Skip to main content

Former Duke academic, David Price likes to pose as a 'moderate' liberal -- but in this election cycle, he has resorted to a Jekyll & Hyde tactic -- a piece of legislation to make Sarah Palin drool -- $600 million for border guards and pilotless drones to patrol the South West border to appeal the Tea Party in a "tough election year."

A former political science professor at Duke University, David Price has forged a career in North Carolina's progressive 4th District by projecting himself as a moderate liberal.  Price draws his political strength from liberal and black Durham and Orange County the base of the progressive University of North Carolina.  

However, Price's latest piece of legislation, HR 6080, is straight out of the Tea Party Playbook authored by Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck.  Price's bill "passed" the House yesterday, apparently on a voice vote.  Tragic.  

This bill will cost $600 million to fund 1200 heavily armed border guards assisted by untold numbers of unmanned drones to patrol the south western border.  

Yesterday, former president of Mexico, Vicente Fox, called for the immediate cessation of the US war on drugs -- a futile and counterproductive piece of political nonsense that Fox believes is fueling, arming and funding massive violence in Mexico.  In fact, Fox went much farther:  he believes that 28,000 Mexicans have died in the US war on drugs since 2006 -- although the war on drugs is now nearing its 39th birthday and the true number of its victims is probably closer to one million Mexicans.  

David Price's election year default to the hard right is emblematic of the paranoia gripping US elected officials.  Paranoia blocks out reason.  

The US war on drugs and illegal immigrants is driven by a desire to incriminate, penalize and eradicate racial minorities from African-Americans (who bear the brunt of the police and political brutality) to Hispanics, to the young and the poor and the women and the children of countless families violated by the draconian federal and state  drug laws.  Price's district includes Durham the home of Duke University and a large black population where drug arrests roll on at a steady pace.

For this one bill alone, North Carolina voters should (shudder) strongly consider sending David Price a message in the form of a non-vote this November.  Price's opponent is a knuckle-dragger extraordinaire, B. J. Lawson, but something definitely needs to be done to put the frighteners on such a casual hypocrite who poses as a liberal while kowtowing to the Tea Party.  

Originally posted to MalleusMaleficarum on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:06 AM PDT.

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

  •  Securing our border is not racist (8+ / 0-)

    While I 1000% agree with legalizing at least some drugs (marijuana for sure), it's also true that the power of the Mexican drug cartels is based on their ability to get drugs and weapons across the border (in both directions, actually, drugs go north, guns go south). If we effectively seal the border, then that will go a long ways towards helping the Mexican government to defeat the drug gangs and restore peace and calm in Mexico.

    •  Thanks for this thoughtful reply, but I disagree (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Sealing the border will simply tighten the lid on the pressure cooker elevating the level of the eventual explosion.  At first glance, the mere act of guarding a border may not seem racist, but when you consider that we shall have armed guards preventing Hispanic Mexicans from entering the USA where we persecute the poor black and Hispanic masses by incarcerating them for petty drug crimes -- it becomes more than racist -- it is a vivid form of American Apartheid.

      •  also note that illegal immigration is decreasing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        as the US economy has soured so have potential immigrants found other destinations. The irony is that there may come the day that the US is begging for immigration as the President of Mexico recently noted that the Mexican government also opposes illegal immigration in principle for removing the best workers from their economy  

      •  That argument doesn't fly. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        You are way over the top with this American Apartheid bullshit. There is nothing wrong with a country protecting its borders.

        I'm all for comprehensive immigration reform and a path to citizenship for those who are here and undocumented, but we cannot let the flow of people continue unabated. That would be unfair to American workers and those who legally immigrate.

        God has no religion. - Gandhi

        by OIL GUY on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 08:22:13 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  how much of the illegal drug traffic (0+ / 0-)

      is through illegal immigrants "muling" it through the desert as compared to the amount smuggled through checkpoints each day or entering through our ports?

      Given US history with Mexico, if we are going to resort to draconian tactics to control the drug importation problem, we should secure Mexico's Southern and Northern borders and also enforce a sea blockade of all Mexican ports. For recent historical precedent, I would suggest Black Jack's Pershing's campaign to capture Pancho Villa,or the occupation of Vera Cruz:

      •  It must actually be a large amount (0+ / 0-)

        that comes through the checkpoints and with "mules". Border agents seized 1.5 million kilos of marijuana alone at the border in 2009.

        •  however how much entered through (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          illegal immigrants who are novices at desert travel vs coyotes who regularly make the trip vs the amount brought in via vehicles vs the amount not discovered by drug agents?

          I would still argue that those seeking to enter the US for the purpose of employment represent a very small amount of the drug trade when compared with the other avenues of entry available to drug dealers

          •  Customs and Border Protection would agree with u (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            True North, OIL GUY

            That was one of Gov Brewer's justification for SB1070, that most border crossers were drug mules.  CBP immediately smacked her down and said that was absolute bullshit.  

            Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

            by Dexter on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:47:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well, I never argued otherwise (0+ / 0-)

            I think there are plenty of good reasons to seal the border totally outside of the drug trade.

          •  I suspect you are correct. The drug trade is (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            entlord1, numberzguy

            unrelated to the problem of undocumented aliens entering the United States. I certainly favor ending the 'War on Drugs,' legalizing marijuana, and decriminalizing other drugs.

            That said, we still need to secure our borders. I think the ultimate answer to that is to create a national ID and raise the penalties against employers who hire undocumented workers. In fact, these employers should face criminal penalties. That is far more effective than putting military resources on the border.

            God has no religion. - Gandhi

            by OIL GUY on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 08:28:40 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Price is playing Pershing (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Price's bill is the first step toward a Pershing style blockade of Mexico that will be modeled on the Israel blockade of Gaza.  The next thing Price is likely to do is to fund a 40 foot tall security wall running from the Pacific to the Gulf of Mexico and the construction of 40 top-security prisons the size of the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola - population 5000 inmates and 2000 screws.

        •  Price is the Committee Chair (0+ / 0-)

          Price is Chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee - I guess that's why you are attacking him.

          HR 6080 Bill Summary

          The bill includes:
          $176 million for 1,000 Border Control agents
          $68 million for 250 CBP officers at ports of entry
          $32 million for 2 drones
          $80 million for 250 ICE agents and staff
          $37 million for ATF to target firearms trafficking
          $33 million for DEA to target drug trafficking
          $24 million for FBI to fight gangs, violence, and corruption
          Plus money for US Marshalls, prosecutors, courts, and prison facilities.

          $100 million of the funding comes from previously authorized, but unspent, money for fencing.

          There should never be a tax benefit for companies that screw over American workers.

          by bear83 on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 08:17:52 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  You're being totally ridiculous! (0+ / 0-)

          Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?

          God has no religion. - Gandhi

          by OIL GUY on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 08:30:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Diarist has spleen, not logic (0+ / 0-)

            The diary is a mishmash of splenetic diatribes, with no logical consistency, and little understanding of either politics, the issues at hand, the meaning of "ad hominim" nor the nature of reasoned discussion.

            I am a restrictionist, and that is a progressive position.

            by numberzguy on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 08:32:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Absolutely correct (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      The border control is vital to the success of our country. We need to decide by a rational process how many immigrants we will admit. By controlling our border, we ensure that the US, not the illegals, make that decision.

      I am a restrictionist, and that is a progressive position.

      by numberzguy on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:49:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, technically, it's the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        the coyotes that currently determine and collect the fees for roughly half of our immigration policy.

        •  Oh, thanks - agree 100% (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Follow the money.  Who is making money by the continued flow of illegals north from Mexico? Coyotes, immigration attorneys, and cheap labor hiring bosses.

          I am a restrictionist, and that is a progressive position.

          by numberzguy on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:58:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Restrictionism is not Progressive it is racist (0+ / 0-)

        Stop trying to fool yourself.  You are either an American who supports constitutional democracy, or you are not.  America was founded to be a haven for immigrants seeking decency, honesty and respect from a government of free people -- not an exclusion zone of birthrighters and xeonphobes who attempt to rebrand themselves "restrictionists."

        •  Yes, I am a restrictionist (0+ / 0-)

          I don't believe in illegal immigration.  

          I am a strong supporter of restricted, reasonable immigration.  We currently admit, legally, more than any other country in the world.  

          Progressives are concerned with the power of corporations.  By allowing an unlimited supply of cheap labor, illegal supporters enhance the power and profits of corporations.  I support the ability of AMERICANS to earn a living wage, by controlling the labor supply through a rational immigration policy.

          That is why restrictionism IS THE progressive position.

          I am a restrictionist, and that is a progressive position.

          by numberzguy on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 08:04:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Preposterous! You are explicitly Xeonphobic (0+ / 0-)

            Last time I checked, Mexico was a major nation of North America.  Thus, Mexicans are just as American as citizens of the United States.  Don't repeat that Lou Dobbs rubbish -- your definition of 'restrictionism" is explicitly xenophobic.

            •  You, on the other hand, are a corpowhore (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              You support the unlimited supply of cheap labor for corporations.  That's the same policy as the Cato Institute and the AEI.  When you open-borders types have the same policies as the Cato Institute, you are in dangerous territory indeed.

              I am a restrictionist, and that is a progressive position.

              by numberzguy on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 08:11:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Don't be disingenuous (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                OIL GUY

                the whole point behind legalization to allow people to actually enforce their labor rights, thereby pushing down the power of corporations.  It's your position that helps corporations by maintaining a lower class of workers who, although they have labor rights, can't enforce those labor rights because they are threatened by their bosses.  

                I know, your answer is that you are against "illegal immigration" and want to see enforcement of the current laws.  That's an unrealistic position considering the time and money that enforcement only policies would require.  Why not have these people legalize so they can come out of the shadows and work on equal footing with other laborers?

                Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                by Dexter on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 08:15:47 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Why oppose legalization? (0+ / 0-)

                  I'm not sure I do.  I agree with the practicality issue.  Removing them is difficult to impossible.

                  I certainly don't think this is a good time for amnesty/legalization/whatever.  We have 18% unemployment.  Millions are out of work.  So, the answer of the reform is to add millions of additional workers who can now compete legally for jobs?  Really bad idea.

                  Additionally, we did that in 1986.  It did not solve the problem.

                  I am a restrictionist, and that is a progressive position.

                  by numberzguy on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 08:19:32 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Most economists disagree with you (0+ / 0-)

                    Legalizing would add billions to our economy, ensure better labor protections (putting all workers on equal footing), and increase tax revenues (payroll taxes, workers comp insurance, etc that employers currently aren't paying).

                    What would you want to do in the short term.  You seem to agree that the status quo harms us and that enforcement only isn't practical, but you also refuse legalization because you think it's a bad idea.  What's the fourth option?  

                    Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                    by Dexter on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 08:22:32 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Are those the same economists who told us (0+ / 0-)

                      that free trade would create a lot of jobs in the US?  that told us that NAFTA would NOT create an "enormous sucking sound" as all the jobs vanished?

                      I don't listen much to economists much.  If economists are correct, no one in the US should work.  We should send all of our jobs to Sri Lanka, and sit around and drink pina coladas while cheaper labor does our jobs better.

                      Now, all we need to do is figger out the pesky details of eating with all of our leisure.

                      I am a restrictionist, and that is a progressive position.

                      by numberzguy on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 08:47:15 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  ??? (0+ / 0-)

                        what's your point, that some economists are wrong sometimes?  Big revelation there.  (and NAFTA would work if there were work protections in place...notice a trend?)

                        How about your answer to my question about what your solution is?

                        Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

                        by Dexter on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:18:50 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

              •  Your vocabulary is in need of repair (0+ / 0-)

                And you should not use such chauvinist attacks.  Your arguments are simply rubbish.

              •  Sexism is a form of xenophobia (0+ / 0-)

                And, you have such a limited vocabulary that you coin new terms whenever it pleases you.  That is the unmistakable symptom of ignorance.  Go buy a copy of the Merriam Webster dictionary for starters -- you are nowhere near read for the OED.

        •  You allegation of "racism" IS racist itself (0+ / 0-)

          Here is why: You assume that I oppose illegal immigration because I oppose "brown people" or whatever the current PC term is.  That is a racist assumption.  There are illegals from all over.  Why do you make the vile racist assumption that all illegals are these "brown people".

          Cease your racism, my friend.

          I am a restrictionist, and that is a progressive position.

          by numberzguy on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 08:06:30 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  "Restructionist" -- rebranding for 'Xenophobe' (0+ / 0-)

        You can introduce new terms that mean what you think you might want to mean, but you cannot hide from the fact that you are simply rebranding xenophobia.

        •  You should worry about your own "logic" (0+ / 0-)

          as exemplified by this pitiful mishmash of a diary, and worry less about the meaning of terms that you don't understand.  And you should ask yourself "Why do I assume that all illegals are brown?"  Because that is racist.

          Cease your racist comments, friend.  They make you look very bad indeed.

          I am a restrictionist, and that is a progressive position.

          by numberzguy on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 08:09:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  It could be worse (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    such as advocates of secure borders who want to deploy the US Army on the border (yep no NG, regular Army only)and I take it (since some local folks have endorsed this idea) that the military should consider any illegal immigrants to be enemy infiltrators and "take them out"
    OTOH some just want to establish a 20 mile wide minefield along the entire border and be done with the problem

    •  It will get worse when this bill goes into effect (0+ / 0-)

      The time to do something much more serious -- like suspending the drug dysfunctional drug laws like the responsible states suspended the dysfunctional death penalty -- is now.  Vicente Fox is dead right -- the US war on drugs is at the root of the border problem, the cartel violence and the massive accumulation of capital and guns by organized crime on both sides of the border.  More and better police work with a new generation of law enforcement personnel instructed to deconstruct the war on drugs is the answer.  Not an election year boondoggle to satisfy the irrational cravings of the far-right.

  •  I've voted for David Price many times (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Benintn, zyangunc, numberzguy

    and this November won't be any different. Price is a progressive Democrat, not the DINO we see in many white-majority Southern districts.

    We need comprehensive immigration reform, and controlling the border is part of it.

    There should never be a tax benefit for companies that screw over American workers.

    by bear83 on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:24:18 AM PDT

    •  DINO David Price: Progressive but Cowardly? (0+ / 0-)

      If Price is progressive, why does he play what amounts to the fear card of illegal aliens in an election year?  

      Price is simply the only alternative Tea Party fascism.  

      Price is not progressive.

      Not even close.

      •  NC has it's share of DINOs (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OIL GUY, zyangunc, numberzguy

        From Shuler to Kissell to McIntire, we've got plenty of Democrats who vote the wrong way at key times - HCR, Climate Change, Financial Reform, DISCLOSE, etc. OTOH, they vote for Pelosi for Speaker so Dems control the agenda in the House.

        And then we've got Dems like Price, Miller, Watt, and Butterfield who vote the right way every time and drive the Democratic agenda forward.

        Your indictment of Price is wrong - the bill passed by voice vote and clearly had wide support.

        There should never be a tax benefit for companies that screw over American workers.

        by bear83 on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:58:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, get over yourself. (0+ / 0-)

        Based on one single thing he did, you call for a boycott? What the hell is wrong with you? Do you want us to lose the House?

        They tortured people to get false confessions to fraudulently justify our invading Iraq.

        by Ponder Stibbons on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:06:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No, but you do (0+ / 0-)

          The way to lose the House is to pander to the Tea Party.  Price is doing just that.  Price was elected to provide leadership, but he is not living up to his end of the bargain.  Price is a placeman -- a person who fears for the loss of his pension.  What else has he done?  Plenty.  Price never saw a military or war budget he couldn't vote for.  Price is still voting for funds for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Price is no progressive by any stretch of anybody's elastic imagination.

  •  So where's the part where he actually (10+ / 0-)

    joins the tea party?

    I missed that part in your diary and you explicitly claimed he joined the tea party in your subject line.

    So where's the link to back up this claim? Where's the press release of Price joining the Tea Party? And where's the acceptance of his joining by Tea Partiers?

    I don't get it? This diary doesn't appear to be so much about PRice joining the tea party (your claim) as it seems to be a disagreement with Price about immigration reform?

    Where's your evidence of Price joining the tea party? I require evidence of Democrats leaving the Democratic Party for another party.

    Gibbs is right about the professional left.

    by Walt starr on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:36:21 AM PDT

  •  In Price's defense (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83, Benintn

    This is actually less than the bill that passed the House last week (at least I think it was last week, maybe the week before).  This bill was introduced to match the Senate bill which was introduced by Sen Schumer - the guy who is supposed to be crafting a comprehensive immigration reform bill - and which was pushed through the Senate in about a day.  

    Congress amazes me sometimes.  Then I remember that it's always been a mess.  

    Text "Justice" or "Justicia" to 69866 to get action alerts on federal immigration legislation and campaigns

    by Dexter on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:42:57 AM PDT

  •  I am more concerned about terrorists.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bear83, numberzguy

    ...than economic refugees coming across the southern border.

    Seems to me if Los Coyotes are smuggling groups of people across the border successfully, that's a glaring green light for terrorist mission planners, shouldn't be too hard to smuggle a couple dozen people for a Mumbai-style Gran Mal hotel or shopping mall attack...

    I'd much prefer UAV's keeping an eye on our border than being used to quell Muslim Wedding Uprisings with Hellfire missiles...

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

    by leftykook on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:46:35 AM PDT

    •  Sue Myrick would agree (0+ / 0-)

      You are now in agreement with the right-wingnut Sue Myrick who believes that Hamas and Hezbollah are digging tunnels from Mexico to NC to smuggle bombs, drugs and IEDs.  Rubbish.

      •  Okay.... (0+ / 0-)

        ....are there or are there not terrorists and terrorist networks that want to attack us?

        Just because that idiot Bush used the threat of terrorism to go out and stir up more would-be attackers doesn't change the fact that there are very good reasons to keep a close eye on the border.

        Much of the criticism sounds like back-handed support for illegal border crossing, that trying to stop it is somehow racist...

        And another point:  If the US got Very Serious about preventing border crossing in the southwest, and the word got around among potential illegal border crossers, they'd start finding safer ways to sneak into the country than the perilous desert passage gauntlet they're currently running...Probably wind up saving a lot of lives among the immigrants....

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

        by leftykook on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 09:07:23 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Terrorism arrives by air, too (0+ / 0-)

          This bill is nothing but a sop to the Tea Party.  If a terrorist is serious, he will arrive by airplane probably in a First Class seat just like the 19 hijackers on 9/11.  The Border Patrol will not find any serious terrorists -- Nada.  Stop thinking like Sue Myrick -- the most intellectually challenged member of the House -- surpassing even Michelle Bachmann - that sterling graduate of Oral Roberts University.  Stop thinking like these mental incompetents.  America's problems are its radically unjust prison industrial complex and its deeply unethical foreign policy.  Fix those and you fix the problems.  Blockading the borders is what Israel is doing to the Palestinians in Gaza -- and you can see just how effective that is.

          •  I'm glad the terrorists run their plans by you (0+ / 0-)

            Perhaps you've failed to notice that legitimate businessmen have a hard time getting into this country through legitimate means, the air travel path is no longer a reliable way to get a dozen or so people into this country with nefarious intent.

            I'm amazed the gov't hasn't come running to you to tell them what to do, since you're SO on top of the terrorists...(that you obviously don't believe exist)

            As to your comparing me to imbeciles like Myrick and Bachmann, well, merely "insulting" is too mild a choice of words, and I thoroughly resent your characterization. You should be more careful what you say to people. you can disagree without insult.

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

            by leftykook on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 01:34:52 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  True to your name (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Walt starr, bear83, OIL GUY, MKinTN, zyangunc

    this diary is a witch hunt.

    Cut it out.

    Full Disclosure: I am not Ben Leming. But I think he's pretty cool.

    by Benintn on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:49:12 AM PDT

  •  The presidents of Mexico (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    past and present, spend a lot of time telling the people of the US how to run their border, drug policies, and immigration.

    However, the laws of Mexico regarding illegals are far more punitive than our own laws.  In fact, they resemble the laws of AZ, specifically SB 1070.  

    Kind of ironic, isn't it?

    I am a restrictionist, and that is a progressive position.

    by numberzguy on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:52:34 AM PDT

  •  This diary is a confusion (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    You are mixing border control, the drug war in NC, and several other topics.

    They don't go together.  In fact, control of illegals helps those at the lower end of the economic spectrum, because the competition for jobs is lessened by decreasing the flow of illegals.  Thus, by eliminating the infinite supply of cheap labor, persons at the lower end of the economic spectrum can get legit jobs and stay away from drug redistribution.

    I am a restrictionist, and that is a progressive position.

    by numberzguy on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 07:57:07 AM PDT

  •  What does "border control" mean? (0+ / 0-)

    Are we supposed to have a hundred-meter wide death strip like East Germany used to have?

    Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

    by milkbone on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 08:02:42 AM PDT

  •  So far, it's Diarist 0, World 200 (0+ / 0-)

    Every comment from anybody but you disputes your confused, incoherent, purity-troll shit.  So, why don't you spend a little time trying to figger out what the fuck you are talking about?

    I am a restrictionist, and that is a progressive position.

    by numberzguy on Wed Aug 11, 2010 at 10:20:36 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site