Yup, immigration not the GOP's savior

It may have been a factor in the race, but the last GOP "idea" -- the demonization of scary brown people -- has been a flop.

Voters across Virginia chose candidates in state and local elections yesterday not out of anger over illegal immigration but based on party affiliation, a preference for moderation and strong views on such key issues as residential growth and traffic congestion.

With a few notable exceptions, the trend benefited Democrats and not those who campaigned the loudest for tough sanctions against illegal immigrants.

Fairfax County continued its transformation into solid Democratic territory, with as many as five legislative seats poised to fall out of Republican control. In Loudoun County, Democrats who campaigned on a promise to slow residential growth took over the county board. Even in Prince William County, where the board's chairman, Corey L. Stewart (R), won easily on a vow to crack down against illegal immigrants, the volatile issue was tempered by the victory of state Sen. Charles J. Colgan (D-Manassas), who had been painted as soft on the issue.

The returns provided the sharpest evidence yet that Democratic gains in recent state elections represented more than a temporary dip in Republicans' popularity. Yesterday's initial results showed that a more long-term structural realignment may be occurring and that voters are increasingly drawn by Democrats' promises to improve schools and ease traffic and away from Republican conservatism on such issues as taxes and social policy, particularly in fast-growing Northern Virginia.

"I did not think that immigration in and of itself would carry the day," said Sen. Richard L. Saslaw (Fairfax), who would become majority leader under Democratic control. "The results are proving that, while immigration is a concern to people -- and it should be -- it is not returning the votes that they thought that it would."

This is important as jittery Democrats (like Rahm Emanuel) advise Democrats to tack Right on the issue. Here we have evidence that the issue wasn't a killer -- traditional Democratic issues trumped immigration -- while Republican demonization of those scary brown people will kill their long-term electoral prospects by alienating key, fast-growing, immigrant communities.

In other words, while the issue is a certain long-term loser, it doesn't even have short term benefits for the GOP.

•  Dear Rahm,

  If you like Republican policy so much, why don't you become one.

  Thank you.

  Sincerely,

  Someone who thinks you are an idiot.

  by freelunch on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:17:09 AM PDT

  •  A truly great sentiment...

    ...for a truly stupid man.

    by Nestor Makhnow on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:36:55 AM PDT

  •  Top Comments woo!

    Excellent!

    by mconvente on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:40:39 AM PDT

  •  Rahm the Magnificent's DLC roots are showing

    It's going to take years to rid the Democratic Party of deadwood like him.

    by Dump Terry McAuliffe on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:48:54 AM PDT

    •  Maybe L'Oréal will help

      I don't see much value to having leaders who decide to compromise everything before they are asked.

      by freelunch on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:37:29 AM PDT

•  you can only run on hate

  for so long

  by aaraujo on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:17:49 AM PDT

  •  A view from the trenches

    and a look at a part of Virginia where "Dirty Brown People" (actual quote heard at the poll yesterday!) sway voters.

    Here in Uber-Right Wing Southside nothing has changed.

    Turnout was good for a bi-election, and all of the emphasis was on the Sheriff's race where a 27 year, white, beat officer was pitted against the incumbent, an African American Sheriff who has done a terrific job.  Wanna' guess who won?

    by Granny Doc on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:25:04 AM PDT

    •  Reminds me of BBC profile

      of Culpeper, VA and some of the folks alleging that illegals had come to town and taken up all the jobs. I never did hear who the major employer was but I suspect it was either a chicken or pork processor, which is part of an integrator's operation.
      The jobs are very unpleasant, usually done in cold, wet environments, very dangerous as you are handling sharp instruments very quickly, and are also very strenuous physically, all for $8 to $10 or less an hour. The most fascinating aspect of this is the ability of some people to simply look at a worker and immediately know his immigration or naturalization status, when even Immigration is not sure in some cases.    

      by entlord1 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:14:17 AM PDT

      •  Not even a worker necessarily

        Here on Long Island people look at brown people WALKING DOWN THE STREET and think they have x-ray vision to see  what their papers look like.

        "Oh," they tell you when you accuse them, "I'M not a racist"

        Yeah, right.

        by betson08 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:13:53 PM PDT

  •  Just ask them

    If we all went back to where our ancestors came from, the "illegal aliens" would still be here, would you still be here?

    by Amayupta yo on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:20:06 AM PDT

    •  My father was born in 1912 in Mexico

      to Anglo parents (also born in Mexico) and came here illegally in 1929. He "looked" American, spoke English without an accent and voted Republican and gave money to Richard Nixon. He never became a citizen.

      My mother's father came here illegally from Ireland. He emigrated to Canada and walked over. He voted Republican until he lost money in the Depression and then voted Democratic for the rest of his life. He, too, never bothered with the nicety of citizenship.

      So, when all these yahoos start railing about illegals voting and taking jobs, I always wonder how their folks got here.

      by ellefarr on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 08:53:24 AM PDT

•  Didn't you have a post earlier this. . .

  morning, Markos, reciting exactly why immigration is, in fact, a dangerous issue for Democrats?

  You can see the degree of division it causes even here at dKos.

  I wouldn't dismiss the power of this issue too lightly.

  by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:19:39 AM PDT

  •  I agree.

    And I don't dismiss the power of this issue lightly.

    As long as we allow the Repubs to frame this issue with virtually no coherent Progressive response, it will continue to be a real problem.

    And there has been no Dem leadership on this issue loud enough and persuasive enough to get folks behind it as a real alternative to the crazy hate-filled plans of the Repubs.

    by Nightprowlkitty on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:25:06 AM PDT

    •  Exactly

      By Democrats avoiding the connection between illegal immigration and all the other "growth" issues like traffic, urban sprawl, water shortages, etc. because they fear being branded as "hating brown people," they are allowing Republicans (and racists) to seize the dialog.  

      There's no way allowing Republicans to "own" an issue like this is good for the long term, for Democrats or the country.

      by recontext on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:32:43 AM PDT

      •  Well ...

        ... I don't see the connection between undocumented migrants and "traffic, urban sprawl, water shortages, etc."  -- only place I've ever seen that argument is on right-wing anti-migrant sites like FAIR or NumbersUSA.

        Overpopulation -- sure, that's a global problem, and I'd be glad to see anyone with a rational solution to this -- family planning seems to be in the dumps lately with Dubya's cronies on the religious right, etc.  I don't think immigration is the smartest starting point to deal with overpopulation, tho.

        by Nightprowlkitty on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:38:40 AM PDT

        •  Why is it?

          Millions of new "undocumented immigrants" and their families don't contribute to America's growth issues as any other people living here???  

          The "argument" that millions of immigrants are not contributing to growth issues is not an argument at all, but an emotional "punt" of logic (with the knee-jerk cries of racism) that is allowing Republicans (and real racists) to dominate legitimate immigration issues.  

          by recontext on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:55:31 AM PDT

          •  Everyone ...

            ... contributes to the problems of overpopulation and growth.  To single out immigrants is what the right-wing anti-migrant sites like to do, use them as an example of "environmental danger."

            And yes, I think the problems of overpopulation should be solved by comprehensive sex education, family planning and global efforts as well, none of which we have today because of the Repubs' regressive social policies.

            As I said, we ALL are contributing to growth issues.  Why are you singling out immigrants?  It's a global problem.

            by Nightprowlkitty on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:01:32 AM PDT

            •  That's exactly what I said

              That people contribute to growth problems whether they are "illegal" or not.  

              Immigrants are contributing to the problem of immense growth, which is a legitimate issue.  No one ever said they were THE ONLY contributor.

              Although it is also a fact that America's population growth rate would be almost consistent with Europe's were it not for our higher immigration levels over the last decade.  

              Immigration, not just "illegal" immigration, is the greatest contributor to the increase in population growth rate in the US.    

              by recontext on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 12:01:08 AM PDT

              •  I see ...

                ... you want to limit all immigration.

                Good luck with that.

                I also am very concerned about overpopulation and all environmental matters.  Family planning, including contraceptive and abortion care, reducing our overconsumption in the US of the world's natural resources, including sane energy policies, and education will, imo, be far more effective in dealing with this problem than telling folks they can't come to America because there isn't any room for them.

                As I said, this is a global problem that will affect the US regardless of our immigration policy.

                As long as poor conditions exist throughout the world where folks can't make a living, there will be migration.  It's not going to end until we address the root problems that cause this migration.

                by Nightprowlkitty on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 08:34:04 AM PDT

      •  dems need to differ from wingnuts

        Democrats need a compassionate and fair immigration policy that recognizes the fact that 12 million people won't be sent home and need to be allowed to stay and work. They need to understand that U.S. policies like NAFTA caused the displacement of millions of good honest working people who were then attracted to the USA by good capitalists waving money. Most Americans will understand the far rights racism and choose fairness, but only if the democrats stand up and explain why they're right and the far right is wrong.

        by cacamp on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:41:00 AM PDT

        •  How many million?

          should be allowed to come and work?  

          by recontext on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 12:02:12 AM PDT

    •  Aside from "framing" or progressive response. . .

      I think there is a genuine schism in the country on the issue which completely cuts across Party political boundaries.

      There are plenty of pro-immigration Republicans, and plenty of genuinely anti-immigration Democrats.  It's a real and genuine conundrum in terms of

      1. Trying to even define what the "Democratic position" is on immigration and. . .

      2. How to frame that position to the substantial portion of the party that's going to object, no matter which side you come down on.

      by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:38:58 AM PDT

      •  I think framing ...

        ... has to be dealt with first, regardless of the rest of what you say.

        Right now it is simply a fact that the framing of this issue, "illegality," "illegal aliens," all that, is the dominant way folks look at the issue of immigration.  This has been a very well planned campaign and I don't think most Americans, be they Republican or Democratic, realize how well planned it has been.

        To really define the Democratic (and, I would say, Progressive) position on immigration, those frames must be busted wide open.  That's the only way we can have a real dialogue on this, imo.

        Sure, there will be folks who have their own positions on immigration regardless of how it is framed.  But too many have their positions based on that framing, and I for one would like to see that changed.

        by Nightprowlkitty on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:54:04 AM PDT

        •  That's scary. . .

          This has been a very well planned campaign and I don't think most Americans, be they Republican or Democratic, realize how well planned it has been.

          When the Republicans developed the gay marriage issue in the 1990s it was pretty obvious that they were acting in a coordinated and well-planned fashion.  If they've been doing the same on immigration, it's gone under my radar entirely.

          by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:01:19 AM PDT

          •  Heh.

            Went under my radar, too, till I started reading Duke1676's diaries and essays.

            Here's a link to a comment by Duke over at Docudharma when I asked him about this.  Please do check out the links.  It's an ugly story and Frank Luntz' company has done a great job spreading this meme to the American people.

            With no opposition.

            Sigh.

            by Nightprowlkitty on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:06:11 AM PDT

          •  Immigration didn't show up in issue polls

            Immigration didn't show up at all in polls of voters' top concerns until Republicans started demagoguing it for the '06 elections. It's not a spontaneous expression of concern from the voters, it's almost entirely manufactured by Republicans (even though it hasn't played out the way they hoped.)

            by Redshift on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:05:28 PM PDT

            •  Bingo. n/t

              by Nightprowlkitty on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 04:45:42 PM PDT

          •  Larry, there are ultraconservative

            groups that sent out emails 100,000 emails a couple of weeks ago, asking their list to call, write and email congress against the Dream Act. It may be under your radar, but its coordinated and well-planned.

            by immigradvocate on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:34:14 PM PDT

      •  Nonetheless, all the "illegal" immigration

        talk is code for Latinos, and they're becoming a larger and larger voting block. As they naturalize and register in greater numbers, Democrats in many parts of the country will start to pay a high price for all this anti-immigration rhetoric. Maybe in the short term you can raise questions, but long term it's a time bomb to join in on the xenophobia.

        by betson08 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:16:18 PM PDT

        •  Exactly.

          How many times has Lou Dobbs complained about illegal Irish immigrants in New York City?

          Dog whistle, anyone?

          by ellefarr on Thu Nov 08, 2007 at 08:59:53 AM PDT

  •  it's about saliency

    It's a matter of saliency, I think. Not all issues are created equal.

    Yes, immigration does have the power to divide important voting constituencies, and we should be aware of that. But I think the point that Markos is making is that voters yesterday didn't decide who to cast their votes for based just on immigration. In Virginia yesterday, it appears that important bread-and-butter issues (like school quality and traffic control) trumped Republican fear-mongering.

    by pine on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:30:01 AM PDT

    •  I think it also makes a difference

      if immigrants are your neighbors.  It's harder to demonize people you know.

      The development issue in Loudon County is a big deal.  I use a book of local bike routes from the 80's, and I can no longer follow their tours in Loudon County.  What used to be open land is now row after row of ugly houses.

      by peregrina on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:35:21 AM PDT

      •  Agree with both of you

        I think the results in Virginia going back to 2005, when Kilgore tried to make illegal immigrants a major issue in the governor's race, show the reasons why immigration doesn't do much to help the GOP in most of the country. In places where people have first-hand contact with immigrants as real people, almost all of the people who can be convinced to approve of draconian measures are already strong Republicans. In places where there aren't many immigrants, demagoguery and coded racist appeals can get people riled up, but it doesn't matter enough to their lives enough to affect their voting behavior.

        I think that's the case in the vast majority of the country. Immigration has been weak as an issue for the GOP for the past three years; even aside from the long-term demographic damage it does them, there's no way they're going to make it into the next "gay marriage."

        by Redshift on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:14:26 PM PDT

        •  But they will try and they have been

          sending letters to people saying do you know the Democrat is soft on "Illegal immigration"?

          by immigradvocate on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:37:56 PM PDT

          •  Oh, absolutely

            Even if it's not the major issue they hoped, they'll keep trying to use it as long as it has some benefit, so we to need to be prepared to counter it.

            by Redshift on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:43:01 PM PDT

  •  For me, it's almost a deal-killer

    I am opposed to illegal immigration and amnesty for those who are here illegally, and calling me a racist or a nativist is not going to change my position.  I can be persuaded by a persuasive argument, but I have yet to encounter anything out of the progressive camp that even comes within sight of that harbor.

    If the Republicans caught onto this as their signature issue (they have been mostly facilitating it), I rather suspect that a lot of people would follow.

    by Braising Kane on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:43:34 AM PDT

    •  Are you so opposed. . .

      as an otherwise "Progressive" (I hate that meaningless term) person, or as a dissatisfied Republican?  No offense meant, I just don't recognize your userid.

      by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:48:41 AM PDT

      •  I prefer the term "liberal"

        but it seems to have gone out of vogue.

        I've never been that much of an activist, but as things get worse, activism becomes more essential.

        Count me as an exceedingly dissatisfied American.

        by Braising Kane on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:02:53 AM PDT

        •  I prefer liberal as well. . .

          but I'm still not clear whether you consider yourself one or not.  I'm trying to establish whether you are a genuine liberal voice against immigration or a dissatisfied conservative.

          by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:14:53 AM PDT

          •  I don't carry a universal ID card, if that's what

            you mean. It's kind of like being at Hogwarts, and being asked by Draco Malfoy whether I am a pureblood or mudblood.  On about 90% of the issues, you'll find me on the liberal side.

            Here, I would call it the corporate side versus the labor side. Corporations want cheap labor, and the rest of us want a living wage.

            by Braising Kane on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:27:34 AM PDT

            •  Okay, so you're a. . .

              generally Democratic voter who is opposed to immigration, is that fair to say?  Really -- I'm not trying to trap you into anything.  I just want to establish whether there really are Democratic voters here who are solidly opposed to immigration before I embarrass myself claiming there are, and they all turn out to be Republican visitors.

              by LarryInNYC on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:31:00 AM PDT

              •  You Won't Embarrass Yourself

                "I just want to establish whether there really are Democratic voters here who are solidly opposed to immigration..."

                I'm as solid a Dem as it comes (and have been a leader among Dems) - although I'm not very happy with them in recent times.  And I bet that you're not either.    

                But I am sick and tired of the "scary brown people" line - that's designed to shame us into conformity.

                And conform to what, might I ask, selling out the country?  If a country can't control its own damn borders, it ceases to be a country.

                UNFORTUNATELY - there's a hell of a lot of people on this site who are just fine with that proposition.

                Oh, they want a world without borders, a country without boundaries - some weak, mushy, self-defeating nonsense like that is the conventional wisdom that prevails around here.  

                And the most galling aspect is that that's the SAME philosophy of the corporate people who undoubtedly selling out this country as fast as they can.

                So just who's REALLY a Democrat around here, and who's lurking around as witting or unwitting corporate shills?

                I'm an American and a Democrat in that order.  I don't sell out the country in order to advance the interests of the party.  And that's a position that the American people both expect and respect.

                So somebody needs to take that "scary brown people" talk and shove it.  It's producing diminishing returns.  And if you're for erasing all national borders - in my book you're just part of the problem.  Americans are trying to solve the problems we've got.  We surely don't need to add yours to the pile.

                by brentmack on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:32:58 AM PDT

                •  The "no borders" issue is a larger aspect of

                  globalization. Just as capital flows across borders and trade regulations make countries open theirs more, people are going to flow along with the capital. Those same arguments you're making about people also go for trade rules, environmental regulations, and national sovereignty for a number of issues. To me taking this talk out of this package really scapegoats a bunch of people who are coming from a part of the world that we helped be so poor that they have to come here.

                  by betson08 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:20:57 PM PDT

    •  I'm sure I won't convince you,

      but my personal reasoning is this:

      1. Amnesty for people who've committed illegal immigration strengthens the country. I'm also for amnesty for people who've committed victimless marijuana crimes, for example.

      2. My grandparents broke laws getting to the US, to my benefit. I'm hardly one to judge someone else whose grandparents are breaking laws for more or less the same reason.

      3. I'm not sure what ethical right the descendants of illegal immigrants--or immigrants who abided by laws passed by illegal immigrants--have to say who isn't allowed here. I'm not saying there isn't an ethical right--and there are certain practical considerations--but I just don't feel on firm ground.

      But I guess those are really personal reasons more than strictly political ones.

      by GussieFN on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:52:45 AM PDT

      •  At what point do you stop, Gussie?

        500 million?  One billion?  Using your train of logic, it would never end.

        As for your grandparents breaking laws to get here, if I can't go wherever I want to, I have no obligation to leave the welcome mat open for anyone else.  The world isn't what it was 100 years ago.

        Every other country in the world has an immigration law, and every other world enforces theirs.  There is no right to emigrate to another country; they have to let you in.  How is it and can it be that we don't have the same prerogative?

        by Braising Kane on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:16:28 AM PDT

        •  that should be

          "every other country in the world"

          by Braising Kane on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:17:09 AM PDT

        •  That's a Non-Existent Slippery Slope

          A billion people aren't coming to America illegally within our lifetime.

          You might as well argue that torture should be allowed because some writer on 24 dreamed up a scenario where it might be useful.

          by clone12 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:30:23 AM PDT

          •  Why couldn't they?

            You have no limiting principle to stop us from sliding down that slippery slope.

            by Braising Kane on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:05:23 AM PDT

            •  There AREN'T a Billion People WILLING

              to America.

              Millions? maybe.

              But there aren't a billion people who will be making that move.

              by clone12 on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 03:37:10 PM PDT

          •  And Your's Is a Non-Existent Point

            "A billion people aren't coming to America illegally within our lifetime."

            So you're fine with an additional 300, 500 or 900 million people?

            Get real!

            by brentmack on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:41:42 AM PDT

            •  Not that I expect it to

              But the US could handle the next billion people better than most parts of the world.

              by freelunch on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:37:16 AM PDT

            •  Get a Grip

              There aren't 900 MILLION people moving into the US. The fact that you proclaim that "I'm okay with it" won't make it so.

              Who are these 900 MILLION "illegal immigrants"? half the population of China? The entire country of Mexico? Everyone in Russia? Reality-based numbers should based on, you know, reality.

              by clone12 on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 03:40:36 PM PDT

        •  Well, I think the 'slippery slope'

          argument is a bit silly, but I'm not saying you're wrong, practically-speaking. I'm saying I don't feel the ethical reason why I have to right to exclude people from this wealthy wonderful country I was lucky enough to be born in. There are plenty of practical reasons (which is why nobody actually says, 'throw open the borders and let everyone in!), but I'm still wondering about the moral argument.

          Let me ask this, though: do you think the US is at or near (or beyond) its carrying capacity for population? Are we basically outta room?

          And non-ID driver's licenses seems completely obviously a good idea to me; I'd much rather that people living here in contravention of the current immigration laws have to pass driving tests, than just let 'em loose on the roads.

          by GussieFN on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:30:42 AM PDT

          •  Yes, it's too crowded here

            I'm saying I don't feel the ethical reason why I have to right to exclude people from this wealthy wonderful country I was lucky enough to be born in.

            There's 300 million people in the US and 6 billion in the rest of the world. There's not enough wealth to take in the entire world.

            And for that matter, our per-capita income isn't THAT much higher than other developed countries. If we let in a 100 million we could easily sink back to being a less developed country.

            Is it "ethical"? Who knows. Maybe we could help the world more by being rich and and helping other countries become rich too, rather than by taking in the whole world and letting our economy sink.

            Let me ask this, though: do you think the US is at or near (or beyond) its carrying capacity for population? Are we basically outta room?

            Yes, I think the roads are too crowded, the price of homes are too high because the number of people who want to buy exceeds the homes available. Why does it take two incomes today when one used to be OK? Partially because more people bid up the price of scarce real estate.

            by Ashley Taylor on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:42:31 AM PDT

            •  If we let in 100 million people...

              ...our standard of living won't go down, because those 100 million will get haircuts.  And buy Quarter Pounders.  And go to Best Buy and buy a Hewlett Packard computer with Microsoft Windows and Office.  And buy a Chrysler.  And buy a house.  And go to a movie theater to see Saw XXXII.

              by Geotpf on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:53:11 AM PDT

              •  The salaries they make

                from doing menial jobs does not boost our economy. No one can afford to buy a house on a typical unskilled immigrant salary.

                by Ashley Taylor on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:59:29 AM PDT

                •  But not all of them are unskilled

                  Plus, not all manual labor pays poorly (especially if there are only legal folks competing for those jobs-that is, I'm not for tough border enforcement).  Plus, they will have kids, who may go to college and become doctors and computer programers.  And if legal immigration is greatly expanded, that will include doctors and computer programers (note I'm not for temporary H1B-type workers-I want future citizens, not cheap labor).

                  by Geotpf on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:24:16 AM PDT

                  •  Edit: I'm FOR tough border enforcement

                    Doh.

                    by Geotpf on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:24:51 AM PDT

                •  it depends

                  In agriculture, the laborers are paid on a per piece system so that they more they produce the more they make. For example in picking produce, some workers were making $200/day, which is not government contractor range but still respectible.  

                  by entlord1 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:48:04 AM PDT

              •  And we will mitigate the effects

                And buy Quarter Pounders.  And go to Best Buy and buy a Hewlett Packard computer with Microsoft Windows and Office.  And buy a Chrysler.  And buy a house.  And go to a movie theater to see Saw XXXII.

                Of all this growth the same way we are doing it today no doubt, with 'carbon offsets'.

                How much 'growth' is enough?

                If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                by superscalar on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:07:49 AM PDT

          •  I think we're basically there

            Most of us in the Intermountain West understand that we live in the age of limits, and understand that there is a practical carrying capacity.  And for every new immigrant, there is that much less water for the rest of us.

            Australia has a practical carrying capacity of about 20 million people and as such, their immigration policy is extremely harsh.  New Zealand can probably use more, so they aren't quite as demanding.

            As far as ethics are concerned, I think we have every right to insist that our laws be enforced, and not only when it is convenient to do so.

            by Braising Kane on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:15:19 AM PDT

            •  You are anti-immigration.

              We are not talking about that here. We are talking about illegal immigration.

              Since you are against immigration itself because the U.S. is already too crowded, you say, there's really not much for us to discuss with you.

              by Pometacom on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:27:21 AM PDT

              •  Yes but we don't live in Maine

                I live in what has become just the lastest hotspot for illegal immigration.

                San Bernardino County, CA.

                Some days it can take me one hour and forty-five minutes to drive 23 miles on the 57 freeway between Ontario and Anaheim Hills.

                And you want to make this even worse, without any discussion of what the impacts will be.

                Post.Tax.Democrat

                If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                by superscalar on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:10:55 AM PDT

                •  We can't handle any more!

                  It's just that simple.  This has become a hot-button issue because we've had enough, and if the Democratic leaders abandon us on this, we might have to hold our noses and vote elsewhere.

                  Yes, this is a wedge issue, and unless and until the Democratic Party sees this, they proceed at their peril.

                  by Braising Kane on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:13:52 AM PDT

                  •  I Absolutely Agee

                    If the Democratic Party pushes to grant amnesty for noncitizens, voters may very well turn their backs on them. With oil over $97/barrel and the dollar plunging, the Democrats' pro-amnesty stance, coupled with trade deals with Peru, no penalties for corporations manufacturing overseas, etc., etc., might be their downfall. I am a Progressive who switched my affiliation to NP in disgust over the Democratic Leadership's spineless stance on everything from impeachment to pending telecom immunity to the Mukasey debacle and more and more, including amnesty for illegal immigrants. This IS going to be a huge issue, and the Democrats, once again, are on the wrong side of it.

                    by midwestblue on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 12:01:09 PM PDT

                    •  The oil prices are so high and the stock market

                      is going down, to a large degree because immigrants are being squeezed and are having trouble paying their mortgages and credit cards. What  is your solution to dealing with the 12 million undocumented?

                      by immigradvocate on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 02:05:13 PM PDT

              •  I'm not entirely anti-immigration, but

                I think we should be putting a fairly strict limit on the numbers we do let in.  We don't need the nation of 400 million the hard-core amnesty advocates would push on us.

                by Braising Kane on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:11:03 AM PDT

                •  So Should We Also Limit the Number of Children

                  We can have?

                  Because 400M is 400M, right?

                  by clone12 on Mon Nov 19, 2007 at 03:46:09 PM PDT

        •  What is a progressive solution to

          dealing with the 12 million undocumented immigrants here in the USA? Don't forget they have 3.1 million American citizen childen when you formulate your response. And don't forget that many have spouses that are citizens or are legal residents.

          by immigradvocate on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:56:52 PM PDT

    •  Reform destroys theft and exploitation

      Most of the people who are here without proper documentation are in jobs where their employer knows it, but is able to say with a 'straight face' that the documentation was good enough to meet federal requirements. The law is completely stacked against those who are here without proper documentation and, at times, allows employers to engage in criminal actions that would be punished if the abuse of the employee were of one who had proper documentation.

      The failure to clean up the law and protect everyone who works here also strengthens the hands of employers against everyone, whether they have proper documentation or are citizens or not. Amnesty may not be palatable, but failure to provide amnesty will continue to play into the exploitation of all employees in the US by employers who think they can get away with it.

      Remember, also, that the people who come here are fairly desperate but highly motivated. They are good for our country. Our economy has demonstrated that we need these immigrants. Having an out-of-date law that is being used by some employers to steal from these people is shameful. Keeping the law and using to to continue the exploitation is indefensible.

      by freelunch on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:04:08 AM PDT

    •  to be fair then

      I guess you would support criminalizing illegal immigration, instead of treating it as a civil wrong or misdemeanor as it currently is and would agree that all illegals, including those with expired tourist or student visas, should be prosecuted.
      Of course, this will mean a diversion of manpower and resources from other problems but priorities are priorities.
      Of course employers of illegals should also be prosecuted as should those people who do business with them. Again, resources would be diverted but at least we would be able to control immigration.
      There are unanswered questions such as if employers are not able to find willing American workers or what happens to the illegals' kids who were born in the US but on the other hand, no solution does not have its own problems.
      Look at how successful East Germany was in preventing West Germans from illegally immigrating during the Cold War era.  

      by entlord1 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:45:12 AM PDT

    •  You (and America) may pay dearly for being so

      anti undocumented immigrant. Every intelligent study has shown that the illegal immigrants and immigrants help (and are vital) to the economy. They also tend to show that immigrants raise wages for all categories except those with low levels of education. Immigrants do the grunt work. They do cooking, cleaning, agriculture work, and so many other jobs that documented worker aren't ready and willing to do. And they help us stay competitive in a world where media and intelectual properties play such an important part.
      Some anti immigrant people are xenophobic, some racist and some mistakenly think their wages are being lowered by immigrants.
      Right now the dollar and the stock market are getting weaker by the minute. The best way to save both would be to have comprehensive immigration reform. Then we wouldn't have so many immigrants unable to pay their mortgages and rent. Unable to make their credit card payments. Unable to drive to work and school. The idea of starving them out is terrible economic policy. Killing the goose that lays the golden egg hurts us all.
      Should we starve them out, or deport the 12 million plus? If not, what is your plan that would be good for America?

      by immigradvocate on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:49:39 PM PDT

      •  By you I meant Kane.

        by immigradvocate on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 02:10:33 PM PDT

      •  So "brown people"

        They do cooking, cleaning, agriculture work, and so many other jobs that documented worker aren't ready and willing to do.

        So "brown people" are good for doing the work that rich white people don't want to get their hands dirty with. That's probably what the southern plantation owners said 200 years ago. "We need black slaves to do the work that white people won't do."

        Who's more racist? The pro-immigration people or the anti-immigration people?

        I think that people born here can clean their own houses and cook their own food. My parents did. I do.

        by Ashley Taylor on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 02:22:30 PM PDT

  •  The power of the issue is seen when

    old line wingnuts are now crowing that this is the winning issue for their candidate. They make no bones about the fact that they are speaking in code to the American public or that they are peddling some of the rawest racism seen in decades. It seems one side effect of 9/11 has been to make some things that we as a nation seemed to be developing away from all of a sudden become OK again.

    by entlord1 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:16:40 AM PDT

•  re

  But what will Lou Dobbs and the Rightwingers do when they can't blame everything on the browns?

  We may see whole episodes of Lou Dobbs where he simply stares and the camera and adjusts his tie.

  by cookiesandmilk on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:20:18 AM PDT

  •  Works for me

    Dobbs may be married to an immigrant, but he sure acts like the average know-nothing on his show.

    by freelunch on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:23:36 AM PDT

    •  re

      Holy crap. I that you were kidding but it's true.... She's Mexican-American...

      Oh Lou....

      by cookiesandmilk on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:25:26 AM PDT

      •  Not fair!

        The issue for Dobbs has always been one of legality, not of blocking immigration.  We can't fall into the trap of misstating ideas to make our own case.

        by Granny Doc on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:27:27 AM PDT

        •  re

          Actually, he's been very fair about pointing out the other side of the problem as well, Corporate Greed on the issue, so I give him big points for that too...

          He's given that angle more time then I thought CNN would allow, so good on him for that.

          by cookiesandmilk on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:29:11 AM PDT

        •  It's been far more than ...

          ... legality.  Dobbs' xenophobic rants have only fed the right-wing noise machine of hatred and fear.  I think it is important as well that we are very clear about Lou Dobbs, because all too many posters here are willing to defend him.

          Lou Dobbs is no friend to any progressive or democrat.  We can find plenty of folks to defend American workers without resorting to the hate-filled lies and xenophobic pandering done by Dobbs.

          by Nightprowlkitty on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:30:58 AM PDT

          •  I understand your point

            but disagree with your interpretation.

            Peace.

            by Granny Doc on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:32:13 AM PDT

          •  thank you Nightprowlkitty

            I have seen Dobbs rip repeatedly at AMERICANS of Hispanic descent because he invites them to speak to the issue then proceeds to cut them off, make sneering faces and use his "in point of fact" comments to insult them with insisting that they have the "audacity" "incredulous"  "outrageous" position in talking about immigration law reform.
            It is not only the words, but the expressions and general disrespect for people that he has invited on his show and then proceed to insult them while they sit there and acknowledge that after all it is his "show'.

            I get a viceral reaction to the ugly way he speaks to his own guests after asking them a question and then proceeds to imply that they are somehow less American and somehow trecherous for advocating for some type of reasonable laws on the issue.

            Breaking the law! breaking the law! breaking the law! When over and over and over again our our government has been spying on us as Americans lying us into a war, breaking the law again and again but this doesn't seem to be an issue for him.
            His meme against Bush is the war on the midle class. A vague appeal to working poor people who feel beseiged by the brown hordes that they may compete with for jobs.
            Come on, illegal immigrants don't compete for middle class jobs. The middle class should be concerned about the deficit and out of control war spending and the loud sucking sound of dollars going to religious organizations and charter schools.

            by TexMex on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:41:20 AM PDT

            •  And because they don't compete for middle class

              Come on, illegal immigrants don't compete for middle class jobs.

              Jobs, nobody in the Democratic Party should be concerned about illegal immigration?

              By the way, construction used to be a middle class job.

              Masonry used to be a middle class job.
              House Painting used to be a middle class job.
              etc.
              etc.
              etc.

              I believe that many of the fella's doing the remodel on the condo complex where I rent are from El Salvador -- and the owner is having a devil of a time selling these units.

              There was a time when some of these same fella's could have afforded to buy one of these condos.

              Anymore -- not so much -- and all of this is a good thing to you?

              Breaking the law! breaking the law! breaking the law!

              Yet we spend hours here beating the Republicans over the head with it.

              If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

              by superscalar on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:18:04 AM PDT

              •  As somebody who worked with those

                small contractors as well as day laborers. It's not that they don't want to pay, the U.S. born Americans who want those jobs right now are really unreliable, stupid, or alcoholic, according to them. Yes, there were some who wanted to pay crap, but I'd say a majority of them just wanted good workers and couldn't find Americans who fitted the bill. Really, it was as simple as that. People get repeat work by doing a good job, not just by doing the cheapest job.

                I don't understand you description of the condo thing either. DO you have x-ray vision to see into the pockets of those guys so you know for sure that they DON'T have green cards?

                by betson08 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:27:26 PM PDT

                •  I said they appeared to be from El Salvador

                  DO you have x-ray vision to see into the pockets of those guys so you know for sure that they DON'T have green cards?

                  I never referred to their status, it was simply a comment that they were making things that they could not afford to buy.

                  Kinda' like offshoring ends up workin' out.

                  If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

                  by superscalar on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:41:07 PM PDT

                  •  Your last line is funny :) nt

                    by betson08 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 02:31:40 PM PDT

          •  Exactly

            Remember the tuberculosis bs?

            He regularly uses the language of contamination - "those people" are sicker, dirtier, etc. This is NOT just about being illegal. It's about all those Others.

            by betson08 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:23:31 PM PDT

        •  not true!

          Dobbs may hide his wingnut side at times but he merly uses the "legal" arguement when he wants to sound reasonable. Most of the time he's a rabid, frothing at the mouth anti-immigrant nut with only one take on the issue..."KICK the DAMN BROWNIES OUT!! THEY'RE ALL CRIMINALS ENFORCE THE LAW!!!"

          by cacamp on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:47:59 AM PDT

          •  Agree, and "anti-immigrant" IS code

            for brown. You don't notice him cursing all those damn Irishmen who've overstayed their visas and are working as carpenters in Queens, do ya?

            by betson08 on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:28:59 PM PDT

            •  Look at the comments in this diary

              Look at which side of the argument constantly uses the word 'brown', the term 'brown people, the term 'mexicans', etc.

              57% of all illegal immigration is from Mexico.
              82% of all illegal immigration is from the combination of Mexico and Latin America.

              If this were a case wherein 57% of all illegal immigration was from Ireland, your comment would instead read:

              Agree, and "anti-immigrant" IS code (0 / 0)
              for white. You don't notice him cursing all those damn Mexicans who've overstayed their visas

              YOU AND YOURS are as much to blame for making this a conversation about race as the most extreme of the racist element.

              If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

              by superscalar on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 01:56:32 PM PDT

        •  But the reality is you can't legally immigrate

          very easily to the U.S. And the reality is most of the undocumented are decent, hard working, human beings, and he make his riches off of demonizing them.

          I hate people who hate undocumented immigrants. (I got that idea from you granny).

          by immigradvocate on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 02:18:22 PM PDT

      •  If his wife is not ashamed of him

        then shame on her.

        by immigradvocate on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 02:12:34 PM PDT

    •  just to clarify

      she is a Mexican-American, not an immigrant.  Either way, he's still a dangerous gasbag of nativist propaganda.

      by Man Eegee on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:37:55 AM PDT

      •  You can't call him a racist

        But people have been here.

        by Braising Kane on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:45:41 AM PDT

        •  Actually,

          I can call him a racist and do so quite regularly.  It only takes a couple of minutes of (accidentally) watching his show to pick up on his coded language.  It's dangerous media pundits like him that are ratcheting up the racial injustices in this country.

          by Man Eegee on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 08:51:28 AM PDT

          •  He hates Mexicans so much ...

            he married one!  Yah, right.

            by Braising Kane on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:04:42 AM PDT

            •  maybe

              he's too preoccupied with leprosy

              by Man Eegee on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:08:55 AM PDT

              •  This is a hit piece

                in my opinion after having researched it.

                by rick on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:34:03 AM PDT

                •  how so?

                  what makes it any different than the work that Think Progress or Media Matters does regularly?

                  by Man Eegee on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 09:52:45 AM PDT

            •  Nonsense.

              That's the oldest ploy in the book.  Fact is, plenty of folks can be very racist against Mexicans even if they have married one.  One can be bigoted in all kinds of circumstances, unfortunately.  Look at the Cheneys, comfortable with anti-gay legislation and their own daughter is gay.  It's not a rational thing and you are wrong about this.

              Tho I would describe Dobbs as xenophobic, I think that's more accurate.  He uses inflammatory language to foster hatred against undocumented migrants.  Frankly, I don't care what label you want to put on it -- there is nothing either Democratic or Progressive about what Dobbs has to say.

              by Nightprowlkitty on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:04:03 AM PDT

              •  I despise that Rovian abuse of language

                The people in question are immigrants, and they have emigrated here illegally.  Therefore, they are illegal immigrants.  "Undocumented migrants" suggests that they merely lost their paperwork.

                Whether he is Democratic or Progressive about what he has to say depends on what you think the proper position of a Democrat or progressive ought to be, and I can make the argument that his is the proper one.

                by Braising Kane on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:26:32 AM PDT

                •  Oh please.

                  It is not abuse of language and it certainly isn't Rovian.  It's a far more accurate description of folks who for myriad reasons don't have documentation -- it's not all one monolithic cause, you know.  In many cases they have indeed come here legally and then due to the abuses of our own system find themselves without documentation.  You are wrong about this.

                  You can opine as much as you want about Dobbs. You have by no means made any argument that his view is the "proper one."  He uses xenophobic and racist arguments to inflame folks against immigrants in the name of supporting labor.  One doesn't have to indulge in this kind of hate language to support labor.

                  by Nightprowlkitty on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 10:37:36 AM PDT

                  •  We should be able to separate

                    the 500,000 or so who lost their papers from the 20-30 million who never had them in the first place.

                    It's Rovian (and Orwellian) to lump them all together.

                    by Braising Kane on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:08:13 AM PDT

                    •  Cut it out ...

                      ... with the name-calling.

                      Where are you getting your figures?

                      You are the one lumping people together, not me.

                      I find your stance on this issue anything but credible, and am still wondering if you are a troll - as your record of comments here does not point to  your being either a Democrat or a Progressive.  Too many comments supporting Lou Dobbs and RW immigration talking points.

                      Bleh.

                      by Nightprowlkitty on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:12:32 AM PDT

                      •  You were the one who spoke of "many"

                        I don't buy off on your unsubstantiated assertion that most or even a substantial portion of the illegal immigrants in this country simply "lost their papers."  We don't even know how many illegal immigrants are in this country; it could be as many as 30 million!

                        If there are more than 500,000 victims of simple snafus in the paperwork, I'd be shocked -- that is incompetence almost beyond the capacity of the Bush Administration!

                        by Braising Kane on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:19:38 AM PDT

                        •  Yes.

                          I said many.  I also said "undocument migrant" was a much more accurate term for these folks.  You haven't shown otherwise except to mischaracterize my words as Rovian or Orwellian -- a ridiculous charge.

                          What's your point?

                          by Nightprowlkitty on Wed Nov 07, 2007 at 11:21:46 AM PDT

                          •  My point

                            is that the far more accurate term is "illegal alien" (what the law uses) or "illegal immigrant" for the vast majority who haven't merely lost their paperwork, but who willfully violated our immigration laws.  As those who merely lost their paperwork are by definition legal immigrants, the two classes ar