Skip to main content

View Diary: OH-05: The (R) campaign: hate on brown people (258 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Well we are a bit behind the curve here (0+ / 0-)

    we have spent so much damn time jawing amongst ourselves about what to call the people involved and expended so much energy fighting over the technical term or the politically couched one being proper and a few of the other finer points that we have abdicated the field to the GOP to frame the dialog.

    So now we have to a shitload of catch up and change the course of that dialog.

    And frankly NPK I don't think we have the time nor the capital available to accomplish that so we are going to work within the frame already established to a greater degree then some are going to be comfortable with.  

    Enforcement first policies are going to be the de rigeur unfortunately; and that is because some bunch of chuckleheaded congress critters dropped the ball after Simpson-Mazzoli and did not fund the enforcement portion of it.  So now you have an electorate that feels like it got burned last time and is not exactly all that trusting of the government at the moment (look at the trust numbers for congress and the presidency etc), a moment that is going to last a good long time in political terms; and they are going to want to make sure they don't get burned again.

    Because the people that feel that way are looking for a reason to say "yes" to the illegal/undocumented persons staying in the country.  No really they are.  Most people are pretty decent when given a chance and they don't really want to do anything cruel or nasty unless they feel pushed.

    And without enforcement being on the table and put forth FIRST (though we can talk about the least harmful way of doing that), then they are not going to be open to saying "yes".

    At this point in the election cycle you don't have the time to change the minds of so many already registered voters on this issue and you don't have a prayer of just writing them off with the last few elections being decided by such thin margins nationally.  So you are going to have to compromise or risk perishing and that would do the undocumented/illegals no favors as they would be left to the tender mercies of the right.

    And if you don't think that you are going to need to compromise on this issue?  Let me put it to you this way:  Considering the rhetoric from the advocates I would consider NOT voting at this point, and I think that the next election is IMPORTANT to the survival of the nation.

    The rhetoric being used and the framing by the advocates is not helpful to a constructive dialog and is doing nothing but alienating people.  And if it is enough to turn off those within your own coalition it is not going to be pleasing to the ear of those outside it that you wish to side with you in the upcomings....

    •  I won't compromise ... (0+ / 0-)

      ... when it comes to accepting human rights abuses that absolutely result from enforcement-only policies.

      I won't compromise by feeding right wing frames.  And yes, the language is important.  When Kucinich called Wolf Blitzer on his framing, the audience applauded.  So did I.  It's not a waste of time at all.

      As far as "the rhetoric" and the framing by advocates, I don't believe our representatives using real ideas instead of feeding right wing frames will turn anyone off.

      I think Duke1676's diaries, which I have linked to here, shows common sense rhetoric that doesn't refer to any of the stuff I've been advocating when it comes to the language (i.e., "illegals").  I think my own rhetoric is just as good as anyone else's here at Daily Kos, and that's the forum in which I use it.

      What I do see here, and in your further comment, is that you're advocating caving in to right-wing rhetoric because there isn't "enough time."

      I don't find that convincing.  Nor do I find convincing your assertion that we just don't have the real information.  The studies that have been done recently, in Arizona, for example, have shown real economic impact (of the negative kind) when it comes to enforcement-only policies being implemented there.

      If you are really advocating for the working poor, enforcement only will not accomplish anything other than the opposite of what you're asking for.

      We have the time.  Folks recognize the truth when they hear it.  The problem isn't lack of time, it's lack of spine.

      I won't stop fighting for what is just and fair to all poor workers.  And Daily Kos is the place to have those fights, imo.

      •  You don't believe that the rhetoric turns off (0+ / 0-)


        It turns ME off, and I am not the only one that it does here.  So if you are wrong about that what else could you be wrong about?

        Note:  I did not say cave in to the frames of the right.  I said that we would have to work within them to a higher degree then some might be comfortable which is a substantially different kettle of fish.

        It would be considered more a form of verbal "judo" in that working within the existing dialog to channel the energy being expended by the other guys towards an end point of OUR choosing is probably a better usage of our energies in the time allotted to us, and then when the opportunities present themselves inject our own energy into the fight into the mix to crush the others.

        Now what you find convincing is of some importance, if you find convincing studies done on the economic impact of illegal workers that are based on inaccurate figures of the numbers of such workers then that is on you.  But if you don't have an idea if the numbers are closer to 11 million or closer to 20 million of them you can't come to anything approaching an accurate conclusion.

        What you can get is a reasonable guess in some cases but since we are talking about an inexact figure for the numbers of people and the people involved tend to stay off the radar..  there is no possible way that you can come up with definitive information when you add conjecture to approximation and the data that results is open to being colored by the views of the researchers.  Sorry that is not good science, but it may be good enough for a conversation in some places so I won't bust your chops for using it.

        But I would suggest not putting them forth as "definitive" studies or in anyway presenting them to the audience as concrete as it is not possible for them to actually be either given the data set being worked with.  It can come close to it perhaps but it can not achieve it.  It would also be helpful if some of the studies on the effects of immigration economically made a clear definition between illegal and legal immigration, but they in most cases lump it all together further making the efficacy of the studies for a discussion of this type dubious.

        Language IS important and the usage of the non technical term for persons that immigrate to a country without permission has done a LOT of damage to the ability TO debate this issue since it clouds the issue itself by blurring the line between legal and illegal immigration.  And that is what it was designed to do, and let us be honest about that shall we.

        And I have detected the attempt to do similar by lumping the existing working poor in this country and the illegal/undocumented together here...

        Now if you are wanting to discuss ways of enforcement that minimize humanitarian abuses I am more then willing to do so and would relish helping you come up with ways to do so as it would do the most good.  But if you are truly not willing to compromise on enforcement being the first thing that must be done (in the least cruel and inhumane way possible) to make any meaningful political change in the treatment of the illegal/undocumented then I can not work with you.

        But I could probably work with the less extreme elements on the other side of the argument to achieve a politically viable end that safeguards the human rights of all and protects the native poor and enforces the laws of this land.

        But I would much prefer if this series of solutions came from the broader left then the center or center right politically for long term strategic reasons.

        •  Just too much inaccuracy here ... (0+ / 0-)

          ... for me to sort out.

          First you quote (and do not link) a WSJ study done by "economists" about the impact of immigration on the poor.  I guess it's ok if you quote scientific studies as long as it supports your arguments, eh?  Kind of a double standard there -- and again, I would like to see the link, so I can judge for myself.

          Second, you are throwing away all statistical studies on this issue because you think they are too vague?  And you expect to be taken seriously on this?  Meh.

          Third, I don't give a shit if you are "turned off" at the idea of people being called human beings and not "illegals."  That's your problem.  I'm more than happy to fight this one out and see who emerges with a consensus -- that's what debate is all about and that's what this site is all about.  I have only seen approximately 5 or 6 "disgruntled" posters here who cling to the notion that they should be able to dehumanize undocumented workers, and I'm not just speaking of using the word "illegals."

          If you wish to justify racism, xenophobia and utter lack of compassion, that's your choice.  I have made mine.

          I never said I was "wrong" about this.  That's your contention and I do not find it at all convincing.  You're damned right I will continue to fight against language, ideas and propaganda that are against every American value I was brought up with, and by parents who were very poor monetarily, though not in integrity or spirit.

          As far as "good science," the Arizona study did damned well in showing that not only did their economy not suffer because of immigration but it did in fact suffer when enforcement-only policies were put in place:

          Joining studies from California, Texas, Florida, New Mexico, Washington DC, and Long Island, NY, a new report from Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy at The University of Arizona looks at the contributions and costs of Arizona's immigrant population and finds not only an overall net gain for the state, but that the loss of this population would likely cause long term economic problems.

          As for methodology, Duke was challenged on that when he posted his diary on the subject.  His response could teach you something about how to argue about "good science" -- if you really wish to challenge the science of something you should have some understanding of it to begin with.  You have not shown this understanding.

          Skippy, I am all for SANE enforcement of the workplace, as laid out in the diary I linked to in response to your comment.  We don't disagree on this.

          But if you're talking about "deporation of 12 million people" as "enforcement," then I think we will indeed be opposing each other on this.

          And as far as language, how would you like your family to be called insulting names?  I wouldn't.  Would you like your mother to be told her children are a "litter"?  Would you just stand by if that was said?

          Because I wouldn't.  Not for you and your family, mine, or anyone else's.  It's not about being politically correct.  It's about real values.  I hope you can see someday why I feel this is so important.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site