Skip to main content

On his Monday show this week, Ed Schultz announced his top priority for immigration reform: massing troops on the U.S.-Mexico border.

And he followed that up with a fluff interview of U.S. Senate candidate from Arizona and proud teabagger, J.D. Hayworth. Talk about strange bedfellows.

It's rare that I find myself disagreeing with Ed Schultz, but I've really got to question his assertion that a "military surge" is the appropriate (or realistic) next step in immigration reform. And c'mon, letting his new buddy, J.D., skate through an interview without a single tough question?

More importantly, this should serve as a timely reminder of the split in organized labor that came up the last time immigration reform was on the table. Ed is a stalwart labor supporter (good on him), but his tone today should be taken a warning sign for Democrats as they move forward with legislation.

When I saw the teaser at the beginning of the Ed Show, I was ready for some fireworks:

AZ IMMIGRATION: I'LL TAKE ON J.D. HAYWORTH

But Ed's intro segment before the interview was the first tip-off that he and Hayworth might not be so far apart on immigration.

Here's Ed:

President Obama needs to address this in a big way. And I see it this way. Let's see, we surged in Iraq. We're surging in Afghanistan. Isn't time to have, maybe, an American surge on America soil, Mr. President? If we've got 30,000 more troops for Afghanistan, we should put at least half that many on the United States-Mexican border. Let the Guard do what they do: guard the nation. Our best and brightest could seal the border, in what, maybe in a matter of weeks.

...

This is a war that's going on down there, folks. It's a war against hard working Americans who are losing their jobs to undocumented workers. Once we seal the border, we need to find a way to bring these folks out of the shadows and crack down on the real criminals. And that's the folks who are writing the checks because they're going for cheap labor. There's nothing American about stabbing labor right in the back for some cheap, illegal workers. We need to treat this as a real threat, which it is. It's time to put America first. And I say surge on the Arizona-Mexican border. And if the Mexicans don't like it, what are we supposed to do? Just be overrun by this?

Not exactly the tone on immigration reform that I'd expect from a progressive like Ed Schultz.

Then J.D. Hayworth showed up for his first Ed Show interview:

Ed, first of all thank you for the invitation. And you and I begin with a point of agreement.

Hayworth agreed that we've got to get troops to the border ASAP. Then he moved on to Arizona's noxious new immigration law:

Quite frankly, Arizona acted because Washington failed to act. And, yes, the people of Arizona are completely in bounds doing this...

Ed's response:

Here's what bothers me about [the Arizona immigration law], Mr. Hayworth, is that a domino effect takes place. Now in Arizona you can get a gun without a background check.

That's what bothers you about Arizona's "papers please" law, Ed? Really? That it will lead to other crappy laws? Ed's made it clear that he has sees many other problems with the law. Why not challenge Hayworth on them?

Hayworth's response was "you can call me J.D." and don't worry, the gun law is fine.

Absolutely no push-back from Ed on Hayworth's support for Arizona's immigration law. No push-back from Ed on Hayworth's support for the conceal-carry gun law. They then agree it would be wrong to recruit citizen sharp shooters to patrol the border.

Ed's next searing question: How many troops would it take to secure the border? J.D. thinks 5,000 and blasts McCain for only wanting 3,000.

Then Ed moved on to Arizona's pending Birther law. Time to get out the popcorn, right? J.D.'s a Birther, so surely Ed took him apart:

ED: I also think that a lot of this, Mr. Hayworth, comes from the dislike of the President of the United States. The whole Birther thing. C'mon, he was born in the United States. I feel like we're taking a step backward. What do you think?

J.D.: Oh sure, look. As far as I'm concerned trying to invalidate Mr. Obama's election and trying to call into question his birth certificate strikes me as esoteric...Mr. Obama is the President of the United States.

...

J.D.: Arizona's Birther bill is too narrowly drawn. Right now we're asking voters to present their own I.D's to be able to vote. Now, if we're going to ask that for voters shouldn't we ask that of every candidate on the ballot for every job on the state ballot.

Did Ed follow-up when Hayworth dodged the question on Obama's citizenship? Nope. "It's esoteric" is a good enough answer, apparently. Did he call out Hayworth for his pro-Birther past rhetoric? Nope.

Maybe he explored Hayworth's association with Jack Abramoff? Afraid not.

Ed's final question:

Quick answer: you gonna beat John McCain?

Tough interview!

I'm not going to argue against using the National Guard to patrol the border, as part of comprehensive immigration reform. But Schultz's call for immediately sending 15,000 soldiers to the Arizona-Mexico borders is unrealistic, counter-productive, and only empowers Republicans who will try to shut down comprehensive reform with calls to secure the border first. J.D. Hayworth was more than happy to have what turned out to a friendly forum for promoting the anti-immigrant GOP agenda.

Does Ed's "surge now, reform later" attitude reflect opinions within organized later? Will organized labor be an ally in Democratic efforts to reform immigration? Here's how it went down in 2007:

The threat that labor poses to the bill has gone largely unrecognized in part because three prominent unions — the service employees, the farm workers, and the hotel, restaurant and apparel workers — have backed the legislation. But that support, advocates say, has been outweighed by opposition from the A.F.L.-C.I.O. and virtually all other unions, including auto workers, Teamsters, food and commercial workers, and construction unions.

...

Supporters of the bill say that the A.F.L.-C.I.O., in opposing the legislation, is focused on protecting the gains that its mostly middle-class members have made in pay and benefits over the decades. To the labor federation, the big worry is that the bill’s guest worker provision will pull down wages, take away jobs from Americans and exploit immigrants.

Will the unions be there for the Democrats this time? Should they be? It will depend of the Democrats' ability to craft a bill that will hold their coalition together. And if Ed Schultz is any indication, that won't be an easy task.



Follow me on Twitter -- ryeland66

J.D. Hayworth's base:
Photobucket

Originally posted to ryeland on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 05:58 AM PDT.

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

    •  A different take on Immigration form a transplant (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MufsMom

      As a transplanted American, who has lived here over over two decades, came here when I was 10 and had to learn English as I attended school.  I am extremely sadden by the law in AZ.

      Full disclosure, my family chose this nation.  I chose it as well when I became a citizen.  We came here legally.  

      Here is my take.

      With the exception of the Native Americans, these days, anyone that migrates to his nation has to come legally, speak the language, English and obey the laws that govern this nation.

      This country accepts over a million foreigners more than any other nation in the world.

      The ruling population, a good many are scared of seeing their dominance gradually, becoming a melting pot as most of them have spoken as part of their being Americans, the exceptional nation.  It is unsettling to them, even though it has not happened.  But they can cite FL, CA, NM, TX and HI. They are not as disturbed by HI as they are by the other states.  AZ, 30% of the population is of the Latinos heritage. So why wait for AZ to become a FL where the Black/Brown are the majority.

      The truth and the irony are that in the 5 mentioned states above, NM is the only state with a "minority" as the chief executive. In all those states, the majority of the legislators, county officers are of the Caucasian heritage.  Unfortunately, FEAR is the driving force of finding a workable solution.

      Big Ed, as much of a gun toting Liberal he is, deep down, he is part of the ruling class, wanting a melting pot but fearing loosing the privilege that he and many of his fellow brotherns have enjoyed for so many centuries.

      •  Utter Bilge. (0+ / 0-)

        Big Ed, as much of a gun toting Liberal he is, deep down, he is part of the ruling class, wanting a melting pot but fearing loosing the privilege that he and many of his fellow brotherns have enjoyed for so many centuries.

        Armchair psychoanalizing are we?

        Criticize his positions if you like, but keep your pulled out of thin air analysis out of it.

        "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

        by leftykook on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:16:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I could tell when this started a week ago (5+ / 0-)

    Ed was about to start stepping in it....

    I predict he is going to get himself into some deep doo doo by the time this is over.  I could tell based on the language he was using when this story initially came out.

    Republicans drove the country into a ditch, and now they are complaining about the cost of the tow truck. - Jim Cornette

    by justmy2 on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:03:22 AM PDT

  •  I'm glad that you wrote about this. I was also (6+ / 0-)

    very disappointed in Ed's ideas about sending troops to the border.   However, I was surprised to see that 80% of the viewers voted in support of sending troops to the border.  

  •  Ed is a creation. He was against us, before he (4+ / 0-)

    was with us. Its about the benjamins.

    gop platform: you have a responsibility to prepare yourselves for things that are never going to happen.

    by A Runner on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:11:13 AM PDT

    •  I wouldn't (4+ / 0-)

      go nearly that far. I think it's about supporting organized labor.

      Follow me on Twitter -- ryeland66.

      by ryeland on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:13:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No He is Not a Creation. He's a Convert. BIG Diff (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ryeland, Azazello

      He was for impeachment during Bush and the elected Dems shunned his show over it. He was for investigation and prosecution after the 08 election and that got him in continued hot water with some Dems. He has been for full single payer health for years--it's the issue that flipped him left when a close friend became paralyzed. If you ever heard him speak on that subject to a live audience, which could be heard one or two times during the early years of his show, he was well left of any place the Democratic party is going to be for years to come, and left of much of this community on some issues.

      --Except on this issue. I agree, he's way off base on this. Given the rest of his positions I think he's reachable, but he's definitely in the wrong place now.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:27:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I'm as progressive as they come, but what's wrong (5+ / 0-)

    with using troops, whether federal or nation guard to maintain our border?

    Jack was out kissing babies while I was out passing bills. Someone had to tend the store. LBJ

    by flhiii88 on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:12:15 AM PDT

    •  as I said (0+ / 0-)

      I'm not opposed to it as part of comprehensive reform. But we don't have 15,000 troops to send right now...and advocating it just plays into Republican hands.

      Follow me on Twitter -- ryeland66.

      by ryeland on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:15:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Militarizing the border (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ryeland, Gary Norton

      of a country is a well worn step towards the militarization of an entire nation -- this isn't a slippery slope argument; it is history

      besides -- why do You want to militarize the border?  If the problem is with undocumented workers, there are far better and more effective solutions -- as i said above, employment enforcement and restructured trade (who wants to leave their home country if they can make a decent living there!?)

      it is the US's hammer solution to everything it seems to use the military -- the US has a massive investment in the worlds largest military budget that exceeds the entire military budgets of the rest of the world combined -- and they gotta use it somehow ... is a recipe for the continuation of a never ending military industrial complex that becomes to more than anything else -- define our nation ... STARTING with our borders ... for me ... No Thank You ...

      "I want to keep them alive long enough that I can win them to Christ," - Rick Warren, Professional Greed Driven Scumbag

      by josephk on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:50:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What do you think "using the military" means? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Collideascope, flhiii88

        It sounds like you think it means building a Maginot Line on the border.

        The military has a lot of sensory equipment, a handful of people in Hummers backed up by drones can keep a close eye on a large border area without some sort of major building project or military assault (on who?)

        I think preventing unauthorized border crossing is a much better use of Predators than blowing up Afghani weddings, and keeping hundreds of people from crossing the border seems like a reasonable job for the AZ Nat'l Guard. Not talking about having troops dug in like it was Verdun or something.

        Or do you think anyone who wants to enter the country should be able to do so anywhere, anytime and as often as they like without any oversight by our government?

        I'm against the law because I don't want my fellow citizens being harassed by cops because they're breathing while brown, that doesn't mean I think that we should have unrestricted immigration from Mexico.

        "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

        by leftykook on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:10:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  an even BETTER use for Predators (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ryeland

          is to take the resources that are dumped into our GIANT fucking military/congressional/industrial complex and put them towards schools or healthcare or a million other civil services ...

          Lockheed Martin / Boeing et al don't give a flying fuck whether You use their hardware for patrolling the border or blowing up weddings -- just as long as You keep on buying them ...

          make no mistake, my response of 'i don't want the border militarized' certainly does NOT mean -- rather, lets use all this hardware abroad instead ...

          as for People entering the country -- are You concerned that they are an invasion force? -- if that is Your concern, then absolutely, the border should be protected

          but, the immigration issue seems to be MOSTLY about undocumented workers from where i am looking at this -- and the first solution to me doesn't appear to be -- tighten the borders, but rather -- tighten the employment -- if an employer is fined $50k for hiring a $10k undocumented worker instead of a $20k authorized worker -- that will quickly change the situation, I am sure

          how many employer ICE workers could 1 predator drone fund?

          "I want to keep them alive long enough that I can win them to Christ," - Rick Warren, Professional Greed Driven Scumbag

          by josephk on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 08:12:59 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Compared to any other way of gathering (0+ / 0-)

            information, the remotely piloted aircraft are cheap for what they provide.  In particular, they have very long legs, they can observe an area for as much as 24 hours at a time and their sensory gear can see in the dark.  They don't have to fly in and out in minutes like a conventional aircraft and the operators can take a long hard look when they have to, unlike conventional aircraft. They are actually more like a spy satellite that costs a fraction of a space-based observation platform without the orbital mechanics issues involved.

            I am only discussing the nuts and bolts of our Army and National Guard keeping people from crossing our borders, and wanting to keep an eye on the border doesn't mean not wanting to keep the Capitalists from illegally using the large pool of extra labor the immigrants provide.  Keeping people from crossing the border doesn't mean rounding people up that are here.

            "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

            by leftykook on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:21:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  So that whole "Coast Guard" thing... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        flhiii88

        is a well worn step towards the militarization of an entire nation

        ?

        why do You want to militarize the border

        I don't - I just think it's a ridiculous notion that using the military to patrol national borders means we're going to become a military state.

  •  Ed should research before shooting off his mouth (5+ / 0-)

    That's always been my complaint with Ed Schultz.  He needs to take some lessons from Rachel Maddow about researching. Chances are, Ed doesn't have a clue about Hayworth being involved with Abramoff.  

  •  Labor wants comprehensive immigration reform. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ryeland, amk for obama

    Schultz does not speak for organized labor.  The sticking point for organized labor is a guest worker program.  Organized labor is not arguing for militarizing the border.

  •  Ed Shultz is an idiot (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Southside, A Runner, flhiii88

    That being said - if we adopted a REALLY LIBERAL immigration policy (path to citizenship for millions living in the shadows), and accompanied it with some really strong border enforcement + an increase in the quotas for legal immigration, we could actually pass a bill.

    There is a certain appeal to stronger border control...even if it's only marginally effective.

    LOOK IT! I WROTE A COMMENT ON BIG ORANGE SEXY TIME!!!!

    by Mark Warner is God on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:20:27 AM PDT

  •  Immigration - the easiest problem to solve (9+ / 0-)

    Ineffective billion dollar fences, armed troops on the border - not needed.

    Just enforce the laws already on the books which fine and jail CEOs for hiring them. 93% of undocumented workers are employed by big companies. And without work, they couldn't get back to their families south of the border fast enough.

    Likelihood?  Slim to none.  Republicans won't give up their fountain of cheap labor without a fight.

    In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's mind there are few. - Shunryu Suzuki

    by thenekkidtruth on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:24:03 AM PDT

    •  Repeal NAFTA. We're Driving Them Out of Their (8+ / 0-)

      country by making their farms and small businesses uncompetitive against global trade.

      It's 1st a NAFTA problem and 2nd a US hiring problem.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:29:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  It really would make sense (5+ / 0-)

      ...if we dramatically increased the fines on employers who knowingly exploit undocumented workers.  

      I agree that there are jobs that naturalized Americans are apparently less than thrilled to do for minimum wage (like fruit picking, etc).  But there are also jobs that naturalized Americans would be thrilled to do for fair wages - like construction - and those jobs are also going to undocumented workers.

      If conservatives don't want a welfare state, then they have to guarantee that naturalized Americans have the first crack at all available jobs.  As it is, too many employers don't want to pay taxes to support a safety net or hire naturalized workers at market rates.

      Our entire economic house of cards is likely unsustainable - especially if unemployment extensions end.

      •  Doesn't have to be cheap labor (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ryeland, Azazello

        Pay more for farm and construction workers and you'll see a rise in the prices of food, etc., as a result.

        But here's the part people miss. The average American will have more money to spend if they make more. Personally, I'd rather be in that position than to make so little as to be able to only afford only Walmart.

        A race to the top, instead of a Republican-style race to the bottom. It's the way the US used to be.

        In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's mind there are few. - Shunryu Suzuki

        by thenekkidtruth on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:14:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The problem is... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ryeland, thenekkidtruth

          ...that human nature being what it is, people tend to want to pay less rather than more.  I agree that grassroots prosperity is better than trickle-down.  But I just don't see an easy way to reform human nature in the immediate future, especially given the fearsome message machine of the 'greed is good' political and religious right.

        •  Farm prices are a small part of food prices (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ryeland, thenekkidtruth, Azazello

          the middle men make the big bux, the farmers make a small portion of the grocery dollar, so paying more to farm workers should not cause dramatic increase in food prices.  Emphasis on should not

          Then again, we're talking about Capitalists here, and they'll use any opportunity to chisel more money out of everyone and if they can blame it on workers, all the better for them!

          "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

          by leftykook on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:38:22 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I'm concerned about terrorists using the border (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      thenekkidtruth

      to bring in people and weapons, and the existing state of anarchy on the border facilitates that.

      Securing the border is not a magic-wand solution to these problems, but the ability of people and large quantities of drugs to be gotten across the border has got to be noticed by people who actually mean to do us harm.

      Thousands of people come across those borders every year, it doesn't take a Tom Clancy novel's worth of paranoia to imagine the national freak-out that would ensue from 20 suicide-attack terrorists pulling a Mumbai-style assault on a big mall in Phoenix or a casino in Vegas, and it would be relatively easy to do with the border so easily breached.

      "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

      by leftykook on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:29:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Terrorists will simply find another way (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ryeland, Azazello

        and, for that matter, so will undocumented workers. Sad, but factual.

        Take it from a security expert - yes, I do that sort of work. Or from the abject failure of the horrendously expensive Baja California border initiative. I (and many, many others) correctly predicted that the same number of undocumenteds would come across at a different location, and even that location was correctly identified.

        Physical border strategies are like keeping snakes from getting in using chicken wire. Maybe more apropos - chicken wire made of platinum.

        In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's mind there are few. - Shunryu Suzuki

        by thenekkidtruth on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:40:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So why just leave the door open? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          thenekkidtruth

          That doesn't make any sense.  The fact that other ways exist to smuggle people and weapons does not change the fact that an open door exists on our southern border.

          "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

          by leftykook on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:44:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You just handle security right (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ryeland, Collideascope, Azazello

            like the Israelis do. Their planes don't get hijacked, for instance. Israelis laugh at the American shoe-check, and so they should.

            If border control was the answer, I guess we'd better put a fence between us and Canada.  It's not like terrorists haven't been using that route for over a decade already. Oh, and along both seacoasts too.

            The longest border in the world, between US and Canada - 2000 miles long at $16 million per mile for a cheap fence.  One they'll get through anyway.  And the big and endlessly recurring expense will be the armed troops on the payroll posted to guard it.

            I'll let you do the math.

            In the beginner's mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert's mind there are few. - Shunryu Suzuki

            by thenekkidtruth on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:55:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The door is 19,874 miles wide (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ryeland, thenekkidtruth

            Beefing up security along the high-traffic corridors used in unauthorized border crossings from Mexico isn't going to keep any terrorists out.

      •  Umm, not through the desert (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ryeland, Azazello

        Atta came through Canada.  Far more risk there than terrorists carrying chemicals or bombs as they try to sprint through the desert.

        All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Mohandas Gandhi

        by MufsMom on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:53:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The people smugglers bring in 20... (0+ / 0-)

          ...at a time.

          The Atta attack was not one that required weapons and explosives, a Mumbai-style hotel/mall attack needs a couple dozen people with automatic weapons and explosives, not something easily smuggled thru a customs checkpoint.

          "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

          by leftykook on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:58:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  And they didn't cross the Rio Grande...did they? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ryeland

            The Atta attack was not one that required weapons and explosives, a Mumbai-style hotel/mall attack needs a couple dozen people with automatic weapons and explosives, not something easily smuggled thru a customs checkpoint.

            Airports are security chokepoints.  Twenty-thousand miles of desert, tundra, lakes, plains and oceans aren't.  That's why defense against terrorists is focused at airports (among other places).

            A large percentage of impoverished Mexicans successfully cross the U.S.-Mexico border.

            A much larger percentage of well-fed, middle-class Saudis bankrolled by a millionaire and fresh out of a 6-month course of training at a camp in al-Qaeda in Afghanistan are going to have a much, much easier time crossing whatever border they decide to cross.

            Trying to stop the next 09/11 by sending the 10th Mountain Division to Calexico is a losing proposition...

            •  "Force Multiplication" (0+ / 0-)

              They don't need a division because they have sensory gear and highly mobile units.  They're not trying to repel an assault, they're trying to prevent entry by relatively small groups (compared to a military attack) and their various sorts of sensory gear lets a small group keep an eye on a large area.  Being able to see in the dark, to be able to observe a large area of the border with a few pieces of airborne equipment at a time, and the ability to send a group of Border Patrol Officers to any place on the border in a relatively short period of time is what military forces would bring to this.  When I say "Use the Army National Guard" folks are hearing me say "Use the Gun-toting Shoot-em-up Boys" when I'm actually saying "Use the Intelligence, Detection, and Fast Response Team"...Big difference.

              "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

              by leftykook on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 10:01:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  I've always liked Ed Shultz and now (0+ / 0-)

    I like him even more. 15,000 troops at the border sounds like a perfect idea, and no, we don't need to do so as part of "comprehensive immigration reform". Do it now, get control of the border, get control of the workplace, and maybe in a few years, we can give some kind of legal status to those who are still here, but that's a big maybe.

  •  May I remind you (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ryeland, Floande, Azazello

    That Ed "Give Me A Minute" Shulz first came out AGAINST ... the public option in the Health Care Reform debate.

    It wasn't until he started listening to his callers that he completely abandoned his position and became one of the most powerful voices for a full, robust publicly run health program a liberal can find.

    Give him a minute.

    He'll come around.

    Catholic Church: Example of Religion thats TOO BIG TO FAIL

    by Detroit Mark on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:43:57 AM PDT

    •  I don't think Ed (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ryeland

      will change his position on immigration. I remember his stance was the same 3 -4 years ago when Bush floated comprehenive immigration reform.

      He almost prides himself on not completely toeing the line with a progressive stance on this issue.
      He feels he is a labor advocate first, at least on immigration,and a liberal later.

  •  You can be against the stupid law (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    liberte, Brooke In Seattle

    and be for using the National Guard to prevent unathorized border-crossing.

    I'm for dramatically rewriting our immigration laws, and at the same time, I'm for keeping the country from being overrun by unrestricted immigration and protecting our borders from smugglng of weapons and money.

    If I was planning a terrorist attack in the US, the open border would be pretty attractive.

    Some here seem to think we should allow anyone who wants to come here to do so.  I disagree. We should allow a lot more people from the south to come here legally, I actually think that Mexicans probably ought to have higher preference than folks from other countries, and they ought to be able to go back and forth easily.

    "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

    by leftykook on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:48:54 AM PDT

  •  Old labor position (4+ / 0-)

    They are taking our jobs is certainly a venerable talking point in this debate.  Employers hire undocumented workers because they can pay them less and abuse them at will.  By simple math, it is obvious that this depresses the wage scale.

    Ed illustrates the split that can appear in the Left around immigration.  Do we support the unions who see the local wage scale depressed, or do we support the undocumented workers whose employers depress that wage scale.

    Not an easy answer.  It doesn't change the racism of the current law, designed to harass all non-whites in Arizona, citizen, legal, or not.  The view will be part of the debate.

    I don't belong to an organized political party. I'm a Democrat.

    by docterry on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:49:17 AM PDT

  •  Ed is responding to his audience. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ryeland, liberte, leftykook

    This is one of the things makes the immigration issue so difficult. There can be absolutely no question that internal outsourcing is taking place. Look at meat packing, where illegal labor was used to bust unions, or construction nationwide.

  •  I was fairly surprised... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ryeland

    ...when I heard Ed go off in that direction.  But I'd wager that his position can be sold to independents.  Of course, as Representative Sanchez pointed out last night, we don't have the troops available at the moment to even consider this.

    But I'd bet this position will appeal to independents - and it's in the middle where every general election will be won for the foreseeable future.

  •  This does not surprise me coming (0+ / 0-)

    from Ed Schultz.  He is very tea-party-ish on this and he thinks it raises his street cred as a mavericky lefty.  He is not a lefty.  Never has been.  

    All compromise is based on give and take, but there can be no give and take on fundamentals. Mohandas Gandhi

    by MufsMom on Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:31:53 AM PDT

  •  Fine...boycott Ed too. (0+ / 0-)

    seriously.

  •  Two things, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ryeland

    first J.D. Hayworth has always been a staunch anti-immigration advocate. That is why he lost his seat in Congress. I am sure he still harbors the same resentment for Hispanics who voted him out of office.
    About securing our boarders with the Military. I am not sure people understand that it is not the influx of undocumented workers that is a danger to the boarder states, but the power of the drug cartels in Mexico, and if they can't get their drugs over the boarder, then they lose power. I don't think it is a bad idea to Militarize the boarders, but if we do that, we need to make it clear it is to fight these drug runners, not the people who are  looking for a better life in coming to America to work. There needs to be a clear and speedy path to citizenship which will remove the undocumented workers from the boarder crosssing mix and then the military can focus all their attention on stopping the drug runners. They too are using the poor undocumented workers as a sheild.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site