1. "I think it's appropriate for state and local governments to take a position on this."
I strongly disagree. This is a federal issue; state and local governments should stick to their areas of responsibility and stop overreaching, whether it's in the direction of immigrant bashing or the move towards creating so-called "sanctuary cities."
2. "...the local community should have the right to create restrictions when people truly are illegal."
I'm very disappointed by this statement by Jim Webb. The concept that "people truly are illegal" is about as wrong as you can get. How can a human being be "illegal" in any religion or other system of morality? The Catholic church certainly does not agree. No, it's not the human being that's illegal, it's a human beings ACTIONS that can be illegal. And that's even if "the law is an ass" as the saying goes (e.g., Jim Crow was the LAW, but it was also deeply immoral under any "higher law" that you believe in). Frankly, Webb's comment here buys directly into the right-wing framing of this issue, that people are illegal, and I strongly disagree with that on just about every level.
3. "In a situation of how government services are provided to people who are illegal, I think it is appropriate that local government work that out."
Again, PEOPLE ARE NOT ILLEGAL! Again, I do not agree that this is a matter for local governments to "work out," particularly if they're going to engage in bashing, profiling, demagoguery, or overly punitive measures aimed at the PEOPLE not the ACTIONS (e.g., overcrowding, which can be the case among any ethnic group).
4. "You cannot simply say that every single person who was here as of December 31 of last year should be legalized."
Almost nobody is talking about that. What most Americans believe in is what Jim Webb has talked about, a "path to earned citizenship." That involves appropriate penalties (e.g., fines) and requirements (e.g., learning English within a set period of time, filling out proper paperwork). But except for the extremes on this issue, who's advocating that "every single person who was here as of December 31 of last year should be? legalized?"
5. "It was just a terrible bill...It deserved to go down."
That bill was far from perfect, but it was a compromise measure (with supporters ranging from Ted Kennedy to Dick Lugar to John McCain to Lindsey Graham), the classic "making of sausage" in the U.S Congress, in other words. It wasn't pretty, that's for sure, but its defeat left the United States without an immigration policy at all, and that's definitely not acceptable.
The bottom line is that the federal government has completely failed to do its job and set immigration policy for the nation. This has opened the door to irresponsible local officials like Corey Stewart, and irresponsible groups like the "Help Save..." crowd, to take matters into their own hands. And that's a huge mistake.
P.S. What's surprising is that Webb has consistently called for a "path to earned citizenship" for undocumented workers. Perhaps the Washington Times took his comments out of context or slanted them in their far-right-wing direction? Just a thought.
"Here is the problem. There's two different strains here," he said. "One side is not going to be emotionally satisfied unless everyone here is legalized and the other side is not going to be emotionally satisfied unless every single illegal is gone. Between these two emotional extremes is the question of whether you really want a practical solution or not. That's where I was trying to go during the debate."
ABC poll: "Would you support or oppose a program giving ILLEGAL immigrants now living in the United States the right to live here LEGALLY if they pay a fine and meet other requirements?" Yes 58% No 35%
LA Times: "One proposal that has been discussed in Congress would allow illegal immigrants who have been living and working in the United States for a number of years, and who do not have a criminal record, to start on a path to citizenship by registering that they are in the country, paying a fine, getting fingerprinted, and learning English, among other requirements. Do you support or oppose this, or haven't you heard enough about it to say?" Yes 60% No 15%
WSJ: "Regardless of how you feel about it personally, do you think that deporting all illegal immigrants who are currently in the United States back to their native countries is a realistic and achievable goal, or not?"
Is realistic -- 13% Is not -- 85%
LA Times: "Do you think illegal immigrants mostly take jobs that nobody wants or do they mostly take jobs away from Americans who need them?" Jobs nobody wants -- 56% Take jobs away -- 27%
Positive: 21%
Negative : 36%
There's deep ambiguities on this issue, as most polls show.
I suspect most would like to have a path for earned legalization, but not without fixing other immigration problems and without massive expansions in immigration levels. Amnesty without a sensible, moderate legal only immigration policy is going nowhere.
The problem I have with guest worker programs is that if one is allowed we must figure out a way around the kind of second class non-citizenship that can result. This has been a thorn in the side of European nations, like Germany, who admitted Turks and others as guest workers, but then ended up with a bunch of Turkish families who were deemed to be non-citizens and not granted full rights of citizenship. The second generation of Turkish Germans in particular has felt the sting of this second class citizenship, and with it their resentment has grown. It's not for nothing that places like Germany and the Netherlands have become breeding grounds for Islamic radicalism. If we are going to have guest workers, then what steps must we take to make sure that we do not create a permanent underclass which does our dirty work but can never hope for full citizenship?
Difficult issues, all of them.
1. When the Government, especially Bush's type of Government refuses to enforce the laws, then some one has too. It is shame that the states and cities must, because of an incompatent President and his administration. Under those circumstances Jim is correct in his answer.
2. So the absents of a word " when people are HERE illegally" makes the statement wrong. Should it really be compared to "Jim Crow"? NO.
3. Back to answer #1.
4.Apparently you do not listen to "Lou Dobbs" when he has the supporters of Illegal Immigrants on his show. Oh, you are talking about the bill. Well please be more clear and use the words that more clearly express what you are saying.
5. It was a terrible bill. Completely lacking in a solution to prevent the problem in the future. Just like the 1982 bill, it lacked control of the problem or even sensible solutions to the problem. It was totally an amnnesty bill. I have no problems with amnesty, but I want solutions to prevent the problem or at least a control towards preventing the problem.
I do not neccessarily believe a fence is the solution. I believe enforcing the laws on the books and penalties for breaking those laws by citizens of this country should be enforced. And if the feds will not do it some body has to rein in an out of control problem. Shame it is the states.
As for the states needing to take over if Congress won't pass legislation, where does that legal(?) argument come from?
As for a real wall, not virtual, it WOULD stop most of the illegals coming over. Remember the Berlin Wall? But if Bush reall wanted it he would have completed construction on it already instead of using the issue as he does the abortion issue. We can afford a wall, but why lose ALL the Hispanic vote to the Democrats, and more importantly, why lose thos BIG campaign contributions from all those AG and chicken farm businesses?
In the meantime, despite Lou Dobbs, the illegals aren't hurting us, they are helping us, in the aggregate. If you think gangs are bad, get on the backs of local law enforcement and tell Bush to get a hundred thousand more cops on the street, as you-know-who did. Of course the law should be enforced, but by those mandated to do so, not by illegal means or by vigilante groups. If such groups ever raided some huge agricultural conglomorate or really huge chicken or pig complex, they'd be gunned down by those companys' hired cops, and it would be legal. Where would our crabmeat, poltry, pork and beef come from, if not from the people you want to drive out (but can't because you will never catch 12 million of them).
Most people want to give these people some sort of break. And since we can't (and haven't the will, means, and presidential backing to do so) get em and won't stop them from continuing to come here, we should get used to living with the idea that they are here and are our neighbors.
When the Legal Hispanics wake up, the Republican party will slip quietly into the history books. You can bank on it.
May it happen in my lifetime!
I'll give Stewart one thing. He's extremely brave. I saw him marching in the Dumfries Christmas parade a few weeks ago, going into the crowds to shake hands. I guarantee you those crowds were at least 40% hispanic if not more. How can he even look those people in the eyes?
Every morning for years I would get my coffee from the same 7-11 in South Arlington. Every morning the place was packed floor to rafters with white vanloads of construction workers and drywall hangers getting their coffee, too. I noticed that the crews are always 100% Hispanic, most of them didn't seem to speak English, and they all followed the lead of one guy, also Hispanic. Many of my (mostly African American) clients who have tried to get work in construction or painting have complained they cannot get a job with one of these crews because a)the foremen only hire other Hispanics; and b) they can't speak Spanish, so even an American boss will not hire them because they can't communicate with their fellow workers. There's something wrong with this picture.
I've had many clients from all sides of this debate. Many of my clients are either undocumented or in a sort of twilight gray world where they have work permits but their status here is very tenuous. Some of my clients are using two or three different forms of identification. On the other hand, sometimes the person I'm representing has been victimized by someone using two or three forms of identification. Most of them are pretty decent people, but everywhere there are the shortcuts around legal requirements, not only for immigration, but for day to day business, for the acquisition or sale of property, for licensing and education. I encounter people all the time who claim a couple of residences. People who've gotten used to lying about their status and carrying forged or stolen documents quite often find themselves willing to take the next step to lying to obtain credit or to buy a home. People who rely on these lies are left holding the bag. When you encounter them in person they don't look like an aggregate, they look like innocent people left holding the bag.
Agree with you, Lowell, that this is a failure on the part of our federal government, but the result has been that the states and localities are feeling overwhelmed and they're trying to fill the vacuum which has been created. There should be a path to citizenship, that is true, but we have to face the fact that there will be plenty of people trying to find a way to claim that benefit even if they are not entitled to it. Moreover, we have to acknowledge that any such path is a slap in the face of those who have dotted their "i"s and crossed their "t"s to gain admission to this country. People who try to do it the legal way from the start must receive some sort of preference above those who took the shortcut.
As I said at the beginning, wildly mixed feelings on this issue.
...We all oppose breaking the law, or we ought to. Saying that you oppose illegal immigration is like saying you oppose illegal drug use or illegal speeding. Of course you do, or should. The question is whether you think the law draws the line in the right place. Should using marijuana be illegal? Should the speed limit be raised--or lowered? The fact that you believe in obeying the law reveals nothing about what you think the law ought to be, or why.Another question: Why are you so upset about this particular form of lawbreaking? After all, there are lots of laws, not all of them enforced with vigor. The suspicion naturally arises that the illegality is not what bothers you. What bothers you is the immigration. There is an easy way to test this. Reducing illegal immigration is hard, but increasing legal immigration would be easy. If your view is that legal immigration is good and illegal immigration is bad, how about increasing legal immigration? How about doubling it? Any takers? So in the end, this is not really a debate about illegal immigration. This is a debate about immigration.
Brilliant, cuts right to the heart of what many of us have been trying to say for months.
Unfortunately, limits were set back in the Reagan administration, compromises were made and laws were passed, and then there was deliberate non-enforcement of the immigration laws by the executive branch -- with the acquiescence of Congress which was getting campaign contributions from the employers who were profiting most from the use of undocumented workers, and the beatdown of the labor union movement. What's the word that best describes that scenario?
Regardless, when citizens are upset by it, as they have every right to be, I wouldn't call them zenophobic, nativist, or racist.
Practical solutions are very hard at this point because the situation has been allowed to grow to the point where it is unmanageable. The federal government doesn't even know how many undocumented workers are in the country. What's the error rate on the government's estimates? Plus or minus a million, probably.
Even with an amnesty and citizenship program, we would still have the need to control the huge continuing inflow of illegal entrants at the border, and we would need better ways to enforce the immigration laws in the interior. For example, Bill Richardson's immigration position includes support for a national ID card system. Is there support out there for a national ID card system? I don't see how there could be effective interior enforcement of the immigration laws without something like that.
I have soul searched on this issue and I believe strongly in the sanity of enforcing boundaries.
Interestingly, I watched Ron Paul on Meet the Press today, and he made a passing reference to national ID cards as having a "tone" of fascism.
Well, if we don't have a national ID card, how on earth can the immigration laws be enforced?
And on Webb's illegal immigration ideas--well I know a lot of people on RK don't like the word Illegal being used because it supposedly adds credability to right wingers. What do you want to call them then? It doesn't matter to me what you call them, but you got to call them something. I know in Gods eyes were all equal and should have access to go anywhere, but you know God also said people on this earth have to obey the rules that are here on earth. And it's illegal to enter this country by coming over the border without documents, etc. So call them what you want, it's still a problem that has to be addressed. You can fight all day on who should do it. People have decided the fed won't do anything so they're doing it on their own at the local level. I guess if congress doesn't get it by now, they never will--they keep funding Bush's war game, so why should we expect them to handle the "Jump the fence Immigration" problem.
P.S. The difference here is that all Democrats are patriotic, so for Republicans to use that line is completely false and utterly offensive. Again, are you seriously arguing that there's no xenophobia -- none at all -- in the anti-immigrant movement?
My husband is a resident alien, his sister is an illegal alien. I see her and any person who has entered or overstayed illegally as a person who deserves to be treated with dignity. In real life they are mothers, fathers, daughters, etc., but in the context of this argument they are illegal aliens. That often gets shortened to illegals. There is real shame in having entered illegally. There are those who feel it profoundly, especially if they didn't know until they got here how unacceptable it is. Some hide that shame from themselves by acting like they are entitled to be here because "the border crossed them" or because a greedy business is willing to hire them for less.
My getting a ticket is a completely different context and an invalid comparison. It doesn't make me an illegal driver, unless I don't have a valid license. That does bring to mind the unjustified anger I felt once in my youth when I got a ticket for dead tags. The fact of the matter is, I was guilty and had to pay the consequences. Of course paying the consequences of dead tags is a lot easier for me than it is for an illegal alien to pay the consequences of illegal entry.
Have we done any of this stuff, or do we have a completely failed "policy" on immigration in this country? I'd argue that we're very close to complete failure. Unless, of course, you count higher profits for corporate America and lower prices for goods and services for the rest of us as positive enough to outweigh all the other problems. Again, we need to look at this in detail, figure out where we want to go as a nation, then implement effective laws and enforcement to get us there. Until that point, I wonder whether this entire debate is at all productive.
Then there are dying cities and towns in the rust and coal belts. A comment on Hazelton, Pa., which recently was the focus of anti-immigrant behavior by some locals: I used to live near there. It is a very unattractive, dying community (the land was ravaged by the coal mining industry). Its population is falling -- just in this decade it has lost 5.5% of its population. But they don't want new people there. (???)
**********
You may have read about Save the Old Dominion, a new umbrella group of anti-immigration forces. http://www.washingtonpost.com/... It occurred to me that its acronym is SOD, which has an amusing second definition--especially in the UK:
American Heritage Dictionary -
sod 2 (s?d) Pronunciation Key
n.1. A sodomite.
2. A person regarded as obnoxious or contemptible.
You people have never personally dealt with "illegal immigrant issues" it seems. But my 4 years living on the southern border provides me different view.
When an American is murdered across the the Mexican Border where do the perpurtrators run to ..... the United States of America!! No shit ... I say this from personal experience.
Immigration Laws are there for a very good purpose. Mass violation of those laws based on whim is unacceptable to me .... should be unacceptable to you and the thousands of "legal" resident workers they displace.
Webb is doing exactly he said he would .... thank God.
I would think he would be a great VP.. except I would hate to lose him as our Senator.
Charles