensive than letting the sleeping dogs lie, as it were, and concentrating on border security first.
After all, even the legalization of the whole kit and caboodle now here will only incite millions more to come if we don’t establish and maintain secure borders.
Why is it more expensive to secure the borders first and then deal with the people who are here, than to legalize everyone before we’ve dealt with the border? I just don’t see it.
More proof for the skeptics
— begin direct quote —
Sec. 611. Voting by aliens
(a) It shall be unlawful for any alien to vote in any election
held solely or in part for the purpose of electing a candidate for
the office of President, Vice President, Presidential elector,
Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives,
Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner,
unless –
(1) the election is held partly for some other purpose;
(2) aliens are authorized to vote for such other purpose under
a State constitution or statute or a local ordinance; and
(3) voting for such other purpose is conducted independently of
voting for a candidate for such Federal offices, in such a manner
that an alien has the opportunity to vote for such other purpose,
but not an opportunity to vote for a candidate for any one or
more of such Federal offices.
— end direct quote —
Source for the above –
18 United States Code Section 611
direct link –
http://law.onecle.com/uscode/18/611.html
Legal aliens can vote in elections. And take a hard look at item (1).
Item (1) seems to me to be a gigantic loophole. I can’t remember the last time I voted in an election that was strictly a Federal election.
CatoRenasci:
Why else would LaRaza be involved – I’ve known them and MeChA since the early 1970s in California; and I mean have known them personally at the University of California and have talked with leaders one-on-one or in small groups at length, in the cafeteria, around cam0pus and drinking beer at parties, as well as heard them at rallies. Their goal is nothing less than the detachment of the Southwest from the US and the destruction of the US as we know it. Sorry, if they’re involved, they are up to no good.
Thank you for that Cato, finally, someone besides Bikerken and myself who understands what these people are up too!
The exact same is true of the good proportion of the Muslim populations that come here as well!
Besides the unbelieveable strain on our Medical, Emergency, Police, and Social services, covering the cost of illegals now impose on all of us.
I might actually favor this bill, IF, I KNEW, that supposedly like 1986, this was it, okay, we’re drawing the line in the sand, and we’re getting these ones on board, and that’s it, from here on out, EVERYONE is LEGAL or they don’t come here.
But people like you, and Bikerken, and R05, and LE and I KNOW that that is NOT the case; this one no sooner gets passed, and 24 million ILLEGALS show up next, and people like Teddy Kennedy and John McCain will go, “Okay, now this time, we’ve got to “legalize” just these 24million more, and we promise there will be no more….”
I don’t care, if the entire population of Brazil, China, and India come over here at the same damn time!
IF they all come LEGALLY, work, contribute, and recognize that they had to leave their own country, because the US provided for them whereas their own country doesn’t, and thus we have to become American, I’m fine with that.
But if they have a different agenda, like the LaRaza types, Mexicans in general that I see, and pro-Jihadi types, then I’m sorry, I admit it, I’m a “racist” and I don’t want them here! And I don’t want this bill Legalizing them here, if they have that agenda!
Your maxim is currect, if LaRaza supports this, it’s got to be stopped.
I posted the other day; this could be the BEST bill in the world, but if Teddy Kennedy is involved, it’s got to bad for America; so same thing!
After all, even the legalization of the whole kit and caboodle now here will only incite millions more to come if we don’t establish and maintain secure borders.
Why is it more expensive to secure the borders first and then deal with the people who are here, than to legalize everyone before we’ve dealt with the border? I just don’t see it.
You aren’t the only one.
DaleinAtlanta:
I want to be very clear that I am not suggesting all Mexicans harbor the same serious anti-American purposes as the LaRaza and MeChA activists. Most Mexicans have probably never heard of either group, personally want to come for the opportunities, would be willing to assimilate if it were required, and are anti-American to the extent they are only because the Mexican educational system has inculcated a hatred of the US in them that goes back to the Mexican War.
Our real beef should be not with the Mexican economic immigrants, whom we could absorb in somewhat smaller numbers than we do to day if we insisted on reasonable assimilation and the use of English, but with the Mexican government and the oligarchy who run it — the government of Mexico and the clique who benefits from that government are responsible for the grinding poverty in what should b a country almost as rich as the United States. Anyone who has spent any time in Mexico, and done business there over the past 50 years, knows that very well. American companies who set up businesses there know it. The real pressure for Mexicans to come here is because Mexico is such a mess.