Skip to main content

It's your standard scare mongering about brown people, as if this district hasn't lost its manufacturing base to outsourcing, and as if the reason no one has good jobs is that undocumented workers have taken their assembly line jobs.

Yet another reason to push hard for a great showing in this district -- to provide further proof that demonizing brown people isn't just horrific long-term politics (few would deny that with the rapid growth of the Latino vote), but also bad short-term politics as well.

On the web:
Robin Weirauch for Congress
Blue Majority ActBlue Page
Virtual phone banking help needed

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 04:43 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  They will pay in the long run (12+ / 0-)

    with the new generation of Latino voters.

    Please raise my taxes and fix the roads that are tearing up my car.

    by niteskolar on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 04:44:25 PM PST

  •  Well (6+ / 0-)

    I will admit that "racism" does drive some of the opposition to illegal immigration, but there are legitimate concerns associated with this issue. I know that I'm one of the minority here, but I am against amnesty, allowing illegals to get drivers licenses, and for them to get welfare.

    •  Are you in favor of the issue as a distraction? (19+ / 0-)

      Merely discussing driver's licenses, "amnesty" and such talking points gives undue importance to an issue Republicans are grasping at as their only chance in next year's elections.

      The economy, the war, health care, education, energy -- they have none of the real issues.  So welcome to this year's gay marriage.  The more importance you give it, the more you help them.

      Rudy Giuliani is a small man in search of a balcony. -- Jimmy Breslin

      by Dallasdoc on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 04:48:16 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  It is kind of an issue, when you factor (6+ / 0-)

        in the strain that it causes local governments. I don't support the drivers license proposal either. This issue does also affect the economy because it means lower wages for the rest of us.

        So, while I agree that gay marriage was a non-issue, I must respectfully disagree about illegal immigrations.

        •  What job are you competing for exactly? (7+ / 0-)

          Just curious.

          •  not very clever (5+ / 0-)

            Oceanstar17 does not have to be directly competing for a job to make his statement true.  All it takes is for there to be ANY displacement to any workers in any sector of the economy to cause displacements in other sectors as those displaced look for work other places.

            That is unless you are purporting that they do not take any job that an American would do normally... and that would be some dangerous ground for you to go out on laced with mines such as construction, gardening, and janitorial all of which are jobs I have done in the past.

            •  No, he said "the rest of us" (4+ / 0-)

              and I do not feel that my wages are nor my job are subject to "displacement" due to non-native workers.

              So I want to know what Oceanstar17 is competing for.  

              •  American Corporations, Gut American Jobs, (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Noah in NY, Dianna, mariachi mama

                ship them over seas and force the lowest possible wages on foreign workers, then claim their local American manufacturing capacity/factories are no longer competitive, close them down and put Americans out of work.  And he/she blames "Illegals," for taking "our" jobs.

                Not only that, but these Corporations, and their "Free Trade" Lackeys, force Trade Deals on nations that force the locals into unemployment and/or to work for Slave-Wages, in their own countries.  And, they blame "Illegals," for taking their jobs.

                I could continue.  But, just thinking about these people is, sickening. Good Night, All!

              •  Not Oceanstar (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sychotic1, Noah in NY, elliott

                But I can offer an example.

                So I want to know what Oceanstar17 is competing for.  

                All right, I have a case study for you.

                A neighbor re-roofed recently. It was one of the roofer's last jobs before retirement.

                He had been busting his ass at that job for decades, but there were compensations. He put a roof over his family's head by putting roofs over other families' heads. And put food on the table, put his kids through school, and put some money by for retirement.

                Could he have done the same thing today?

                "No. No way."

                Why not?

                "Illegals working way below scale."

                Roofing was once a blue-collar profession in which it was possible to earn a decent middle-class income. What the boom in cheap illegal labor has done has been to make it increasingly into a subsistence economy.

                And "progressives" cheer this. Go figure.

                --

                •  I just went to see Eric Schlosser last week (0+ / 0-)

                  and he made the same point about butchers and meat packers.  It used to be a good, solid middle class job, and now it is one of the lowest paying jobs with the worst working conditions out there.

                  Just call their form of government Hypocracy.

                  by lineatus on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 07:47:03 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Meatpacking moved to (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    serrano, Nightprowlkitty, Dianna, lineatus

                    right to work states before the influx of undocumentd workers, who are activley recruited by American companies. Union busting began before the immigration crisis.

                    •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

                      And the same forces which worked to produce the "right to work" laws to which you refer are currently working to derail any legislation which might curtail their access to a dirt-cheap, no-benefits labor force.

                      Right to work was a weapon against the unions.

                      And then the south-of-the-border illegals were a weapon against the nonunionized workers in the right-to-work states.

                      Do you think it will stop at that? It will not.

                      Hispanic immigrant advocates think that this is the bottom for wages, and that it's all uphill from here. Bullshit. The big money boys have no intention of stopping here. Hispanic illegals are just as disposable as were the union workers before, and as were the nonunionized workers before that. The job that a Mexican immigrant will do for $5/hr will be done by a Fujian Chinese immigrant, displacing the Mexican, for $3/hr.

                      And believe me, there are Fujianese packing themselves into shipping containers, in which they will spend a suffocating week in the stale smell of their own exhalations and sweat and shit, to get here to do just that.

                      What this is called is a "race to the bottom".

                      How do you win that race? You opt out of it.

                      Sounds like you want to stay in. Forgive me if I don't want to go with you to see what the finish line looks like. I know what it looks like. Bangladesh. No thanks.

                      --

                      •  Oh, and one favor (0+ / 0-)

                        Tell me who you're voting for.

                        So that I can not vote for them.

                        Thanks!

                        --

                      •  Strawman. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Dianna

                        Who among the "immigrant advocates" is suggesting we allow this to continue?

                        'Cause I haven't seen any of that.  None.

                        And what exactly are you suggesting?  That we deport 12 million undocumented workers?  Yeah, that won't cost a thing, will it?  It'll be easy as pie and then just by magic we'll get good jobs again and those companies and "forces" you refer to will be forced to raise wages (which they will do with no oversight whatsoever, market forces and all).

                        Bleh.

                        What you so blithely dismiss as pro-migrant advocates have never said the bullshit you are ascribing to them.

                        Real workplace enforcement does not mean ICE agents busting in and arresting 20 or 30 undocumented workrs, shipping them to Halliburton built detention centeres and then deporting them.

                        Real workplace enforcement means ... well I'll quote Duke1676 because he says it better than I could:

                        Instead of swat teams of ICE agents storming factories and meatpacking plants looking for undocumented immigrants, we need armies of inspectors from the Department of Labor, OSHA, and other agencies, looking for labor violations and evidence unfair labor practices. This is how you raise the standards for all US workers.

                        Frankly, I don't know what you are suggesting here, your comment is incoherent when it comes to pinpointing the real problems going on in labor in America, regardless of immigrants coming or going.

                        We saw how before unions and labor laws came to pass, that in bad economic times companies can get pretty much anyone to work for any wages.  If we don't keep our labor laws and unions strong, it doesn't matter if there are NO undocumented workers, the slide into, as you call it, "Bangladesh" is inevitable.

                        You speak of "opting out" of this race.  What's your big plan?

                        And no, I saw nowhere in Mariachi Mama's comment that she wanted to "stay in."  That's just your poor reading of what she said while you were busy building up your straw man.

              •  not getting any cleverer or just spinning (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Sychotic1, Noah in NY, elliott

                politically more likely...

                "the rest of us" just means he is identifying with the people that are or have been affected, something that apparently nobody here is doing.  Nor do they seem to even care in the slightest.

                Funny that; the party of the working man, the poor... turning it' back on them to pander for votes in the future.  When it is the elections of today that will determine whether that pandering will come to anything more then cutting your own throat.

                See?  You are not the only one that can spin or frame, so how about you do the "rest of us" a favor and NOT do it in the first place?

                Everyone on this site can be broadly considered to be on the "left", they can all be broadly considered to be part of the "good" guys, so all the tossing around of some of the rhetoric by a certain group of advocates is doing nothing but damage.

                So cut the game out.

                •  Disagree. (5+ / 0-)

                  I think there are good plans that stay true to Democratic values.

                  I've linked to Duke1676's diary below that addresses the problems of the inequities in pay and shows how we can enforce labor laws without persecuting undocumented workers.

                  There's more than one way to solve this problem, and I think a solution that promotes Democratic values and rejects Republican demonization of human beings is the way to go.

                  Dems have played defense on this issue for far too long.  It's time to fight back.

                  Inhumane policies that cause massive human rights abuses, iow "enforcement-only" does not solve the problem, nor does it address the needs of the working poor.

                  •  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-)

                        people?

                        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.

                  •  directly on the studies cited (0+ / 0-)

                    I was doing some brushing up on the subject and well I just have one question:

                    When has it been considered good science to draw a conclusion based more upon assumption then fact?

                    Because you can't determine an accurate number of undocumented migrants you can't calculate an accurate estimate of impact of them upon the economy.

                    Now according to a WSJ article the economists polled were all in broad agreement that the effects on the economy were generally beneficial... but they were also in broad agreement on another point:  The group most adversely impacted by it would be low wage earners, in other words the poor.

                    Also it is worth noting that the Borjas paper that many cite in regards impact upon native poor uses a data set that looks like it is over a decade old!  Basing it appears much of their conclusions on the firm numbers from the Simpson-Mazzoli amnsesty, and it even shows that there WAS and IS an impact upon the wages of low income persons just not one that they consider "significant".  Well 3-4% IS significant if you are poor where every last penny counts.

                    Don't get me wrong, they are trying their level best to come up with something accurate but without a decent data set the conclusions drawn from them are conjectural.  And none of them that I have read in depth state that there is ZERO impact just a statistically insignificant one, or one that is not out weighed by other benefits.  And many of those benefits were on a national scale and not local.  

                    And that translates to me as "acceptable losses".

                    And on a personal note: Since I am in that economic strata I don't particularly like being considered an acceptable loss.

                    •  P.S. (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      skippythebox

                      I ask you to read this diary by Duke1676 when it comes to a real Democratic response to what's been set out by the hate-mongers in the Republican Party.

                      I ask you to look at the facts Duke sets out -- not assumptions, facts.

                      I ask you to look at the solution he proposes -- which by the way says nothing of what you object to when it comes to my rhetoric about framing.

                      I ask you to show me how any American, including the working poor, could feel either threatened by what he has to say or misunderstand it as too "wonky."

                      There are better ways to deal with this problem, skippy.  I make no claim to be a "spokesperson" on immigration issues.

                      My passion is social justice, which includes the problems you refer to when you speak of the American working poor.  So when it comes to immigration, my focus is on how folks are being hurt so badly by our present policies.

                      When it comes to how the Dems should lead on this, the politics itself, I defer to folks like Duke.

                      Here at Daily Kos I am fighting for people to be recognized as human beings no matter what their political situation or nationality is.  I think this is a good place for that conversation.

                      I hope you understand the differences I am pointing out here.  I'm suggesting Duke's rhetoric be used by our politicians, not mine.  Mine is for here, among my fellow advocates and activists.

                      •  dang it NPK! That PS changes a lot of my (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Nightprowlkitty

                        previous response!  OOOOOOO : )

                        We're okay I think, though I have been talking to you probably from the wrong vector.  The references to the more corrosive rhetoric was directed at you specifically but a general observation.

                        Thanks for the link to that diary, I find myself in general agreement with many of it' points.  And it is not mutually exclusive to either of our points on enforcement first:

                        You do not wish it to result in human rights abuses, something I don't want either.

                        And I favor going after the corporate ratfucks FIRST, last and always up to and including seizing their company and transferring ownership from any stockholders et al to those employed there.  

                        I don't think you and I are really all that far away from each other on the crux of the issues and if we could just around the bullshit thrown into the water by the more extreme elements on each side of the issue and the resulting frayed nerves created by it and them we could likely come up with something pretty sweet.

                        •  lol ... (0+ / 0-)

                          ... then you'd better disregard my most recent response to you!

                          I also don't think we're all that far apart on this.

                          If you want policy, read Duke, not me.

                          If you're interested in social justice -- for ALL of us, with no exception as to race, creed, nationality or anything else, then read me.

                          I speak about this subject when it comes to New Orleans, immigration, poverty, you name it.  As the kids would say, "it's my bag" (well, kids from the 60's!).

                          So hopefully you see a little better where I'm coming from with my strong language.

                          Because I'll fight for you if anyone dares conflate your character with your bank account.  I'll fight for anyone who is treated unjustly.

                          •  Done, (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nightprowlkitty

                            Like I said in one of my responses to you previously:  I don't care where people come from if you are cute I will date you, if you are funny I will like you and if you are being treated unjustly I will defend you.

                            I personally prefer the term illegal alien for a simple reason:  It is exact.  Conflating the legal migrant and the illegal one is in my estimation a dangerous one as it can result in blow back against ALL immigrants.  And this nation NEEDS immigration to survive.

                            Of all the industrialized nations the US and China are the only ones that are not going to see a major inversion of our demographic pyramid.  Japan will rapidly have more elderly then they will have able bodied mid aged and child bearing aged, same for most if not all of Europe.  The result is going to be some major problems in supporting their social welfare systems as fewer tax payers are available to support the budget for it.  Population contraction is also going to be a problem as you have the inevitable dying off of the elder generation...

                            All in all it is a BAD thing and the only thing that is going to keep that from happening here is immigration.  And if somebody was thinking strategically in our government we would have benefitted from the population declines in the other nations since we would have a viable expanding market and a pool of skilled highly productive workers ready to fill jobs from the overseas industries.

                            The Japanese have moved a lot of car manufacturing jobs here already for a number of reasons, more would likely come here as the workforce in Japan contracted from die off.... the same would likely come from Europe etc.

                            So I am not an opponent of immigration, far from it.  I know for each of us to survive and for this nation to survive we MUST have it.

                          •  I personally prefer ... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            skippythebox

                            ... undocumented worker, because it is even MORE accurate.  Not all undocumented workers here are "illegal."  There can be many reasons for why they don't have papers, and one is because our ICE is so dysfunctional that it can take years to have visa applications adjusted.

                            So if it's accuracy and distinction you're after, undocumented worker meets both of those requirements.

                            It also keeps folks from forgetting that we are speaking here of human beings.

                            I know this isn't going to convince you to speak otherwise.  But I'll say it each time it's brought up.

                            I'm glad we were able to iron this out, skippy.  Don't mind fighting with you (we both can take it), but I think this issue is important to both of us, and I'd rather be (mostly!) on the same page with you.

                          •  I hope that you have noted that I (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nightprowlkitty

                            tend to use both terms, partly because I do not wish to offend you.

                            You do touch on a salient point vis a vis ICE which is part of a broader problem:  The damn government is underfunded in to many key areas!  And a lot of that is because of totally gutless leadership in both parties thinking the American electorate are whores whose "love" can be purchased with tax cuts.

                            Back in the past when I made decent money before I got sick, I didn't care how much my taxes were; I wanted value for money.  Tell me how much my share of the tab would be to make sure that we effective law enforcement, decent national defense, the best schools on the planet and not a single person going to bed cold or hungary in this nation and I would cut you a check.

                            Sure some of that shouldn't be the job of government and that really is not up for debate, because it shouldn't.  But since nobody else is doing and it needs to be done it falls on the shoulders of government to do and do right.

                            Oh here is the link to the WSJ thing

                            CNN money also has an interesting bit since there are elements to it that reinforce BOTH of our positions and that is interesting on that alone.here

                            It shows that immigration IS needed, but it also shows that there is an impact upon some people, and it is those people and those near enough to them that they can see themselves in their position that we have to reach.

                            If they feel that they are protected then the undocumented (just for you) worker will also be protected as the political viability of the anti position drops, it self marginalizes as it devolves to the most rabid and therefore likely to be truly racist and xenophobic.

                            It may be a small number of people that are truly affected (for the moment assuming a near best case position), but there would be a ripple affect from those near enough to those affected on the economic ladder to identify with them that enlarges the perceived "threat".  A subtle change in rhetoric and focus coupled with legislative action to counter any negative impacts removes the perceived threat.

                            Now what we need to do is figure out how to the alter the rhetoric and determine the most elegant forms of legislative action to accomplish that.

                          •  Pfffft! (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            skippythebox

                            Now what we need to do is figure out how to the alter the rhetoric and determine the most elegant forms of legislative action to accomplish that.

                            I'm sure it can be done in mere moments!  :)

                            Seriously, I think Duke's A Progressive Plan for Immigration Reform is where to begin.

                            Yeah, the poll complained it was too long -- and it's indeed a long and comprehensive diary.

                            But that's irrelevant -- using this diary as a template would save everyone a whole lot of time.  It's all there - you could literally just take one section and figure out "elegant forms of legislation" to meet the needs of the constituency you're talking about, skippy.  In that, I cede to your expertise.

                            I think you bring something important to this conversation as far as I'm concerned (social justice).  If it's true (and thanks for the links, I'll check 'em out) that poor folks are being once again disporportionately affected here, then I want to know that and have it addressed in a way that will respect that constituency of Americans.

                            And I thank you for at least using BOTH terms (yeah, I'll never rest till it's only ONE term, and you can guess what that is! :-p -- but not to worry, I'm very patient, heh).

                          •  I will have to really read that diary in depth (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nightprowlkitty

                            I am glad that we have smoothed a bunch of the kinks out in our discussions, that takes a weight off of my mind and sure puts my Mom at peace as well (snackdoodle/ghengismom), who likes you a great deal.

                            oh a MAJOR change of subject because I just heard it on the local news here in Omaha... You know probably about the mall shooting today and Bush' visit.  Well one of the local NBC reporters was doing a standup at the mall for the local coverage and was just musing about how she was thinking this morning about how what if something really bad happened today that would focus national attention on the city (alluding to Bush being shot), and who would have thought that it would be a mall shooting.

                            My point is that if anyone says that things are not restless in the Midwest they should think about that:  Local reporters are wondering if the pres is going to get whacked when he visits and really worrying about it.  I just had to get that down while it was fresh.

                          •  It's a long read (the diary) ... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            skippythebox

                            ... but you can read it in parts and find the parts that coincide with what you have been talking about.

                            I'm also glad we're ironing this out -- not only because I have always liked you but because I think we both care about the same things and now we can work together rather than at odds with each other.

                            We're both stubborn, tho, so I doubt we'll always agree on everything!

                            Interesting stuff about Omaha.  I come from the Midwest, and I am not at all surprised they are "restless" there -- jobs are being slashed, so many soldiers killed from that region, being wounded and not getting care, all of the ills of this evil misAdministration.

                            Maybe you should write a diary about this.

                          •  I don't want to go to Gitmo quite yet (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nightprowlkitty

                            and IF I write on anything approaching that I will likely end up there.

                            I would definitely get booted from here at the very least......

                            We both may be stubborn but not STUPID stubborn...or we would still be fighting : )

                          •  On the diary (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nightprowlkitty

                            I have already seen a few things that I have minor and rather mild quibbles with but nothing worth a ruckus, but in general thus far I don't see anything outside of my comfort zone.  The biggest issue so far that I have not seen addressed is a rather touchy one so it is understandable that it might not have been brought up, and that is the racial component.  How are we going to keep the proposed new immigration system from showing a net racial bias?

                            If the basic crux of Dukes proposal is acted upon what you in effect have is a an overall increase in immigration quota with a broadened economic cross section.  So if it uses the present framework but with those two variables altered it is likely to still not serve the needs of our hemispheric neighbors, as presently no one single nation can send over a certain number of persons per year.  In the new one that number just is a larger one then presently being used as such it will slow but not stop unlawful migration.  

                            I bring it up because a response plan will need to be formulated and refined to deal with the potential problems that an ethnically skewed immigration system may bring about; not the least of which is political responses from the Black community who will see political power shifts as a result as well as less then welcoming whites.

                            That little confluence could really bite deeply into ones ass down the road.

                          •  Well ... (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            skippythebox

                            ... as far as the Black community, I read an excellent post generally about this over at Nezua's The Unapologetic Mexican speaking frankly with the African American author of The Latino Challenge to Black America, Earl Ofari Hutchinson, who had written about the strains between the black and Latino communities.

                            I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel on this.  The diverse blogosphere is probably way ahead of us on the issue of race, there's blogs of every ethnic variety that are tackling this issue.

                            The quota systems now in place are very confusing to me to understand.  Duke wrote a diary about this but I can't say I would be able to explain what he said in a way that would be useful.

                            I don't think this would be a difficult thing to work out.  And a discussion about race is, to me, a useful thing.

                          •  as long as we can anticipate enough of the (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Nightprowlkitty

                            probable friction points and a way to lessen the "heat" generated by it ahead of time we can achieve greater social change more easily, as fewer people will perceive that change as a threat and react against it.

                            And keeping reactionary forces down is a net good for everyone.

                •  Yeah, not clever enough for you. (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Nightprowlkitty, mariachi mama

                  What do I know, I come from immigrants.

                  My family worked in the textile mills.  Poor.  

                  How exactly am I turning my back on the poor hardworking folks that made America great?  

                  •  Yo Capt. Obvios... almost all of us come from (0+ / 0-)

                    immigrants...

                    And I AM poor, less then $800 a month income baby!  

                    As to HOW you are turning your back on the poor in America?

                    There are 40 million poverty stricken Americans who work at the low end of the wage scale and you want to import more poverty stricken people from whereever to compete with them for jobs....

                    Thats how.  Supply and demand... ever hear of it?  

                    Now NPK and Duke can post a study or two showing that this is actually good for the economy, and it is a net good; but not to those at the low end of the wage scale.

                    You see, according to the WSJ the majority opinion of the economists polled said that the greatest impact would be on the low wage worker.  So who is benefitting from this practice?

                    That would be the upper class mostly, and the middle class to a point; but the guys taking it up the ass for the team are the poor, just like always.

                    Now the funny thing about those studies being bandied about is that the conclusions are DEEPLY in doubt since you have no accurate figures for the numbers of illegal/undocumented immigrants from which to extrapolate an impact or benefit.  So it is as much faith and guess work as science.

                    But the one point that all of them agree on is that the impact would be felt most by the poor already here....

                    •  Yeah... (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Nightprowlkitty

                      I have a dreadful way of not restricting my desire to see people have quality jobs that provide for their families by accident of their birth, their language, or their color.  

                      Combined with my desire that everyone have access to a great education.  

                      Sucks to be me.  I hope to be as intolerant as you someday.  I'll work on it!

                      •  Those are all noble things to aspire to do (0+ / 0-)

                        and they are to be lauded.  Here is the thing though....

                        Is the proper way of achieving them the one that is being used when we can't do a decent job of providing that to those born here?

                        It has nothing to do with tolerance here, it has to do with the political realities that you and yours are simply not willing to face.  Is it right and proper given that the native poor continually get the shaft by both parties that we leave the border open so that a flow of additional poor can come into the country?

                        Now given that the immigration laws set up to slow or stop the immigration of unskilled poor were set up by in all likelihood Democratic congresses mindful of the potential impact upon the existing poor and desirous of improving their economic plight (given the amount of time that the Dems controlled congress in the last 60 years etc), I would say that it was not.

                        And given that it has been a near constant struggle to expand the social safety net the last 30-40 years, with much energy being expended in just keeping it around at all, and that no other industrialized nations allow the immigration of unskilled poor (not counting refugees); I think your willingness to expand the number of people being covered by that safety net is a risky one.

                        I am glad you have the luxury to want to do it, but as someone that depends upon that safety net for my very survival; your luxury is one I can not afford as it is likely to purchased on my back and not yours.

                        •  So you rely on the safety net (0+ / 0-)

                          from my tax dollars, and you think it is fair to demand it only for yourself and those approved by you?

                          That's very self-centered of you.  But I can't say that surprises me.

                          I have a lot of friends who weren't born here.  They pay taxes and contribute to this country every day in many ways.  Your intolerant rhetoric is hurtful to them, and causing people who used to be our friends to dislike us.  I hope that flag you wrap around yourself will keep you warm when the rest of the world turns away.

                          And who has been destroying the social safety net over these years?  Your Republican allies.  Way to pick your friends.

                          •  You just keep digging yourself in deeper (0+ / 0-)

                            The social safety net was set up by the government of the American people to serve them.  Yet you want it to cover the world and don't see how that could possibly give ammunition to the GOP for dismantling it...

                            hmmmkay.

                            And it ain't just your tax dollars buddy.. I paid a fuck load of them before I got sick!  Hell the last year I worked I PAID more in taxes then I GROSSED in my first adult professional REAL job.  So I have a stake here in how that safety net money is being spent, since I contributed to funding it to save MY ass in case of the shit hitting the fan.

                            I would love to see you sell your position to the electorate!  How about you try selling to the other nations with a social welfare system?  I am sure that Canada would endorse it.. no they bar immigration of families with a disabled family member so I don't think that you could get that to fly.  

                          •  I'm not digging, honey. (0+ / 0-)

                            Kindness and generosity will always come out on top.

                            You can put down the shovel, though.

                          •  No you are digging (0+ / 0-)

                            generosity?

                            What you are proposing is not generosity, nor is it kindness after a certain point.  

                            It is kind a generous to stretch supplies for four to include five or six but it becomes neither to stretch those supplies for 12.  And that is more in the vein of what you are talking about.

                            Want to include more people?  Increase the budget or you are going to have to cut the amount per person that each gets, that is rather simple and brutal math.

                            And if you think that you could convince the electorate to pay additional taxes to support other then their fellow countrymen in the social welfare system you are sadly irrelevant.

                      •  PS and some around here wonder why the poor (0+ / 0-)

                        vote for the other guys and against their economic interests:  They need look no further then you.

                        •  people vote against their economic interests (0+ / 0-)

                          because they are afraid and have been duped, we know that.  The right has created the immigrant-boogey-men, combined it with fear of brown people in general, and created a scapegoat that people who are fearful can hang on to.

                          I'm sorry you are so fearful. I'm sorry that you struggle.  I'm sorry that you are susceptible to the lies.  But I can understand their power, so I don't blame you.  

                          •  dude you have no idea what I have been doing here (0+ / 0-)

                            with you for the last few posts.

                            You started off with an overly smug post of mostly spin and twaddle and I have been busting your damn chops for it.

                            Yes I do rely upon the safety net for my life,  and your falling into the trap of appearing to sanction expanding the limited pool of funds in that net to cover other then those it was intended to is one that if you were wise you would not repeat.

                            And your continued usage of the "fear of brown people" twaddle that Kos and others use ignores the fact that many of those opposed to illegal immigration are just that:  Brown people!  So unless you are wanting to say that other Latinos, Chicanos, Tejanos are racist against brown people... But it sure is a good solid truncheon to beat people over the head with, who cares if it is a lie in a vast majority of the cases.

                            So yeah I have been busting your balls on being a smug little ponce using a crap frame that does not a fucking thing but piss people off and close their ears and that serves no one and nothing but ideologues and their acquisition of power and influence.

                          •  Oh? Was I busted? (0+ / 0-)

                            Huh.  Takes a bigger brain than yours, baby.

                            Maybe if I had any balls they would be busted.  But since that's not the case, I will just continue to pity you and your brain all bathed in that fear juice.

                            Fear juice and the anger juice.  A fairly toxic combination.  Good luck with that.  It will distract you from the illness, I imagine. So maybe that works for you.

                            If you have that data on

                            many of those opposed to illegal immigration are just that:  Brown people!

                            you can feel free to provide it.  That's not what I'm seeing.  All those guys on the stage the other night at the debate: not brown.

                          •  you are basing this on the debates? (0+ / 0-)

                            you really are a moron.

                            The only people to be angry or afraid of in this whole debate are idiots such as yourself, it is not the immigrant.

                          •  How come you are YELLING then? (0+ / 0-)

                            You look a little unhinged, dearie.  I hope you can get some help with that the next time you talk to your doctor.  Tell 'em about that little anger and fear thing you have going on.  I'm sure there's help for you.

                          •  ? (0+ / 0-)

                            If you think I am yelling at you, then you have had far to sheltered a life.

                            I stick by the assessment that with people such as you out walking about, the immigration issue is going to go the way the GOP wants.

                            Because considering the level of charm you have shown you couldn't get laid in a whorehouse with a fist full of 100's when it comes to winning people to your cause.

                            It actually makes me laugh to think if this had been a live conversation with witnesses the amount of damage that you would have done to your own side just by your tone... you see I am disabled.

                            So I want you to replay this entire exchange in your mind as if it occurred live in front of people who were on the bubble on this issue.  Think you convinced them that your side gives a hoot about the poor and at risk in this country?

                            Because I am pretty sure how it would play out and you lost babe.

                          •  This is a quote of your (0+ / 0-)

                            And it ain't just your tax dollars buddy.. I paid a fuck load of them before I got sick!  Hell the last year I worked I PAID more in taxes then I GROSSED in my first adult professional REAL job.  So I have a stake here in how that safety net money is being spent, since I contributed to funding it to save MY ass in case of the shit hitting the fan.

                            Try to get out of your own way and read it again. I'll help you:  on the internets, CAPS are YELLING.  

                            You have a whole boxful of cutesy phrases that you think are effective.  But they just reek of Republican dissimilation and distraction, as the whole issue does.

                            I can tell you are disabled.  Really.  And that's why I pity you and feel bad for you.  I'm sure you are fearful, and I said I understand why.  You are being played by the thugs on your weaknesses.  And I said I was sorry for that.  I really am.  It is sad.

                          •  on here I use caps (0+ / 0-)

                            instead of bold because it is just a bit easier to do while typing, so read it as emphasis on a word.

        •  One of the main ways that wages are kept low (7+ / 0-)

          is by keeping the workers underground - demonizing the immigrants instead of going after the employers.  The employers know they are in little danger of being busted, and they can pay dirt wages and keep conditions miserable because they know the employees don't dare complain.  

          And the employers don't just affect those at their own companies or in their own towns, they affect all their competitors as well.  If Factory A is cheating, and Factory B is honest, Factory B still has to keep wages and costs low in order to stay viable in the market.

          Until enforcement shifts to the businesses, nothing will happen - that's why they're happy to distract us by pointing to the immigrants as the source of the problem.

          Just call their form of government Hypocracy.

          by lineatus on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 05:17:26 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Current policy will remain. (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rolfyboy6, Sychotic1, Noah in NY, lineatus

            The people who have the most influence in our system like immigration policy just as it is.  It guarantees cheap labor, creates downward pressure on legitimate wages, and plays to nativism.  You might call it the trifecta.

            •  This is why immigration hurts the pugs (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Noah in NY, leonard145b, lineatus

               It directly pits the party's business/oligarch wing against its racist base. And this isn't at all like the business wing's working compromises with the religious right -- when it comes to immigration, the Republican BASE is in diametric opposition to its power brokers.

               It's kind of fun to watch the pugs tear themselves apart over immigration. Too bad that the Democrats, as usual, don't have the political instincts to capitalize...

              "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

              by Buzzer on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 06:16:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Your Attempt At Reasonable Racism Is Beyond (6+ / 0-)

          contempt.  

          The researchers said illegal Mexican immigrants had 1.6 fewer visits to doctors over the course of a year than people born in the country to Mexican immigrants. Other undocumented Latinos had 2.1 fewer physician visits than their U.S.-born counterparts, they said.

          "Low rates of use of health-care services by Mexican immigrants and similar trends among other Latinos do not support public concern about immigrants' overuse of the health care system," the researchers wrote.

          "Undocumented individuals demonstrate less use of health care than U.S.-born citizens and have more negative experiences with the health care that they have received," they said.

           Source: Yahoo  You have no facts, no figures, no data, nothing but your "legitimate" concerns.  Find us some data, or really, just, Fuck Off!

          •  Funding the Social Security System for Decades (4+ / 0-)

            Your undocumented worker whether from Mexico or Ireland.  They pay in to Social Security, but never get it back.  Somehow the Republicans always forget that part.

          •  Well, here's another poll (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sychotic1, Dianna

            34 percent of immigrants lack health insurance, compared to 13 percent of natives. Immigrants and their U.S.-born children account for 71 percent of the increase in the uninsured since 1989.

            http://www.cis.org/...

            •  Well ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              serrano

              ... first, that quote says "immigrants," not whether they are citizens or undocumented.

              But even so:

              Collectively, documented and undocumented immigrants earn $240 billion a year, pay $90 billion a year in taxes, and receive $5 billion in welfare. Most foreign born in this country have never used public benefits, and overall, immigrants generally use public benefits at less than half the rate of the native born. Undocumented immigrants use public benefits even less, because of fear of deportation.  Most commonly, undocumented workers use Medicaid and the US public school system, but not for themselves. These are used to benefit their children who are US citizens. (from American Immigration Lawyers Association and the Urban Institute).

              The Tancredo types like to make us think that undocumented workers are overtaxing our infrastructure.  Although in certain cities this may indeed be a problem, overall it is not.

              Fixing our policies would solve even those problems that do exist.

        •  It (5+ / 0-)

          also means lower prices for many items.  So many commentators on this issue focus on the cost of undocumented workers, but not on the benefits.  Most of them pay income taxes, SSI, sales tax ect.  Very few of them ever file for a refund.  They spend money at business, pay rent, go to movies, eat, drink just like people with documents.  That is good for the economy.  Finally, some of them belong to labor unions.  Much of the cause of falling wages is that Americans have one of the lowest rates of union membership in the first world.  Want higher pay?  Organize, yes we can!

          "If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect." B. Franklin

          by Mas Gaviota on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 06:10:33 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  So the hell what. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            elliott

            Illegals give me lower prices on goods?
            Oh great.
            So fuck all my boycotting then.
            I'll just go shop at walmart all the time because they're so damn cheap.
            Who gives a crap what they pay their people and who they buy from.
            I'll go buy my clothes from the company that uses the cheapest sweat shops employing five year olds because my shirts are cheap.
            And let's just reward all the businesses that destroy the planet and hurt humanity as long as they give us cheap good. Go Exxon!
            That bit of data is so lame and totally misses the point.

            "Oh sweetie..didn't you get any sleep? You look so tired today. " My Mom, February 2007, trying to put herself on notice with evil remarks like this.

            by Christin on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 06:20:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Great response genius, (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Noah in NY, serrano, Dianna, leonard145b

              you totally missed my point that undocumented workers do contribute much to the American economy.  But thank you for your concern.

              "If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect." B. Franklin

              by Mas Gaviota on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 06:26:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Reading Comprehension 101 (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                elliott

                Nice try.
                I didn't miss any point you made.
                I was specifically addressing the first point you made. .

                * [new] It
                also means lower prices for many items. Come

                Why are you bringing up the rest of your post when that's not what I responded to?
                Dissemble much?

                "Oh sweetie..didn't you get any sleep? You look so tired today. " My Mom, February 2007, trying to put herself on notice with evil remarks like this.

                by Christin on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 06:33:48 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  You must not be feeling well, (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  leonard145b, lineatus

                  because I was pointing out some of the ways that the undocumented contribute to the economy.  You decided to flame out on the first short part of the statement.   Yes, to most people, lower prices are a good thing.  Personally I think that most Americans are too cheap and should pay more for things that are created by workers receiving good pay.  My best advice is for you to take two asprin and go to bed.

                  "If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect." B. Franklin

                  by Mas Gaviota on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 06:39:43 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  My advice to you. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    elliott

                    Is to stop dissembling, stop trying to backtrack from what you said, stop thinking you're cute by claiming someone is not feeling well when you get called on your bullshit.
                    It's not cute, it shows your ignorance.

                    "Oh sweetie..didn't you get any sleep? You look so tired today. " My Mom, February 2007, trying to put herself on notice with evil remarks like this.

                    by Christin on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 06:43:49 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I never (0+ / 0-)

                      backtracked from my statement.  Your lack of ideas is on display for all of  daily kos to see.  Nice flame out.

                      "If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect." B. Franklin

                      by Mas Gaviota on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 06:47:48 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Unbelievable. (0+ / 0-)

                        Your asinine statement is right here for everyone to see.
                        As is your failure to address that asinine statement.
                        You stated that cheap goods make it all okay.
                        I called you on it.
                        You refuse to explain what you meant.
                        Instead, you act like a second grader and babble something about taking some aspirin and then you dissemble some more.
                        Just stop it already.
                        With each post, you sound more ridiculous and sad.
                        Pathetic.

                        "Oh sweetie..didn't you get any sleep? You look so tired today. " My Mom, February 2007, trying to put herself on notice with evil remarks like this.

                        by Christin on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 06:55:40 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Uh, (0+ / 0-)

                          I said:

                          it also means lower prices for many items

                          You said:

                          You stated that cheap goods make it all okay

                          I stated a fact without a conclusion.  You added a conclusion that was not in my post.

                          As for your last jab:

                          With each post, you sound more ridiculous and sad.
                          Pathetic.

                          The readers of this thread will make their own decisions.

                          "If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect." B. Franklin

                          by Mas Gaviota on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 07:19:08 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Insane. (0+ / 0-)

                            You simply refuse to address what I was reacting to.
                            You stated that cheap good means we should all support undocumented immigrants (said out of respect to Nightprowlkitty).
                            I don't support that just because it gives me cheap goods.
                            My reply to your comment was all about that statement.
                            That I don't care how cheap something is, it doesn't make me support any cause.
                            I pay more for everything in my life because of my damn boycotts against those companies that I feel exploit labor, people, and the environment.
                            Can you please for the love of god understand that part of where I was coming from and stop moving on to your other statements which I did not address and which were about something else entirely?

                            Neither one of us are going to budge here, because I don't think you're listening to me, and you obviously don't think I'm listening to you.

                            Can we find something to agree on?
                            I'd rather focus my displeasure on my real enemies, (i.e. All republicans) not another liberal/progressive or Democrat.

                            "Oh sweetie..didn't you get any sleep? You look so tired today. " My Mom, February 2007, trying to put herself on notice with evil remarks like this.

                            by Christin on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 07:29:26 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

            •  Well ... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Noah in NY, leonard145b, Mas Gaviota

              ... agree with you that we shouldn't support stores who use exploited labor to give us cheap goods.  Unfortunately, most Americans don't seem to care about that.  But sure, I'll grant you that.

              The other points mentioned in the comment are not so easily dismissed.  There have been studies in Arizona, among other states, that show undocumented workers actually add to the economy (as was said in the comment, through paying income taxes and social security, buying good, and even creating jobs through small businesses).

              There are other studies that have shown that punitive "enforcement only" policies are actually bad for communities and cause job losses and other economic harm.

              We can fix this problem by going after the real culprits -- the business and corporations who exploit this labor, whether it is undocumented workers or citizens.

              Right now that isn't happening.  The only thing that is happening is a lot of human rights abuses against real human beings.

              The Republican way will not help anyone.

              •  Have you read this report? (4+ / 0-)

                http://www.cis.org/...

                From the center for immigration studies?
                You know we don't see eye to eye on this.
                So I will say that though I agree with most of what you wrote in your comment, there is one issue I don't agree on.
                And that is that they add more to the economy than receive.
                But I don't like debating this with you because you are so passionate about it and you get upset if I use words you don't like, or don't agree with what you're saying.
                And I don't mean to use the word upset as an insult.
                I can't debate two issues with people because I'm passionate about them...and I get hurt when they say things that I feel are wrong and derogatory, and they think it's not derogatory it's their opinion, and round and round we go.

                "Oh sweetie..didn't you get any sleep? You look so tired today. " My Mom, February 2007, trying to put herself on notice with evil remarks like this.

                by Christin on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 06:38:57 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  The CIS ... (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ayoosilver, Mas Gaviota

                  ... is notorious for pushing inaccurate and right-wing oriented information.

                  I'd have to see this from another source before I'll take it seriously.

                  I am not being derogatory by saying that.  I have no desire to get into a big flame war with you on this.

                  I'm no genius on immigration policy but I have read enough to know that I'm not going to take CIS's word for anything without a corroborating source.

                  I've also read too many studies that say the opposite, most recently the study in Arizona that showed where their enforcement only policies actually harmed their economy.

                  All I'm saying is we can do better than just enforcement-only.  We can solve this problem by going after the real culprits (corporations) instead of the victims.

                  I am going to repost what I have already said about this, the source is also listed:

                  Collectively, documented and undocumented immigrants earn $240 billion a year, pay $90 billion a year in taxes, and receive $5 billion in welfare. Most foreign born in this country have never used public benefits, and overall, immigrants generally use public benefits at less than half the rate of the native born. Undocumented immigrants use public benefits even less, because of fear of deportation.  Most commonly, undocumented workers use Medicaid and the US public school system, but not for themselves. These are used to benefit their children who are US citizens. (from American Immigration Lawyers Association and the Urban Institute).

                  •  Seriously did not know about any (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Nightprowlkitty

                    agenda they had.
                    I just read it the other day...
                    And clicked on the "about us" tab and they said they were non partisan and not affiliated with anyone.
                    I never heard of them so you could be correct.
                    I know there's plenty of right wing think tanks out there that if you didn't know them, you'd think they were non partisan.

                    I never want to get into a flame war with you again.
                    Never ever ever ever ever.
                    Like I said before, I read your diaries and agree with what you feel and write 99 percent of the time.
                    I'm so angry with so many people in this world right now, so saddened by so much heartache, so weighed down by fear that things might not change because they haven't since we won the Senate and House, so looking for hope and finding it in special people who do care...
                    That going toe to toe with you on this just doesn't feel right.
                    I'm not against debate.
                    I don't believe in conformity.
                    We just go so heated last time...well.
                    I don't know.
                    I'd rather go toe to toe with a Hillary supporter. :-)
                    Now if you are one, let's go!

                    But anyway...remember how you tried to get me to go read a diary from..
                    I can't remember his name. Duke?
                    And I said yeah whatever?
                    I did read one he posted a day or two after you wrote that and loved it.
                    And stated that though I disagreed with some of what he wrote, he actually got me to think I might change my positions on others because of the data he presented and the way he laid out his case.

                    "Oh sweetie..didn't you get any sleep? You look so tired today. " My Mom, February 2007, trying to put herself on notice with evil remarks like this.

                    by Christin on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 07:15:06 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  All's well with me ... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Christin, ayoosilver

                      ... as far as you are concerned, Christin.  I think I understand your writing style now and I also never want to fight again with you -- frankly I think we both are all fought out on this!  :)

                      Duke is great and most of what I've learned on this issue has been either from reading his diaries or doing further research from links he's given or issues he has brought up.

                      •  Well - one thing I forgot to tell you. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        elliott, Nightprowlkitty

                        I had kept after you to provide me with some links and data that night...
                        I just kept asking and asking.
                        And I was getting so annoyed because you said you gave it to me me, and I kept going no you didn't.
                        And then the next day I saw you had, in another thread..or so far up that I didn't see it.
                        When I saw that I was like OH shit.
                        Because that would have calmed my sorry ass down.
                        So when I read your other diary and commented, I meant to apologize for that too.
                        Anyway - your passion and love for immigrants (i won't use the other term i normally due because that hurts you) is admirable.
                        As a child of two people who got off the boat in 1951, I do understand where you are coming from.  
                        And yeah..Duke knows how to present his case.

                        "Oh sweetie..didn't you get any sleep? You look so tired today. " My Mom, February 2007, trying to put herself on notice with evil remarks like this.

                        by Christin on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 07:44:31 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Thanks, Christin. (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Christin, ayoosilver

                          I saw your apology on my diary and I thought that was very classy of you.

                          I also admit I can be a real hothead and even an asshole sometimes when I get going on this issue, and I should have taken the time to answer your questions more fully.

                          So I hope now we are over that.

                          •  Well - there is hope for me yet. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            elliott, Nightprowlkitty, Mas Gaviota

                            I do look out for the little guys.
                            Because my dad is one of them.
                            Came here knowing not a word of english, worked the most menial low paying jobs..
                            Finally got a better one in a factory that gave us a middle class life.
                            That was attainable back in the day when he could buy a house for 15 thousand.
                            So...how do i say this without sounding like I'm patting myself on the back?
                            I'll just say it.
                            Most of the office cleaners in our company are Mexican.
                            No, not most. All.
                            Most can't speak English.
                            And I work later than most because I come in later than most so I get to see them when they come in five.
                            And I treat them better than all the CEO's and VP's and Executive members in my building (I work at HQ).
                            I treat them better, and became "friends" (used quotes because friends meaning as much as you can with people you don't see outside of work) with most of them who work around me because I see my Dad in all of them.
                            And I saw how people in this country looked down on my Dad who never lost his very strong accent and so they would talk loud and slow like he was an idiot.
                            And I truly and honestly believe that no one is better than anyone, period.
                            Whether you wash dishes, or clean offices or houses (like my Mom did), you are as valuable, as special, and as intelligent as anyone else.
                            Some people just don't get the breaks others do.
                            Some people just weren't given the opportunity to make a lot of money to get them into college or maybe they just aren't brilliant enough to get a scholarship.
                            In my Father's case, he had to drop out of sixth grade to help his parents.  
                            Anyway, they ask me to talk to them as much as possible so they can learn English.
                            And the above statement is where I mean please don't think I'm patting myself on the back.
                            They work so damn hard, and for so damn little, and I despise those who won't even look at them or act like they're the hired help.
                            So Jorge is not here legally, and neither is the other guy I talk to, Juan.
                            Yeah. The things I find out!
                            And l have nothing for respect and admiration for them.
                            And they make me laugh. And they make me smile.
                            And it's so amazing how much they've learned.
                            So when they stumble and go "my english so bad" I'm like are you kidding me?????
                            You speak two damn languages.
                            Most Americans speak only one.
                            And our President can't even do that.

                            So...all this babbling to say.
                            Maybe someday I'll come over to your side and think they're all Jorges and Juans.
                            And that's why I reacted so harshly to the word racist.
                            I'm a lot of things.
                            An asshole...yeah. That's me 90 percent of the time.
                            But not that.
                            I still believe you should here legally.
                            But like I said...I flip flop on a lot of stuff too so maybe if i read a few more Duke's and keep listening and debating, I dunno.

                            :-) Peace. :-)

                            "Oh sweetie..didn't you get any sleep? You look so tired today. " My Mom, February 2007, trying to put herself on notice with evil remarks like this.

                            by Christin on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 08:28:05 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                •  By the way: (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ayoosilver

                  See this for what I'm referring to about CIS.  If it's any comfort, I didn't know any of this either till a couple of months ago:

                  Summary: In charging that the fiscal impact of a proposed Senate immigration reform bill would be dire, Denver Post columnist Al Knight did not mention that the sources for his figures were two conservative groups: the Heritage Foundation think tank and the Center for Immigration Studies, which "seeks fewer immigrants."

                  CIS claims it is "nonpartisan" but that is not the case.

                •  CIS=Moonie Times (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ayoosilver, Nightprowlkitty

                  Just saying.

        •  I hear you, but... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          leonard145b

            ...the progressive, sensible way to deal with immigration is through changes in national policy that impact the dynamics of immigration patterns. That means looking at NAFTA, CAFTA, and other trade agreements, and examining our current immigration/citizenship laws, and modifying them so as to reduce the push and pull factors that drive illegal immigration in the first place.

           If we fix NAFTA, the immigration issue will fade to a much more manageable level. "Issues" like drivers' licenses are banal, symptom-oriented distractions that work only to divide people; they're not "solutions" by any measure. Not only is the macro/trade approach the best political approach, it's by far the most humane one. And you are a Democrat or at least not a wingnut, are you?

          "Le ciel est bleu, l'enfer est rouge."

          by Buzzer on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 06:12:14 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Congrats for repeating RW talking points (7+ / 0-)

      Sorry but all three of those reasons are pathetic.

      •  Thank you for pointing that out. (6+ / 0-)

        This poster has repeatedly decided to call undocumented workers "illegals," dehumanizing them and feeding into RW frames, even though s/he has been called on it many times.

        S/he also repeats false information on the cost to society of undocumented workers, again, after many times being called on it.

        I find it incredible anyone would recommend his/her comments.

        I also find it incredible that anyone here would still accept the term "illegals" to describe human beings.

        •  So what is the "politically correct" term (5+ / 2-)
          Recommended by:
          Christin, elliott, redcardphreek, brentmack, echatwa
          Hidden by:
          MI Sooner, Brad007

          then to call those who are not in proper immigration status here? Unless you believe that these persons without papers--maybe that is politically correct enough for you--are in compliance with US immigration law, what other word can you use besides "illegal" since they are in an "illegal status"?

        •  Why Do We Need To Buy Your Frame? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Christin, EastCoastShock

          Sure, "undocumented" goes down easier than "illegal" - but so what?

          They have entered this country illegally.  Are you disputing that point?

          Now why don't you stop quibbling over frames - and lay out your position on the issue so that we see what the choices really are?

          •  Goes down easier? (6+ / 0-)

            Um, no.  Calling a human being "illegal" is just plain wrong.  If I have to explain that to you, then you are the one with the problem.

            If you see below in the thread I do just that, lay out the plan I think is best -- quoting from Duke1676's great work on this issue.

            "Frames" are of utmost importance in this discussion, as the right wing's framing of the issue is what the Rahm Emmanuel's of the Dem party have fed into, and to our detriment.

            We need to stop playing defense and start playing offence -- and framing is most certainly part of that.

            What is your solution?  Or are you only interested in quibbling so you can dehumanize folks with your language?

            •  Hmmm... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Christin, Sychotic1

              How about "human beings who are in this country illegally"?

              •  Hmm, How About People Like You Who Always Start (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dianna

                their arguments with character descriptions that centers on of People of Color immigrants, denigrates them, denigrates their heritage, and thereby justifies their continued economic and political exploitation?  Do you do it on purpose?  Or were you trained, and you can't help yourselves?

              •  How about ... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Dianna, leonard145b

                ... undocumented workers?

                Many of these folks have varying stories -- many have visas and are here waiting for our dysfunctional ICE to process their paperwork.

                So no, your description is not accurate.

                And why is it so important for you to use that label in conversation?  If you have a friend who got convicted of a DUI, do you introduce him like this:  "Oh hi, Jim!  Jim, I'd like you to meet my friend, drunk driver Tom!  Drunk Driver Tom, this is my friend Jim."

                Yeah, right.

                •  Different label... (0+ / 0-)

                  ...same issue.  I agree that most pelple in this country illegally are here for economic reasons.  And you're right that we shouldn't forget that they are human beings.  But the issue still remains despite the change in designation.

                  Your example's a little silly, really...

                  •  Yeah ... (0+ / 0-)

                    ... I guess I had to use a silly example to respond to an equally silly question.

                    Seeing as you agree we shouldn't forget they are human beings, even you admit that's sort of silly.  So why not refrain from calling human beings "illegals"?

                    I fail to see any real objection here.

                    I have set forth how I think this issue should be handled.  I have yet to see your plan.

                    •  Two points of order... (0+ / 0-)
                      1.  I think you'll find I never referred to persons here illegally as "illegals".  You're probably thinking oceanstar.
                      1.  I actually haven't seen your plan for handling the issue.

                      Mine?  Time permits only a short answer - at least monitor the border and other points of entry better, and monitor the expiration of visas better, and return those individuals here without permission from where they came (subject to a few humanitarian exceptions).

                      •  Never said ... (0+ / 0-)

                        ... you used the term.  But you did ask about it and I answered.

                        It's not my plan, lol.  I make no such grand claims.  It's in this thread, but if you link to Duke1676's diaries you'll see it as well.  He has also written a more comprehensive progressive plan for immigration that was on the FP here at Daily Kos a while back.

                        Your last point -- which boils down really to deportation, is problematic and I don't agree with it.  We have 12 million undocumented workers here.  Even without going into the economic harm and moral issues, it would cost an untold amount of money to deport that many folks.

                        I hope you do read Duke's diary. It deals with the issues you are talking about here.

              •  It's verbose, (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Nightprowlkitty, Dianna

                but accurate and, for lack of a better word, compassionate.

                I still prefer to say "undocumented person" or similar. "Person who is in this country illegally" is just too many words.  But I agree, no person is illegal.

            •  How in the hell (0+ / 0-)

              is it "dehumanizing" someone who is in this country illegally?
              They are illegal immigrants period
              http://en.wikipedia.org/...

              When people come into our country illegally, there is no screening process.
              Therefore if a person has a criminal backround, there is no process to weed those people out.

              To say someone is racist against "brown people" (which is a racist euphemism if you ask me) is, in my opinion, just a way to make someone feel bad just because they want people to follow our laws if they are going to come to our country.

              One hotly-debated means to discourage unauthorized migration--laws that deny drivers licenses to people who are in the country illegally--draws support from a majority of the native born, according to a survey of the Latino population in the United States conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center (PHC).

              http://pewhispanic.org/...

              Are they racist against "brown people" too??

              As some of you know, we own a concrete business. The majority of illegal workers who work in construction are paid under the table. In cash.
              Those workers are NOT paying taxes, contrary to what I read on here. And they make damn good money. And they use the things that federal and state payroll taxes finance for free. That is not right nor is it fair to the man with two kids, who is barely making ends meet, but IS paying his taxes.

              No one should be able to come here, break our laws and use our taxpayer funded things for free.
              I can only speak to what I know about personally, but I can assure you that the vast majority of illegals who work in the construction industry do NOT pay payroll taxes.

              If someone wants to migrate to our country they should do it legally. Period.

              •  Difficult to engage ... (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                hhex65, mariachi mama

                ... all the different points in this comment.

                First, the wiki you link to does not call human beings "illegals."  It simply gives the legal terminology that would be used in court papers and courtrooms.

                I see no defense to calling any human being "illegal."  I don't see why anyone would defend it, either.

                The racism charge is real.  I can't tell you why Latinos in a Pew poll feel the way they do but are you honestly trying to say the video kos has linked to is not racist and not appealing to racism?

                But racism isn't the only problem, either.  Xenophobia, fear of the stranger, is also a big emotion the Repubs pander to.

                I don't disbelieve your anecdote.  The statistics show that undocumented migrants do in fact pay income taxes and social security.  But certainly there are plenty of folks, undocumented or legal citizens, who work under the table.  I won't deny that.

                As far as someone wanting to migrate to this country legally, that is a far different issue.  The way our laws are now that is virtually impossible for too many folks.  Please check out 147, Duke1676's excellent diary on this subject, which lays out all the facts and figures as to who is really to blame for this problem.

                I don't think we disagree on much.  I think strengthening our labor laws will solve much of the problem in your area of construction.  I think going after employers who exploit both poor undocumented workers and poor American citizens who are willing to be abused to make a buck 'cause they can't find any other way to earn money, would also help solve this problem.

                I don't think deporting 12 million people who support economies all over this country will help anyone.

                And I don't think viewing a human being as "illegal" first and foremost is something that can be defended, regardless of whether they are Mexican or Swedish.

    •  I think the more outrageous aspect of the ad (7+ / 0-)

      is that it provides no real, workable solution (the nativist, anti-immigrant rhetoric rarely does).

      Because it's a mantra of "Deny them driver's licenses, punish their children, deport them all, Amnesty NEVER," the ability to have ANY real debate arriving at a workable solution appears to have vanished in a hysteria of nativist racism.

      THis is not a new story in American history. But, rest assured, the political party that aims for short-term gain by promoting anti-immigrant policies pays a long-term price. Exhibit A: the Republican Party in California.

      "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you" ~ Pericles

      by Chrispy67 on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 04:54:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am in agreement with you about (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Sychotic1, elliott

        the ad not providing a "workable solution". That is a reasonable argument, but I respectfully disagree that this isn't a big issue.

      •  "Hysteria of Nativist Racism" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        leonard145b

        You don't use much inflammatory language, do you?

        So what is YOUR solution?

        •  A START was the comprehensive immigration reform (3+ / 0-)

          that was defeated by people screaming "Amnesty Never" even though a rational person would say huge fines, time back in their home country and being placed at the back of the line of legal immigrants wasn't a "Free Pass" to citizenship.

          I do believe for national security reasons providing driver's licenses is a smart idea.

          "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you" ~ Pericles

          by Chrispy67 on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 05:12:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well ... (10+ / 0-)

          ... if you are looking at a real Democratic solution instead of mere nativist and racist right wing talking points, check out Duke1676's diary on how the Dems could at least begin to come up with real solutions instead of merely playing defense as usual with the Repubs and allowing them to frame this debate:

          It should be clear to the Democratic leadership that this situation leaves them with the perfect opportunity to shift the immigration debate in their favor while allowing them to regain their position as the party of workers rights.

          In order to raise the standards for all workers, both US-born and immigrant, the labor and employment laws of this country need to be more strictly enforced.

          Currently "workplace enforcement" revolves around the government rooting out unauthorized workers and deporting them. The businesses rarely receive any punishments and when they do they quickly pass those costs on to consumers through higher prices as part of the cost of doing business. But the terrible working conditions that have relegated those jobs to ones that only undocumented immigrants will accept remain the same.

          This paradigm needs to shift. The government needs to shift its focus from attacking the symptom of unfair labor practices, to attacking those practices themselves.

          Instead of swat teams of ICE agents storming factories and meatpacking plants looking for undocumented immigrants, we need armies of inspectors from the Department of Labor, OSHA, and other agencies, looking for labor violations and evidence unfair labor practices. This is how you raise the standards for all US workers.

          This seems to be a no-brainer.

          While the right-wing can try to obfuscate and twist reality to suit their reactionary agenda, refocusing the debate to worker protections and raising the standards for all workers, whether they are US-born, naturalized, legal residents, or unauthorized immigrants, is not only a progressive idea that has been a basis of Democratic principles, but a position that no right-thinking American would oppose.

          Perhaps once the Democrats learn to take these simple baby-steps back towards their roots as a party, we can discuss some of those other "scarier" aspects of the debate like reforming the quota system, normalizing the status of the current unauthorized population, addressing the free-trade policies that drive migration, and maybe even sometime in the future .....those troublesome drivers licenses. ....who knows, somewhere along the line they my actually grow a backbone.

          Duke1676 has also put together a comprehensive progressive plan on immigration -- it was front paged here at Daily Kos not so long ago.

          What is your solution, by the way?

          •  That plan needs @ lst 1 more element... (0+ / 0-)

            ...which is a recognition of, and remediation of, the short-term costs to the local taxpayers & gov'ts of providing services to undocumented workers.
            Though the Rethugs are, of course, demagoguing the issue, and outright lying about much of it (wotta shock), that doesn't mean that their demonizing doesn't have enough of a germ of truth to it to find fertile ground in the minds of far too many voters, especially in the Southwest.
            Specifically, when progressives, scholars, organizers, and Dem politicians point out (correctly) that undocumented workers pay far more in taxes than they take in services, they're ignoring both who gets paid, and who has to pay, and the time frames involved
            By far, the bulk of taxes paid by any worker goes to the Feds, but the costs of most services used, esp health and education, are visited on the states and towns/cities.  One key aspect of a workable, and equitable solution, thus has to be more Federal subsidy of state and local costs of service to the undocumented workers and their families.  If we don't ensure some such benefit to the local governments, we're losing a key political point, as well as unfairly furthering one of the Rethugs' favorite general principles:  privatizing profit and socializing costs.
            Contrariwise, ensuring that state, county, and municipal governments won't have to keep paying the full freight of delivering needed services, along with all of the above points of aggressively enforcing existing employment laws for all workers, regardless of origin and legal status, could go a long way to defusing the attractions of Rethug punitive policies for Jane and Joe Sixpak.

            •  Well ... (0+ / 0-)

              ... when you say this:

              Specifically, when progressives, scholars, organizers, and Dem politicians point out (correctly) that undocumented workers pay far more in taxes than they take in services, they're ignoring both who gets paid, and who has to pay, and the time frames involved

              I'm not sure the facts support your reasoning on this.

              First, as far as "services," undocumented migrants don't, for the most part, add to that burden, i.e., health care, etc.:

              Collectively, documented and undocumented immigrants earn $240 billion a year, pay $90 billion a year in taxes, and receive $5 billion in welfare. Most foreign born in this country have never used public benefits, and overall, immigrants generally use public benefits at less than half the rate of the native born. Undocumented immigrants use public benefits even less, because of fear of deportation.  Most commonly, undocumented workers use Medicaid and the US public school system, but not for themselves. These are used to benefit their children who are US citizens. (from American Immigration Lawyers Association and the Urban Institute).

              Recent law has made it even more difficult for any undocumented worker to get health care services or go on welfare.  I don't think you are correct here.

              Only thing I can think of that would fall under what you are saying is emergency room service.  There are instances of that, but it is not widespread, and the rest of Duke's plan covers this (I'm referring to his comprehensive immigration plan which you can check out by clicking on his profile).

              Frankly, I don't think there is even a "germ" of truth in the Repub plan.

              Whatever problems do exist, they can be solved without going for an "enforcement only" policy that only hurts everyone and leaves the real culprits, the employers, unaccountable.

      •  The problem with deportation (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        leonard145b

        When I was a deputy district attorney in the 1980's, illegal aliens arrested for DUI and other misdemeanors would be turned over to the immigration authorities after spending their five days or two weeks in the county jail, and then deported.  Invariably, these people would be back in the community within days.  Deportation means dropping them on the border and telling them to walk south to the Mexican side.  There is nothing to stop them from coming back, and they will come back, as long as this is where they have family, friends, a community, and jobs.

        "Great men do not commit murder. Great nations do not start wars." William Jennings Bryan

        by Navy Vet Terp on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 05:33:29 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  I Watched Twice... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elliott, bigjacbigjacbigjac, AJsMom

      ... but didn't hear a single reference to "brown people."  I did, however, agree with some of the points made in the ad.

      Democrats ignore this issue at their own peril.  There's no more glory in seeking cheap votes than there is in seeking cheap labor.

      One side here needs to come out of the closet and boldly proclaim that you don't want any borders at all.

      Just attacking anybody who wants the borders respected is a very hollow position.  So bring on the attacks - but make it real clear where you stand in respect to national borders.  

      •  I don't trust the Republicans on this issue (6+ / 0-)

        either. What they will do is publicly bash Latinos and Arabs, while quietly promising their supporters in the construction and agriculture business that they will look the other way once elected.

      •  My, what big ears you have! (4+ / 0-)

        Didn't hear a single reference to brown people? Are you kidding? The whole subtext of that ad is that Latta is white and immigrants aren't - they don't have to come out and say it.

        The racial (and not really substantive) subtext of the thing is made all the more apparent by the utter abstraction with which the issue is presented: the ad makes no attempt to link Latta's policies with concerns specific to Ohio. And I'd bet that video footage isn't of the Ohio border. What this kind of ad does is steer the debate away from sane discussions of policy, inviting viewers instead to blame their unspecified difficulties on immigrants. It's vicious, empty, thoughtless trash.

      •  brentmack (3+ / 0-)

        you have revealed what is on my mind.

        I have looked into anarchism a little.  Anarchism is not chaos, as I think most Americans believe.

        Anarchism, as I understand it, is a system of government grouping people together in various unions and associations, and the law of the land is whatever agreements are hammered out between these groups.

        It is government based on who you are, not based on where you are.

        So, there would not be laws that apply to workers only if they work in a certain place.  The laws would apply to anyone who is in a particular situation, such as woking hard for long hours, no matter where on earth the worker is working and living.

        We have already eliminated our borders.  The Chinese workers working so hard in China to make my work boots that I wear as I work hard in retail, seelling those boots to others.....These Chinese workers are my brothers and sisters.

        Our global economy has destroyed all borders.

        So, I want to know if that man is wanted for killing people in Mexico or El Salvador, and if so, I want him locked up, pronto.  But, other than that, I want the process for getting a green card to be streamlined to the point of taking one second, as a person crosses the so-called border.

        •  Our global economy has destroyed all borders. (0+ / 0-)

          Thank you, bigjacbigjacbigjac.  I appreciate your honesty.

          And while I disagree with your take on the relevancy of borders - at least you laid your cards on the table without having to rely on the disgusting crutch of reverse-race-baiting.

          So how many more are going to step forward and admit that you just don't recognize any borders at all?

        •  Close, but not quite (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bigjacbigjacbigjac

          You hit some issues dead on. Many people assume that anarchism is one thing, and anarchosyndicalism is something slightly different. In truth, anarchism is an open system, within which mutualism, communism, syndicalism, etc. can coexist.

          Anarchism is centered on free association. It has certain values, which we can call anhierarchism, or the absence of domination, and certain approaches, which we can call panarchism, or the presence of multiple alternatives.

          In legal terms, which are not the most common topics in anarchist theory, anarchism depends on what you agree to, which may involve either or both of who or where you are. Most legal decisions would follow (1) settlements between the parties involved (2) prior agreements between the parties involved (e.g. union rules) (3) simple reciprocity.

          There are some cases where small communities could take the decision to live there as an agreement to follow their customs. These arguments would be strongest when anarchism doesn't imply any default position, (e.g. Bill leaves town for five years and Ada agree to take care of the place for Bill. Bill returns but Ada claims the place. Who gets the place?) and would be weakest when anarchism does imply a default position. (e.g. Ada runs a bar. Bill torches the bar one night, and that his response was appropriate. Bill's going to have to show that Ada implicitly agreed not to bring alcohol into the town. A dry community isn't impossible if all its people agree to post signs on its edges saying "no alcohol past this point," but it's unlikely for more than a few hundred people. I'm wondering where the customers come from if they really want a dry town.)

          No returns for privilege; full returns for labor! Labor has a right to all that it creates.

          by Mike Erwin on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 11:14:25 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  The legitimate concerns don't get addressed (5+ / 0-)

      by soundbiting the issue, though.  Driver's licenses would be an example - is it extending a privilege to someone who doesn't deserve it, or is it a way of trying to bring some order to a situation that's getting out of control.  In some rural areas of California, a significant number of drivers are unlicensed.  They buy cars for cash, don't complete title transfer paperwork, and try to stay below the radar (literally and figuratively).  On one hand, they're fairly safe drivers because they're trying hard to obey all the rules so they don't get popped for driving while brown.  On the other hand, if they do get into an accident everyone just runs away from the car.  Happened to my husband this summer; the CHP officer who showed up says that he sees the same scenario 5-10 times a week.  (And since there is no other driver, insurance companies can treat the accident as a comprehensive claim and stick you with the deductible.)

      I'd rather see some form of regulation - maybe like the overseas driver's license that you can get when you travel.  And I'd rather see immigration issues get a discussion, rather than a battle of slogans.

      Just call their form of government Hypocracy.

      by lineatus on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 04:57:44 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Most people don't see it that way (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Noah in NY, elliott, brentmack, AJsMom

        They perceive the issue as one of people who getting licenses unfairly and receiving preferential treatment. To them, because they work hard, play by the rules, and so for, it is offensive (in their minds) to see illegals get drivers licenses.

        •  I understand how many people see it. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Noah in NY, brentmack, Mas Gaviota

          But having experienced the downside firsthand, I say that it's not a clearcut issue.

          It pissed me off monumentally listening to the CNN debate when Wolf asked Obama about licenses; Obama started to say that there were several factors to consider and Wolf just cut him off with "It's a yes or no answer".  It's just not that simple.  The repubs have been ignoring the grey areas for the past ten years - on all the issues - and now we're paying the price.

          Just call their form of government Hypocracy.

          by lineatus on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 05:23:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  A lot of the concern in California (0+ / 0-)

        Is that a Driver License is what is referred to as a "breeder document".  Once you have one, you can get all sorts of other documents that give one the appearance of being in the country legally.

        As a compromise, a driver license in a different color or with a clear designation that it is not evidence of legal state residency was vehemently declined and likened to a "Star of David" if I remember correctly.

        There are bagels in the fridge

        by Sychotic1 on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 07:18:24 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Legitimizing Racism Is All People Like You Live (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      serrano, Nightprowlkitty

      for.  Tom Tancredo, is that you?

    •  I agree (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elliott, brentmack

      I don't believe that progressivism and an open-borders policy are necessarily coextensive.

    •  So you are for (6+ / 0-)

      deporting 10 million people and their families? Good luck with that one.

      •  Honestly, Kos, the problem is that the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elliott, brentmack

        laws were never enforced to begin with. I must agree with you that deporting 10 million people is probably--in fact it is definitely--unworkable. However, I also disagree with the argument that I see here that somehow persons without proper immigration documents should be automatically entitled to be put on to a track to legal status either. I disagree that illegals should qualify for drivers' licenses. I also disagree with providing illegals with non emergency services.

        I could support a system that puts those without papers on a track to legal status that requires them to pay a heavy fine, undergo a background check (anyone with a record of violent felonies should be deported), and complete some sort of national service. I could support putting those without papers on a track for citizenship if they served in the military, joined a program like Americorps, or spent a certain number of hours volunteering to help Americans in need. That way it's not a complete giveaway and they earn their citizen. Such a proposal would address the "fairness" issue that I've raised.

        •  Who ... (4+ / 0-)

          ... is suggesting a "giveaway"?

          The recent bill that passed spoke to all the issues you are talking about.

          The DREAM Act did as well.

          So who is suggesting this "giveaway" that you are talking about?

          Yet another straw man from you.

          •  I had no problem with the DREAM Act (0+ / 0-)

            because I thought that those who were brought here as infants, thinking their entire lives that they were citizens, only to find out that they weren't, shouldn't be penalized for the mistakes of their parents. In that narrow case I had no problems with it. Children shouldn't suffer for the sins of their parents.

            •  And yet ... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Dianna

              ... you felt it was terrible for students to qualify for in-state tuition even if they had been raised in the state, if they were undocumented.

              Yeah, you are just filled with compassion.

              •  No they shouldn't get in-state tuition (0+ / 0-)

                until they enter a legal status. And I don't have a problem with that. I agree that, in that narrow exception, because they were brought here by their parents, they should get some consideration. But I also don't think they should get a giveaway either.

                •  Um ... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Dianna

                  ... that was part of what the DREAM Act was about.

                  You simply repeat yourself over and over again, no matter what facts come up to show you are wrong, factually wrong.

                  I see many folks are now aware of your lack of credibility on this topic.

                  Soon everyone will realize this.  That'll be a good day for Daily Kos, imo.

        •  So (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bigjacbigjacbigjac, leonard145b

          when are the undocumented going to have time to complete "national service" or join Americorps or do community service?  Most of them already work long hard hours. Pay a heavy fine?  Where the fuck are they going to get the money? Oh I guess after working twelve hours a day they can get a night job (there is twenty four hours in a day, hooray) and do their community service on the weekends, oops they probably already work seven days a week.  So it sounds like  you are in favor of making impossible demands on someone that wants to get a green card, that way they will have to go home.

          "If you would persuade, you must appeal to interest rather than intellect." B. Franklin

          by Mas Gaviota on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 06:02:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Welcome to the hate-on club (14+ / 0-)

    We gay folk are here to serve you cookies and punch, and help make you comfortable.  Say hello to your African-American, Muslim and Jewish clubmates.  The uppity women who want careers will be in presently.  And, of course, you know the Liberals already.

    It's a very nice club you've joined, in fact.  We keep all the nasty people out there.

    Rudy Giuliani is a small man in search of a balcony. -- Jimmy Breslin

    by Dallasdoc on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 04:46:23 PM PST

  •  Doogy (0+ / 0-)

    Howser?

    "Racism...is what makes America great."

    by adamsmo on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 04:48:01 PM PST

  •  "I'm Bob Latta...." (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    RubDMC, mommyof3, timbuck

    "And I approve this message".

    He didn't sound real positive in approving it. Just my take.

    "Vice President Cheney is expanding the administration's policy on torture to include tortured logic" Sen. Dick Durbin D-IL

    by Tuba Les on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 04:48:07 PM PST

  •  Maybe if we start taking in Iraqi refugees (7+ / 0-)

    the Republican war supporters will decide it's time to end the War?

  •  Just hateful... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Anna M, brentmack

    I have to hope that it won't work for him...
    outsourcing really is the issue that should be focused on here...

    Our country can survive war, disease, and poverty... what it cannot do without is justice.

    by mommyof3 on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 04:48:48 PM PST

  •  Notice how the ones complaining are always white? (6+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bob Love, Caldonia, mcfly, rosabw, mommyof3, timbuck

    Racism, pure and simple.

    •  Not Always (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, Sychotic1, elliott, timbuck

      I know Black people here and in Louisiana who are very defensive against illegal immigrant competition for their jobs.

      The reason White people are more common is because even White people whose jobs aren't threatened by illegal immigrants will still complain, if they're racists. While Black people who complain are more likely to be sympathetic enough to their illegal competition, because they can relate to the outsider/segregation/untouchable class warfare at work.

      As usual, the racist cover for class conflict is more complicated than it appears, though it's still racist and still a cover.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 05:05:28 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  and it is class warfare (4+ / 0-)

        The key is to make that clear, as I recommended to RubDMC above

        "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
        If you want to go far, go together.
        We have to go far, quickly."

        by shpilk on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 05:12:59 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh wow, a few black people.. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        leonard145b

        In comparison to probably millions of white people that hate illegals.

        They hate them so much, they stand at the border and try to shoot them.

        It's not the fault of illegals. It's the fault of the corporations that enable them to work in this country, usually for sub-par wages and absolutely no benefits.

        That is the true evil that people should be attacking. Not the manufactured fear of giving illegals drivers' licenses or welfare. Again, manufactured fear.

        •  Not What You Said (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Sychotic1, elliott, mariachi mama

          Look, I don't know millions of White people, so I can't make the comparison. Neither can you. Although you are probably right about the ones crawling the border looking for a chance to shoot someone coming across. White people in general tend to go for that more than Black people do.

          But that's not what you said, which was itself a racist statement. And to be more clear, I also know legal immigrants from the same Latin American countries who are defensive about the illegal immigrants from their own countries who compete with them for jobs unfairly, without paying the costs to do it legally.

          You're also half right about who's to blame. The people hiring illegal immigrants knowing, or willfully ignoring, that it's illegal, are certainly at fault. But of course the people who come here illegally are responsible for their actions. They know it's illegal. They are choosing to break the law and take the risks for the chance to make more money. Of course that's their fault - why are you treating them like children who aren't responsible for their actions?

          But of course the entire issue is not nearly as serious a threat as it's made out in the media and especially (typically cowardly) Republican minds. The problem that illegal immigrants certainly represent is not worth nearly the overreaction we have.

          But there is another dimension that is even more serious than anyone talks about. These illegal immigrants should be staying in their own countries making them better. I like them working to make the US better, it serves me, they don't compete with me in my line of work (mainly high-level info architecture and tech consulting), but I would be even better served in the big picture if their countries were freer and more productive. That also means the legal immigrants would be better working back in their own countries, especially since they are more lawful and less subversive to a free country, as their immigration status here demonstrates. It's not that they don't "belong" here (except that immigration laws must be obeyed), but that their own country could use them more, and I appreciate how much better my life would be (including less corruption partners that encourage corruption here in the US) if their own countries were more like the one they like to work in here. I wish the US would stop helping to keep their own countries a much worse choice for the ambitious, both our government and our corporate exploitation of them. I'd rather see us backing people who visit the US only briefly to organize to make their own countries better, maybe protecting their families if they're subject to political persecution while doing so, but mainly helping foreigners to help themselves.

          Immigration is complicated. The reality is hard and often scary enough with out the fear from the racists and their Republican Party, and without treating the immigrants themselves with any less respect or expectations than we do ourselves.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 06:37:18 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  It's not a progressive thing (0+ / 0-)

            To take a negative stance on illegal immigration.

            That kind of behavior would be more welcome at redstate or little green footballs.

            If it were not for NAFTA and CAFTA and all the other FTAs, people would not have to move around just to support themselves.

            •  Who Cares About Your Dogma? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              elliott

              Where's your "progressive pope" card that says you get to define who's "progressive" and who's not? Where in the progressive bible did god say we have to agree with every political position someone else calling themself progressive takes? And what's so progressive about failing to protect American labor from unfair competition from illegal immigrants?

              I'm going to go on being progressive, despite your not liking what I'm saying. Just because Conservatives oppose illegal immigration to an insane degree doesn't mean that illegal immigration is OK, or that opposing it sensibly is always Conservative. And, evidently, failing to distinguish between legal and illegal immigration is itself no monopoly of either Conservatives or progressives.

              Illegal immigration was part of America's economy (and most other industrialized countries) well before NAFTA and CAFTA. And will continue to be, regardless of how well we get it under control. What's "progressive" is to leave the old, failed political traps behind, in favor of solutions that support values like protecting ourselves against exploitation, improving our world overall so we live better in it, and thinking for ourselves rather than just adopt a posture like "the progressive thing".

              You know what's not "progressive"? Replying to my detailed, compassionate, yet realistic post that deals in facts and logic, with your obnoxious insult. Why don't you just shut up if you can't debate a point you're posting publicly? That wouldn't be particularly progressive, but at least you wouldn't be acting like a total jerk when people try to talk with you with some respect that you clearly don't deserve.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 07:52:42 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Obnoxious insult? you wish (0+ / 0-)

                Illegal immigration is a low priority in my book because no matter what laws you make or the fences you erect, people will always find a way to get in and make a better life for themselves. How is that wrong?

                •  Goodbye (0+ / 0-)

                  Telling me to go to rightwing Republican websites instead is an obnoxious insult. Now you're denying that with childish comebacks.

                  I don't care what you think is wrong, because you've totally discredited yourself. Starting with replying to my post with a strawman that I didn't say, then trying to act like you're in charge of "what's progressive" and insulting me, and now just running away from that by pretending you're debating the issue. Especially because I already agreed with your minor point, and explained how come that doesn't mean you don't do anything.

                  You're not worth wasting any more time on. Go act like you're arguing with someone else, who's distracted by your juvenile skills.

                  Goodbye.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Wed Dec 05, 2007 at 07:36:22 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

      •  but most of them don't have a platform . . . (5+ / 0-)

        like lou dobbs; heard him on Amy Goodman's show today defending how he fudges and lies about the numbers of brown people in the us.  dobbs is as big of liar as bush&co.

        Vote for Edwards! (or any other Democrat)

        by timbuck on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 05:38:05 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  Notice how the ones complaining are always white? (3+ / 2-)
      Recommended by:
      Christin, Sychotic1, elliott
      Hidden by:
      leonard145b, Brad007

      No, I haven't noticed.

      But since you haven't done too much looking around...

      Stupidity, pure and simple.

      •  I've done plenty of looking around (4+ / 0-)

        Anyone who demonizes illegal immigrants deserves to be called out on their shit.

        •  Hey, Brad (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          elliott

          What's up with your cowardly troll ratings?  

          There are plenty of blacks and LEGAL immigrants of all kinds who disagree with you.  Is your ego too fragile to handle that fact?  Or do you just prefer to ignore it?

          And since you just used the term "illegal immigrants" - does that make you a racist too?

          You'd better get with the program - the politically correct term is "undocumented."

          •  I didn't troll rate you. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dianna

            Nor do I think you are a troll.

            But I do think you're an ignoramus on this thread - haven't seen any intelligent analysis or ideas from you.

            Sure.  There are black folks and legal immigrants who are against undocumented migrants coming to America.

            There are also many people of all colors who have been fed a constant diet of fearmongering from anti-migrant assholes whose only goal is to keep the status quo -- (1) corporations who are not punished for their egregious employment violations and (2) harsh and inhumane treatment towards undocumented migrants in detention centers well known for human rights abuses akin to those at Gitmo.

            And our cowardly Dems have done nothing to debunk this hateful Republican rhetoric.  So it's no wonder so many folks drink the kool-aid.

            There are also folks who are indeed racist.  Do you deny this?  Are you saying that no one is racist on this issue?  Are you claiming the video ad kos posted is not racist?

            I'd really like to know the answer to that question.  Seems you're just sliding around this and I have no respect for that.

      •  Sheeshus. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        elliott

        The abuse of troll ratings lately is insane.
        Which is why i uprated this.
        Us liberals.
        We sure do like free speech and protests and yelling it from the rooftop.
        Until someone else says something we don't like.
        Then we turn into Hannities.
        And no, this wasn't hate speech so no one better go there.

        "Oh sweetie..didn't you get any sleep? You look so tired today. " My Mom, February 2007, trying to put herself on notice with evil remarks like this.

        by Christin on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 07:06:10 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  You are WRONG (0+ / 0-)

      One hotly-debated means to discourage unauthorized migration--laws that deny drivers licenses to people who are in the country illegally--draws support from a majority of the native born, according to a survey of the Latino population in the United States conducted by the Pew Hispanic Center (PHC).

      http://pewhispanic.org/...

  •  That ad is one of the most non-sensical (6+ / 0-)

    piece of demagoguing I have seen in many years.

    How many times does the "We Hate Brown People" have to NOT WORK before they stop sowing the seeds of hate?

    "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you" ~ Pericles

    by Chrispy67 on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 04:49:31 PM PST

  •  My speakers aren't working well (8+ / 0-)

    Did that ad end with the phrase " I'm Bob Latta and I am scared of brown people" or did it say "I'm Bob Latta and I don't approve of Brown people?"  I couldn't tell which.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 04:50:06 PM PST

  •  Yay (6+ / 0-)

    I'm encredibly happy about this. The Republicans didn't learn from the 2007 elections that people don't care that much about hating brown people. I think this ad clearly shows that the Republicans are dead set on using hate of brown people as there strategy. Just like they spent the last elections pretending that the evil gays were going to eat us and that terrorists were in you're garage about to strike now they are adding the brown people are evil line.

    Latinos are also the fasting growing part of the population. Thanks for helping us become a permanent majority Republicans!

  •  I'm Bob Latta... (5+ / 0-)

    and I approved this bigoted, rascist message.  

    Wonder if he could work that scene from Blazing Saddles with Sheriff Bart in Blazing Saddles saying, "Hey, where do you keep all the white women?" to the white hooded folks.  Jeez.  

    The November 2008 Tsudemi Approacheth!

    by Public Servant on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 04:50:44 PM PST

  •  Shared antagonism is such a cheap (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty

    rallying point!  

  •  What is the difference? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bigjacbigjacbigjac, leonard145b

    It's your standard scare mongering about brown people, as if this district hasn't lost its manufacturing base to outsourcing

    Between exporting a job to cheaper labor, and importing cheaper labor to a job?

    and as if the reason no one has good jobs is that undocumented workers have taken their assembly line jobs.

    So then, kick a few rungs out of the ladder of upward mobility by offshoring middle class jobs (in the name of 'free trade' deals wherein nothing is actually 'traded') then when the wage and job compression sets in and that forty year old realizes that he/she is going to have to take a job working for less money and fewer or no benefits, really set the hook and make him/her compete with inshored labor.

    Nice.

    <div style="font-size:10px;text-align:center;background-color:#ffd;color:#f33">If the terriers and bariffs are torn down, this economy will grow - G. Bush

    by superscalar on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 04:51:13 PM PST

  •  If I was YouTube savy I would make an ad (7+ / 0-)

    That used all of the same words but showed pictures of folks at Ellis Island.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 04:52:16 PM PST

  •  Race baiting... (6+ / 0-)

    ...at its finest.  But hey, he probably gets a good rate during the Lou Dobbs time slot.

  •  This district hasn't really lost its manufacturin (0+ / 0-)

    though.  We actually have a solar manufacturing plant that produces the most megawatts of solar cells in the US (First Solar) and the only wind farm in Ohio.  Surprisingly, much of this district has done fairly well of late (at least when compared to the rest of Ohio and neighboring Michigan).

  •  The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street. (5+ / 0-)

    Last week they were Muslim.  This week they're Brown.  Last month they were Gay.  Next month they'll be Women.  

    Thank God we killed that plot to provide health care coverage for Children.  On to the next Enemy!

    "Deforestation can never be stopped as long as trees are worth more dead than alive" - Mark Lynas

    by Bob Love on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 04:56:29 PM PST

  •  How should dems counter? how to be humane yet (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brentmack

    Responsible in view of undocumented immigration?

  •  This is what is being latched onto (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mcfly, rosabw, Nightprowlkitty, echatwa

    It's all the Repugnants have left.

    No hope, and there is no future.

    Ronnie Raygun's 'Shining City on the Hill' is long gone. 'Morning in America' has turned to 'Mourning in Mrka', for the scared rich elite.

    Fear, violence, hatred and greed is all they have.
    It's really a perfect commercial, and it outlines exactly how they plan to play nationally, I think.

    Think of it as their swan song.
    Let them play it.

    "If you want to go quickly, go alone.
    If you want to go far, go together.
    We have to go far, quickly."

    by shpilk on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 05:00:07 PM PST

  •  No cheap labor (4+ / 0-)

    No brown people.

    No kidding.

    We are such guppies for the Man...Those illegally hiring cheap labor are laughing all the way to the bank as millions risk their lives to make a better life for their children.  

    And those willing to risk their lives  are the ones demonized as fat cats make their millions on the backs of cheap labor and feed the fires of fear to make sure their puppets are the politicians who will keep the status quo.

    There will never be anything done about "illegals"...they are too important to the economy.

    They do, however, make a NICE scapegoat!!!!!

    Oy, what's a Dem to do?

    by rosabw on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 05:00:51 PM PST

  •  (D) Campaign Against Outsourcing? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elliott, scardanelli

    It's your standard scare mongering about brown people, as if this district hasn't lost its manufacturing base to outsourcing, and as if the reason no one has good jobs is that undocumented workers have taken their assembly line jobs.

    Yet another reason to push hard for a great showing in this district -- to provide further proof that demonizing brown people isn't just horrific long-term politics (few would deny that with the rapid growth of the Latino vote), but also bad short-term politics as well.

    I agree. If the Democrat, Weirauch, ran counter ads slamming Republicans for giving outsourcers advantages and domestic workers disadvantages (like GATT/WTO/NAFTA/..., expensive employer insurance, outsourcing credits, favoring management over labor, etc), I'd be really impressed.

    Why don't they do that? I guess those Democrats would have to actually represent labor, instead of just not lying like dogs while abusing it the way Republicans do.

    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

    by DocGonzo on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 05:01:50 PM PST

  •  anti-immigration can work (4+ / 0-)

    i can tell you we'd have Congresswomen Francine Busby and Tammy Duckworth now if the GOP's xenophobia hadn't been very effective. Esp in rural, white districts with lots of farmers. for that reason, you will see folks like Schuler and Altmire side with the GOP on immigration votes.

    This district is NOT industry-labor heavy. that's Marci and Sherrod's old district. this is small-town, rural. Factory farms are a bigger issue than outsourcing. it's too bad urban Dems just don't get this. And Latta is the one causing all that illegal immigration with his pro-NAFTA/free trade stances.

  •  standard? i don't think so. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty, mariachi mama

    this is another phase of the overall strategy.

    this is where the bad shit starts to happen.

    they are breaking down barriers here so it's okay to unleash racial, ethnic, religious, sexual hate.

    maybe that's how they staged it and then titrated up... first it was the homosexuals, then the godless. and then the immigrants, but not explicit in color. not yet.

    the bad guys are going for it. and it's time to start realizing this is way beyond American politics. this is facist. no way around it. and it wears a Republican face.

    with the do-nothing democrats bearing silent witness as our country goes down the tubes.

    "Well we don't rent pigs and I figure it's better to say it right out front because a man that does like to rent pigs is... he's hard to stop" Gus McCrae

    by pfiore8 on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 05:19:27 PM PST

  •  strange: no mention of employer sanctions! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elliott, Nightprowlkitty

    If they really wanted to stop undocumented immigration they'd cut off the supply of jobs.

    The best way to do that is to impose huge, very costly fines on anyone who employs undocumented workers, and to couple that with very serious enforcement aimed at those employers.  That would do the trick.

    But Latta doesn't mention that at all. He only focuses on punishing those bad brown people.

    I wonder why? Could it be he really doesn't care at all about immigration?

    Could it be he's using this issue in a racist and cynical way because he's got nothing else and is desperate in the face of the Dems pointing out his corruption?

    Hmmm, I wonder...

  •  what a moron - cut foreign aid (5+ / 0-)

    to countries that provide a lot of illegal immigrants? What, does he think they're leaving those countries because they're to NICE?  Maybe if we make them worse off they'll stay home? Can somebody check this guy's pulse, I'm afraid his brain is deprived of oxygen.

  •  I feel so dirty: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    timbuck

    After watching this I felt so dirty I wanted to go take a shower. I almost think this is a joke and someone is pulling my leg.

    If only that were so!

    It is not a joke however, and that is reality. This is the kind of hatred we are up against. Can you spell Mike Huckabee??

  •  Huh? I thought brown people were illegal (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elliott, Dianna

    we need to enforce the law dammit

  •  Here we go again... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brentmack, Farm Bill Girl

    Some Kossacks are so quick to toss the racist and hate labels at anyone who dares to criticize the illegal immigration problem.

    It really undermines this site's credibility when people have such knee-jerk reactions on this issue.

    "I'm a lumberjack and I'm ok"

    by methylin on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 05:55:06 PM PST

    •  Here We Go Again And Again And Again (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sychotic1

      "Some Kossacks are so quick to toss the racist and hate labels at anyone who dares to criticize the illegal immigration problem.

      It really undermines this site's credibility when people have such knee-jerk reactions on this issue."

      Oh, you're racist too?  Just kidding.

      The misguided racist and hate labels are so repulsive that they drown out whatever good points the labelers may have to offer.

      I'm beginning to conclude that "the brown people" are just pawns between the Republicans who want cheap labor and the Naive on this site who believe it's some sort of cutting edge idea to do away with national borders.

      Too many of our own people have fallen for the corporatist trap that leads to the long-term depression of wages.

      So, yes, I'm an old-fashioned Nation-State supporter.  I haven't seen a shred of evidence indicating that the Corporatist Global Economy model benefits anybody but the Republican fatcats.

      So the reverse race-baiters on this site should take a good look around to see who their friends really are - because you've got A LOT of Republican friends in high places!

      •  Oh please. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hhex65, Dianna

        There have been all too many racist comments on this issue.  But regardless of the issue, are you claiming that there is no racism here at Daily Kos?  Are you claiming that if racism appears we should ignore it?

        And what exactly are your excellent credentials on race and what racism is?  Have you studied it?  Do you know what institutionalized racism is?  Do you believe it doesn't exist?

        Again, I'm not just speaking of immigration here.

        And finally, do you think kos is a race-baiter because he put up this video and spoke of "brown people?"  I've asked you this before and gotten no response.

        Meh.

        You have put forth no sensible Democratic plan for immigration.

        All you've done is slam people.

        Good luck with that.

  •  The "crackdown on illegal immigration" (0+ / 0-)

    certainly worked for Republicans in Prince William County, Virginia (DC suburb) last month.  It riled up the base and out they came to vote for the Republican candidate for chair of county board of supervisors.

    In late July, the chair and a sidekick on the board, up for reelection and nothing to show for their time in office, developed a resolution for the "crackdown."  With the help of a racist blogger, who also happened to head an organization called Help Save Manassas, the issue received national attention with coverage on NPR, Fox News, etc.  It was a ploy right out Rove's playbook.  The resolution came up for a vote in October, 3 weeks before the election.  It was greatly changed from the original and will do very little to change the situation in the county, but Republican voters didn't believe that (I can't wait to see the evidence when they realize the resolution has no teeth.).

    The people in the county had a choice between a forward thinking, positive Democrat and a racist fear-mongering Republican who would "help fight illegal immigration" who is using the office to either run for governor or Congress next year.

  •  Is Bob Latta gay? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brentmack

    He sure sounds like it at the end of the commercial.  Is he compensating for being gay by trying to appear tough on something?

    I guess, given the current state of the GOP it wouldn't be surprised if they were pushing another anti-gay gay man for office.

    Oy.

    -7.63, -5.79 Work like you don't need the money, Love like you've never been hurt, and Dance like nobody's watching.

    by sfluke on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 06:41:30 PM PST

  •  Sorry kos, I think you're wrong on this. (5+ / 0-)

    One:

    It does not follow that wishing to stop the flow of illegals or deporting them equates to hatred of brown people, further it is sheer ignorance and crass politics to imply it does, and just a bigoted as actually hating brown people.

    Two:

    In my local community the whole third shift of one of the better paying plants left here (oddly enough French owned) has been manned by illegals...that's not rumor but actual fact (I know some of them, don’t dislike them and have tried to explain to one why locals are so upset with them...they are working for less than locals. The illegals are also forcing non union construction workers out of their jobs locally by working for less. )

    Three:

    There are 12 to 20 million illegals in country now, no one is sure of the number, the thanks to the last amnesty and Bush's refusal to enforce the law, that's right BUSH on behalf of corporate America. They should never be rewarded for law breaking behavior by another amnesty unless you want a 100 million more poor people we can't afford to educate, make special Language provisions for, grant welfare for, (and don’t tell me we are not giving out welfare as a friend of mind who works in the local food stamp office invited me down to his office and more than half of the applicants were illegal mothers and their children who could barely speak English, the office has had to hire three Spanish speaking case workers to deal with them.) and continue to house in our prison/jail system where they right now make up a  disproportionate population of at 15,000 to 20,000 dollars a year. ( if anyone want to see links on this prison problem I can fill this sight up with them)

    Four:

    A significant proportion of potential Democratic voters are opposed to Illegal immigration and if you drive them off over such ignorance as calling the illegal crossing of our borders immigration i.e. legal immigration or in any way comparing it to legal and quoted immigration which I do not oppose nor do I know anyone who does, your winnings will be slim or non existent in the next election. These Illegals can not vote so unless you are proposing they break the law, ergo they can be of no help to the party. This is a losing issue and will keep large numbers of voters who were once Democratic voters who became Reagan voters from coming back into the fold just when they are fed up with Republican policy, plus you will loss a great many more do dont care a tinkers damned for a pro illegal immigration stand no matter what one calls it. Perhaps you’d like to see a real third party movement with significant numbers made of former Democrat and Republican voters who have more in common with each other than they do with the National leadership of both parties...perhaps it is time for that. We once had a Democratic-Republican Party  that finally after several changes became the Democratic and Republican Parties, perhaps it is time to revive that party.

    Illegal immigration is just one more burden on top of corporate welfare and privatization for the middle and lower class taxpayers (the most disproportionate heavily taxed classes... if one counts all taxes about 52 to 55 percent of annual income) to pay...and they know it.

    So quit it with this hatred of brown people nonsense that IMO actually tries to stir up hatred and stop casting illegals in the same light as legal immigrants they are not the same.

    The young man who has not wept is a savage, and the old man who will not laugh is a fool. George Santayana

    by Bobjack23 on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 07:08:21 PM PST

    •  Bobjack post of the day! n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  I agree with some of your points (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elliott

      Although I have a hard time believing that Ohio, where this guy is at, has a huge illegal immigration problem.

      And, not pointed at you, but just in general, people keep pointing out how undocumented workers pay more in than they take out.  As an abstract, that is debatable, but let us say it is true.  If it is true, it is also true that what they are paying in does not equitably go to those areas that are paying out disproportionately because of large illegal immigrant populations.

      For years the State of California has tried to collect monies from the federal government, who has not been enforcing their own laws, and the Feds continually refuse to pay.  It is estimated that California houses one quarter of all immigrants here illegally.

      There are bagels in the fridge

      by Sychotic1 on Tue Dec 04, 2007 at 07:28:41 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  You artoiculated my point of view clearly (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      elliott, Farm Bill Girl

      However, you are probably opening yourself to receive an invective of posts from people up thread who will call you "racist", "bigoted", and "intolerant" because you don't agree with their views 100%. Having gone through these threads I've endured the ad hominem attacks from those who vehemently disagree with me. Even though I am half Latino, I fully agree with you.

      To those voters--the Reagan Democrats--it's an issue of fairness. They work hard, play by the rules, do what they are supposed to; and, yet, in their minds, they are expected to support those that they perceive to be as not "playing by the rules". I'm just amazed at how so many people here deride those voters for being "racist". While I do admit that race drives some of the opposition, it is also unfair to blanketly generalize everyone who has issues with illegal immigration as being "racist" and "bigoted".

      I will get flamed further for saying this, but this issue is why the Democrats lost many working class voters in the Nixon/Reagan era. On issues like welfare, crime, taxes, many on the New Left couldn't comprehend why all too many Americans in the working class resented certain aspects of the welfare state. They didn't want to--or could empathize--with how it grated on working class families, who were doing the "right thing", "paying taxes", and so forth to then be asked to support more social programs that didn't benefit them with their precious limited income tax dollars. They didn't understand how it grated them.

      Again I think that this is still a big problem for some on the "progressive left". And you can see it in threads like this. They don't understand--or they do and don't want to understand--how a proposal such as drivers licenses for undocumented immigrants/workers (does that work for you, Nightprowlkitty, since I guess that it is, by default, "racist", to call them "illegal immigrants" or "immigrants without papers"?) would offend them and come off as being "unfair". I can fully empathize what it is like to work 40-60 hours a week, then be expected to support social programs that don't benefit me, or then be expected to support populations ("undocumented immigrants", in this case) that may not be "playing by the rules". I can understand why such a person would feel anger at what they would perceive to be an "unfair situation".

      That's why many blue collar voters support Republicans. But, to all too many posters here, their (understandable) position makes them "racist", "bigoted", and "selfish".

      •  Good Points (0+ / 0-)

        'Cept the poor rubes don't get any love on this issue from the Republicans either. They just campaign on it and then do nothing, as they do with every other wedge issue.

        Same old story, though, both political parties standing united in screwing over the working class and the poor in favor of the rich and the powerful.

        http://pragmaticprogessivedemocrat.blogspot.com

        by pragprogress on Thu Dec 06, 2007 at 12:53:37 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  The real issue... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    elliott

    ... is total immigration not illegal immigration. We should be having a policy discussion on the impact immigration is having on our environment (Carbon emissions, wildlife habitat destruction, etc.), in view of the fact that without it the U.S. would be moving toward a stable population. Neither party seems to want a rational discussion of the issue, but would rather play to their bases. Once the Sierra Club walked away from it (they were also afraid of being labeled racist) the immigration/population link has ceased to be a mainstream environmental issue, but in truth it remains the issue.

  •  again: can someone clarify the difference (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Nightprowlkitty

    I am disturbed by the scapegoating of undocumented immigrants in this country, and I think that it is dangerous as it is fueling antagonism and resentment between people in our country over what seems to be becoming in some areas of the country a race clash.  I strongly think that as they did during the civil rights movement, Democratic leadership needs to not only stand strong on legislation that helps us come together as a nation, but also use their influence to build community and understanding between people of different backgrounds.

    With that said, I have been trying to figure out what is so different (although there aren't images in her blog) between the message in this commercial and the blog post that Robin Weirauch posted on her website on 11/29/07 where she says:

    "We must secure the borders and make sure that illegal immigrants aren't rewarded for breaking the law.  That means absolutely no amnesty, no driver's licenses, and no federal benefits for illegal immigrants."
    -Robin Weirauch

    In the blog she also does target the outsourcing and foreign trade policy issues, but she comes dangerously close to also linking the loss of jobs with immigrant labor.  I have tried to get a response from her campaign with no success about this issue.

    On DailyKos, we keep on lauding our candidates for not scapegoating and vilifying undocumented immigrants, but from her blog post, it seems like she is using the same talking points within her own website.

    Can someone clarify the difference between the words of the commercial linked to in this post and what she wrote in her blog, because I am having a hard time finding it?

  •  Here's what we should do (0+ / 0-)

    Enforce our current laws. That does not involve a massive deportation

    Rather it involves 4 key steps

    1. Finish the fence
    1. Increase manpower security at the border
    1. Deport those we happen upon through law enforcement and social services
    1. Enforce the sanctions against employers who hire illegal immigrants just as we enforce all our other labor laws

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site